Re: Apple's ways

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

johnw_94020@yahoo.com (johnw_94020@yahoo.com) wrote:

>Why does Apple keep changing the architecture of their computers?  I
>mean first there were Apples/II's, III's, that ran ProDos.  Software

Not quite.  There were Apple IIs that ran DOS 3.3 or lower.  If
you had certain hardware or an Apple IIe or greater, then ProDOS.
There was the Apple III that ran SOS.  Then there was the IIGS
that ran GS/OS.  So it is even MORE chopped up than it looks.

The IIGS was Apple's last attempt to maintain continuity.
Nice Ensoniq sound system I still say.  Now that Creative
has gobbled up Ensoniq, I have Creative cards with what are
essentially updated IIGS sound chips in all my PCs and I
am not disappointed.  Too bad Creative got rid of the reference
to the IIGS on Ensoniq's web site.

>written for this architecture coult not run on a Mac without a
>emulator (such as Bernie the rescue).  Apple ProDos hardware (floppy,
>printers,etc) could not work on a Mac without a ProDos compatibility
>card which are hard to find.  Then in 1998 came the New World Mac's
>which did not include support for legendary Mac hardware
>(serial,SCSI,etc)  If a New World Mac user wanted to use his/her
>hardware they needed to purchase an adapter/expansion card.  Then in

Mainly because Steve Job's returned.  The man is a brilliant idea
generator but never understood the way to grab a broad user
base.  His way works if you have a lot of money.  Buy a whole
new system whenever this stuff happens (architecture changes)
but this kills appeal to the masses.  Which might be a good thing
in some Apple users' eyes but I think it is bad for the company.

>2001 came Mac OS X, which is UNIX based.  All previous versions of
>MacOS, were not UNIX based, so this meant that software had to be
>written just for OS X, and in most cases this meant thaat OS X
>software was incompatible with previous versions of Mac OS.

Well...this may be different from the other Apple actions.  All the
major OSes are gravitating to UNIX foundations.  Even Windows
is dropping the 9x core in favor of a UNIX derrived one in XP.

>PC's on the other hand have followed a different route which I think
>is one reason why more than 85% of the computer market in PC based. 
>Most PC's use the X86 processor, and it has been this way for a long
>time.  Most PC's include support for legendary hardware (serial,
>floppy,PS2,etc), and probably always will.  This means that a MSDOS
>based program that ran on a 386 under DOS 6.22, in most cases will run
>under a recent OS with a Pentium.  But my ProDos based games from my
>Apple II days will not run under the recent Mac OS X without a OS X
>emulator of some kind, which do not exist (to my knowledge).

Things do phase out in the PC world.  The AT formfactor has
almost been phased out by ATX.  5.25 got phased out by 3.5.
AGP phased out PCI for video and PCI phased out ISA.  But
the difference is that in the PC world, things are never CUT off
cold turkey.  They are GRADUALLY phased out providing a
transition period for users thus maintaining continuity.  This is
something that Apple under Jobs never understood.

I think Apple needs to change its attitude.  Always, the mantra
has been "think different" where users were directed to settle
for more restricted software and hardware options for Apple
brand computers by the myth that the only alternative was a
big bad PC from a single company.  So of course Apple was
the savior.  First it was Macintosh versus IBM who of course
was big brother, right?  Wrong.  While Mac users were out
deluding themselves, Compaq cloned the PC and there was
NOTHING that IBM could do about it.  Turned out big brother
was Microsoft, not IBM, but it took a long time for Mac users
to figure this out.  But they still had to perpetuate the myth of
big brother so they invented the "Wintel" computer as a
substitute for IBM.  This was completely ignorant of the real
PC landscape of the time, where several OSes were battling
it out and several chip makers.  Then the year 2000 rolls
around.  AMD, one of these chip makers, walks in with the first
1Ghz Athlon, a CPU built from the ground up and yet still
compatible with the past.  This was proof that a smaller
company could play in the same market as a bigger
competitor and win and not only that but do so but still keep
compatibility (contrast this to Jobs who at the HEIGHT of
Apple II sales proclaimed the Apple II dead then proceeded
to replace it with an incompatible Mac...good hardware but
talk about bad continuity).

Well, to make a long story short, when I tried to talk to Mac
users about AMD's situation and how they beat Intel (for
those several months Intel had NOTHING that could catch
the Athlon) at its own game, a funny thing happened.  When
I said "the Athlon has reached 1Ghz," Mac users responded
"G3 can beat anything from Intel."  When I said "AMD has
succeeded in making the fastest chip out there," Mac users
said "G3 can beat an Intel chip of higher Mhz."  See what
I mean?  The Apple perpetuated myth is that Apple is the
ONLY competition to "Wintel."  As a result, Mac users
simply cannot see the intense competition of the PC world.

If Mac users only look and saw, they would have understood
why PC prices fell so drastically in terms of power/price
ratio over the past year while Mac prices haven't.  To the
Mac users, this is only the ignorant masses feeding "Wintel."
In the PC world, we all know this is because Intel has been
on the defensive (defensive and offensive), cutting prices,
raising processor speeds, marketing like crazy to fend off
AMD.  And who benefits?  Whether you are an AMD fan or
an Intel fan, the user benefits.  This is the kind of competition
you never get to see in the Mac world.  The only competition
they can see...they are ALLOWED to see...is Mac versus
the MYTH of Wintel.

Who is big brother now?

PS. I just like to share a few more excerts from talking to
Mac users are the time:

"G3 has velocity engine - powerful FPU performance"

"True, but the AMD Athlon's FPU is much more powerful
than Intel's PIII FPU clock for clock you know not to
mention the clock speed has reached 1Ghz which G3
and PIII don't have."  (remember, this is in 2000)

"The G3 can catch an Intel chip clocked much higher"

"Yes, but the AMD chip is faster than both"

"Apple realizes that Intel is catching up to Motorolla and
if it surpasses it, Apple has alternate plans for an Mac
running on high end Intel chip."

"I thought we were talking about AMD vs. G3."

"That's what I said, if Intel beats the G3, the Mac can go
Intel."

"Huh?"