Re: What has changed in the Apple world last 6 months?

["Ernest" <ernestls@home.com>]

"Supertimer" <supertimer@aol.com> wrote in message
20001126231733.20747.00002065@ng-fk1.aol.com">news:20001126231733.20747.00002065@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> I used to participate daily in this newsgroup but I left it behind
> about half a year ago.  What has happened in the Apple II
> world since then?  Scanning the ng, I noticed that there are
> far less new IIGS "power users" than before and almost no
> mention of Alltech Electronics.

I'm not sure what you mean by power users but there are many new IIgs
owners, like me. I resisted the IIgs at first because it reminded me to much
of a Mac (in appearance only) but I was forced to buy one so that I could
transfer software from the web to my IIe (I bought an LC for this reason
also,) and I've grown very fond of it since then. I don't even see a Mac
when I look at it now. I'm in no way, shape, or form a power user but I've
enjoyed learning how to use it.

> It was bound to happen ever since Apple abandoned us.
> The Apple II could have evolved beyond the IIGS into a
> fantastic computer capable of competing with the best PCs.
> Even in the early '90s, a souped up IIGS held its own
> against the then state of the art '486 computers.  But a
> computer could not live without support from its maker
> for long and it tells a lot about how well built the IIGS was
> that it survived as long as it did as an orphan.

It would be interesting to see what the II series might have become had
Apple stuck with it but judging how the x86 systems have evolved, the II
series would have probably changed along the same lines -by that I mean that
the CPU's would have become faster, etc. etc., until the new II's would
simply be more powerful versions of the original. The GUI would have evolved
as well, like the Mac OS has.

> Since I left this NG, I have used my IIGS less and less.
> It still sits on the other desk but I have since truly gone
> over to the newer computer and it has been fun.

See, I sort of went in reverse of you. My main computers have almost always
been x86 based (except for my first couple of systems.) I became interested
in the Apple II series as a collector, rather than an old time user, so
while my various Apple II systems are not constantly used, they are on
display in such a way that I can work with them easily on weekends, and
people can admire them when they come to my home. My IIe is definitely a
conversation piece, and I enjoy it when people take an interest in my old
computers.


> And the PC world has been rewarding.  The PC
> platform is every bit as flexible as the Apple II was.
> Having built a IIGS tower from scratch, I have also built
> a second PC.  It was fun and it was a snap.

There are nearly infinite avenues for creativity in the PC world, even if
you can't hack the hardware the same way as you could with the Apple II, or
other older systems. There's something interesting for just about anyone to
tinker with, from web design to fixing bugs in Linux. It can be as much of a
toy or a tool as you want to make it, just like the Apple II was in it's
day.


>I truly do not believe
> that any Apple II user who likes to tinker with hardware
> and upgrade would ever truly be satisfied with a Mac.

Or any other modern "black box" system. That's why these old systems are so
much fun. Personally, I enjoy bringing an old, dusty, half dead system back
to life more than actually doing productive work with it but I've begun to
find my own productive uses for my Apple II's, like running a database of
all of my vintage computer hardware, playing old games, and keeping a
journal. I'm even trying to teach myself how to create my own programs on my
IIe. My Apple II's get far more useage than any of my other vintage systems.

> The Mac is a machine that is fantastic for what it does.
> But it is a closed box and is becoming more and more
> closed with the G4 cube and the iMac.  Actually, I'll
> bet if the rivalry between Mac and PC users were gone,
> 60% of PC users would rather like the iMac or G4.

I like the G4's and iMacs but they're expensive, and the same money goes
much farther in the PC world, towards building a custom system. There is the
rivalry thing too. Mac people can be real snobs, even if their systems are
better in certain ways, so we PC users have learned to just ignore them, and
their computers but every once in a while, something amazing comes along,
like the iMac or the G4 that can't very well be ignored.

> These PC users buy brand names like Compaq and
> never upgrade.  They buy packaged deals.  Oh maybe
> they add a card here and there as Mac users do, but
> they do not truly tinker.

Do iMac or G4 users tinker? It seems that any system today is not really
built to be tinkered with very much -that's why I choose to design my own
and build it myself. I research the components, read the reviews, choose the
parts, put the parts together, and load the software myself. Compaq won't
let you do that, and you don't even have that option with Mac hardware.

> I have moved beyond the Apple IIGS

Are you just now moving beyond it? You really were a power user!

> but unlike IIGS
> users who have moved on to the Mac and seem to
> snicker at the IIGS, I am amazed by how good it was
> more than ever.  It is a shame Apple did not see it
> the same way.  The Apple IIGS, best computer I ever
> owned, I salute you!

I think that the only people who snicker at these old computers are people
who've never worked with them, as either an original user or as a collector.
I'm fascinated by old computers, and I see that time as an extremely
exciting time because there were no real standards, and no real dominance by
any one design or OS -very unlike the situation today although I'm beginning
to feel otherwise, with Linux on the scene, and some real CPU battles going
on. Maybe things will become exciting again, the way they were before the
IBM PC and the Microsoft monopoly. Even Amiga has reared it's head again.

I wonder if Apple could be persuaded to update the apple II line?

Ernest