Re: Modern A2 successor

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Arkain wrote:

> Alright...
>
> I've read every post in this thread since the last time I posted, and you
> know what? You've managed to frustrate me to the point of...
>
> <flame on>

I always did like the Human Torch, go for it big guy :-)

>
>
> 1) While I did say that it may have the "potential" for reclaiming some of
> the Apple 2 market, I *NEVER* said that I would sell it. This is my project,
> and I thought I was sharing it with a few nostalgic people who would like to
> hear about new A2 ideas.

Your ideas aren't all that new. I've seen them before.

> Instead, all I find is a pack of f@#king nay-sayers
> trying to compare my idea with what's currently on the market. Go jump! You
> decide where...

It's your project, have fun with it. But don't flame out just because someone
else has a different vision. You were quite happy to criticize Bill's design, I
have the right to say what and why I disagree with yours. For the record, no one
has compared your idea with what is currently on the market, but I did suggest
what I thought would be needed to bring a new motherboard up to 1996 standards,
ten years after the IIGS.

>
>
> 2) Why the hell would I wan't PCI slots in a machine that's supposed to be
> "simple"? Do any of you have any idea of the complexities of the PCI
> architecture??? That costs money, and I be a f@#king idiot to try and add
> them in!

I certainly don't. But why? I've already answered that one in above posts -
Apple has adopted PC technologies like PCI and IDE, because it allows them to
ride the larger marketplace on some items and put their advanced technology
dollars where they think they can get the biggest bang for the buck. If you
don't want PCI, or can't do it, that's no skin off my nose.

>
>
> 3) I never said that this was supposed to be another Apple 2. That just
> isn't possible!!! I said that this is an Apple 2 ***SUCCESSOR***. Get the
> message? No one can replace the original A2 line. Not even Woz himself. The
> best that any of us can hope for is a new system compatible with the old,
> but more powerful in all respects.

I disagree with you on the Woz replacement. As for an Apple II successor, there
have already been several: the ///, Lisa, Mac, and the IIGS. As for being more
powerful, well, you'd need a more powerful CPU, and there isn't one that is
compatible with the 65816.

>
>
> <flame off>
>
> Look... let me try to make this plain and clear. This is my project. I have
> many others, some of which will be used to make me a profit. This is not one
> of them. If anyone else ever becomes interested in it, it'll be something of
> a surprise to me,

I'm interested in it. Have fun. But if you don't want people to comment on it,
then don't tell about it.

> and I will welcome it.
>
> I thought that this was an idea that the Apple community would welcome... a
> way to preserve and advance an ancient but still viable system. Aparently I
> was wrong.

Your error was in assuming that this idea is something that hasn't been raised
before, it has. You have some good ideas, but don't expect people to instantly
and totally agree with what you think needs to be done. Or, for that matter,
with your concept of what would make something an Apple II or not.

> If this is going to be the result of sharing my ideas with the
> community, then maybe I'd better just keep my ideas to myself.
>
> To those of you who think this is a waste of time because it's likely
> non-marketable, you can kindly go take a long walk off a short diving board
> into the deep end of an empty pool for all I care.

The only waste of time is IF you do think you're going to restart the Apple II
market, as you posted earlier. (or was that *****.*****?)

> You obvously don't get
> what the Apple 2 is about. Sure the PC is an Apple 2 knock-off designed to
> support different hardware. Sure this II successor is a completely new
> machine that if marketed, would have to compete with PC's. All that is
> irrelevant. All I want is a new machine that keeps the spirit of the old A2
> series while adding more capabilities.

That's probably all any of us would want. Why were you so negative about another
project that is also being worked on that does similar things in a different
way?  You should have applauded it instead of trying to trash it. It would make
far more sense for you and Bill to exchange ideas and answers to problems then
for you to just flame on. That way there is an increased chance that at least
one of you could actually produce a product. And if you both did, so much the
better.

>
>
> To those of you who offered suggestions to advance the idea... Thank You.

Hmmm, but you know, sometimes critical comments are suggestions. Listen to those
who don't buy in to your original vision, sometimes they are right. And
sometimes they can help you improve what you wish to do while not buying in to
their way of doing things.

Have fun

Roy