Re: The Apple ][ was cool!

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com>]

"Roy Miller" <millers@inebraska.com> wrote in message
3B54AAC2.337E7AE0@inebraska.com">news:3B54AAC2.337E7AE0@inebraska.com...
>
<snip>
> 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.

The Mac II was released in March 1987 and I believe the PC standard
at the time was EGA (4-bit color with 640x350 pixels) versus Mac II
color (8-bit 640 x 480).  Besides the Mac ruled desktop publishing
until the early 90's when Window 3.1 finally made the PC a serious
GUI.  The Mac had true Postscript fonts in the 80's on the screen
using ATM and the PC didn't have it until True Type came out in
Windows 3.11.  Most of the Desktop publishers in the late 80's
used the Mac.  I used to be able to take my Mac Plus disk to
a copy shop and have them run off stuff from my disk.

> 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 Mac II in March 1987 was upgradeable to 68 meg and the PC had
how much memory?  16 megs you say.
http://lowendmac.com/ii/ii.shtml

<snip>
> 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!

I believe a lot of that "stolen" memory was mapped to interrupt vectors,
BIOS ROM's and the like.  EMM memory was developed because the
8088/8086 used a 20 bit address bus that limited the memory to 1 meg.
Considering that the architecture of the PC was based on the 8-bit
processor with a 20 bit address path, it was logical that IBM would
utilize an OS that had was limited to that much memory.  The 80286
processor wasn't a consideration in 1981 when DOS was created
so hence the limitations.  The larger address space of the 286 wasn't
even a consideration at the time.  Hence the work arounds were
created but the Mac required no workaround.  It already had a processor
that had a 24 bit address line and could support up to 16 meg of RAM.
That was in 1984 but Apple limited it to 128k.  The Lisa wasn't limited
to the memory limitation.  The Mac OS was limited to 8 meg because
apple used the high order bit to select RAM/ROM.  They gave the
Mac an 8 Meg ROM space which is silly on todays standards but
when you consider that in the late 80's a 1 meg simm cost 500-1000
dollars, it was a reasonable assumption.

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

And how fast was that new fangled AT?  around 6 mhz?  8 mhz? The
Mac II was 16 mhz and supported a FPU.  You needed that coprocessor
because the PC was only what 4mhz and the Mac Plus was what
8mhz?  How many apps actually used the coprocessor?  Not too many
unless you did do number crunching.  Most home users wouldn't
have had the coprocessor or needed it.

<snip>
> 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.

Not many have ISA slots these days.  That slot technology is dead.
Most PC's use PCI based slots even the iMac's.

But you are right that the II could still be alive if the company that
made it still believed in it.  The IIgs is an amazing machine considering
the time in Apples history for which it was made.  I won't dispute
that with you one bit.  I think the IIgs is a neat machine that was
met with an untimely death due to neglect.

--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...

Remove nospam to reply.