Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

william strutts wrote:

> "MagerValp" <cl3polof@cling.gu.se> wrote in message
> p14bsmj7pig.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se">news:p14bsmj7pig.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
> > >>>>> "B" == Biggo  <biggo@blue-win.ch> writes:
> >
> > PS> However, from the very start, all PC's were delivered WITH a
> > PS> socket for a numerical coprocessor. That's what I liked most about
> > PS> that machine: in comparison, most other contemporary micros
> > PS> (including the Apple II as well as the Apple Mac) were toys. Which
> > PS> makes some sense - after all you use toys to play games....
>
> The Mac II's could have a coprocessor so who are you fooling?

Sure, in 1987 Macs could have what PCs had in 1981. Oh my, how forward
thinking!

>
> The Mac usage of the Trinitron display was a lot cooler too.  Are
> you saying that all those businesses that used the Mac as a pre-press
> production machine were playing with toys?  The Mac blew the PC
> away in the desktop publishing and image editing business up until
> the PC decided to get real in that market.

It was the Mac Plus, coupled with a hard drive, and with the LaserWriter
AND Adobe Publisher that gave the mac the lead. Not the color Mac II. BTW -
by that time the PC had VGA, so in some sense the Mac was just catching up
with the PC.

Does anyone remember when the IIgs was released and Sculley said that, in a
sense this was the color Mac that everyone was wanting?

>
>
> > B> Yes. And you write this stuff even when you're sober, right? So, a
> > B> math coprocessor is what makes a machine professional.
> >
> > I'd say that 10 times the memory and 10 times the math performance
> > puts the PC in the workstation class, leaving the others in the home
> > computer and small business segment. Nothing strange about that.
> >
> Now THAT is funny.  The Mac had way more memory in 1986
> than the PC did.

No, it didn't. And his point was in 1981 the PC could have 640K and the II
could only have 64K (or the Kaypro, or the Morrow, or the Compupro, or the
TI, or Atari, and so on) Besides, what about 1984 when Macs could only have
128K?? And PC came standard with 256? Or in 1985 when the Fat Mac had 512K
and PC were standard with 640, and many had EMS?

> The PC had 640K and the Mac Plus had 1 meg
> stock with the capability to go to 4 meg without any flunky memory
> mapping schemes.  There didn't exist EMM or expanded or any other
> flunky memory schemes for the Mac.  And that improved later when
> Mac II was released.

The PC-AT could have 16 megs, and it even had a (rarely used) OS that would
take advantage of it too. Ever hear of Unix? SCO? How about Xenix which M$
sold for the PC and PC AT and then sold to SCO??

The reason for EMM (1987) or EMS (c 1985) was that people wanted to run
PC-DOS software, and DOS was limited to 1 meg of memory, and IBM had stolen
1/3 of that!

Of course, most people who used ATs used them as very fast PCs crunching
numbers, and that 287 chip was very helpful there.

I don't really think it's fair to compare a 1982 computer to a 1977
machine, nor a 1986 machine to a 1981 machine, and then crow about how much
better the newer machine is. If it wasn't better the designers should be
fired.

That's what killed the II, and the 800 and the 64. Their creators created
new machines and didn't (except for the IIgs) come close to keeping up with
the development that was happening elsewhere. Wintel stinks, but when you
consider that a new Wintel computer is the direct descendant of the 1981
PC, and (if it has one ISA slot) can even use cards from that humble
computer, well it makes me sick when I think what the II could still be.

Roy

>
> --
> --
> William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com - Whatever!
>
> C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts
>
> Just hacking away...
>
> Remove nospam to reply.