Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
 ....

> >
> >     When we ordered our IIgs in 1986, we knew perfectly well that we were
> >getting ripped off. All anyone had to do was compare the price of a color GS
> >with 3.5" drive to a color Atari ST with 3.5" drive. Fortunately for Apple,
> >Atari incorporated a number of super-dumb design flaws and Amiga was
> >over-priced.
> 
> More like ALL the major brand computers (except for the Atari ST) was
> priced high at the time.  Take the Amiga 1000.  When the IIGS was
> released, the Amiga was priced at $999 for the CPU with 256k of RAM.
> Of course the disk drive was built in, which helped, but with the monitor
> at around $300 (similarly priced against the IIGS RGB monitor) and most
> Amiga users running out for an extra 1MB of RAM, the full Amiga system
> rivaled the cost of the full IIGS system.
> 
> It is true that the Atari ST was cheaper, but they had to cut corners.  It
> lacked the sound chip of the IIGS or the graphics processor of the
> Amiga so it really was neither.
> 
> When the IIGS was released, the price was not extreme FOR A NAME
> BRAND, TOP TIER COMPUTER.  It was only when Apple failed to
> lower the price as the IIGS aged OR release new, more powerful IIGS
> models, did the IIGS become overpriced.
> 
> Basically, what I'm saying is that the IIGS was not overpriced for 1986
> (and neither was the Amiga 1000).  But the IIGS was overpriced for
> 1990.  It would be like trying to sell the Amiga 1000 for the same price
> as the Amiga 2000 in 1990.
 ....

     In the time span we are talking about-- late 1986 - 1987-- you could get a
10MHz PC-AT ('286) clone with EGA color, 3MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 20MB hard disk,
... for around $2500. A roughly equivalent GS would have been about $500 more.

     Possibly, a better way to see the over-pricing is to look at the price of
one 3.5" disk drive: $400. Hardly anyone tried to install a hard disk at this
time; so, to have a manageable system, you needed two 3.5" drives-- that's $800
total.

     The fact that nearly no one installed a hard disk is important. It means
that software would not be designed for hard disk (it wasn't). Consequently,
nearly every game and piece of productivity software tried to fit onto one or
two diskettes, a challenge made more difficult because System ("ProDOS-16")
needed to be included in order for the game, etc. to be bootable. 

     Being, technically and monetarily able to add a hard disk is not worth a
whole lot when software is set up for execution from diskette and, usually,
copy-protected. So, we began as a no-hard-disk culture, and, as users routinely
added a second 3.5" drive, we stayed that way for the entire time the IIgs was
supposed to be a "top tier machine" battling PC. 

     Yes; in many ways the GS was a better platform than the PC of 1986 and
1987. (So were Mac and Amiga.)  But, like it or not, when nearly your entire
user base counts on 800k diskettes for "mass storage", you do not have a "top
tier" machine.

     The arrival of VGA and, in 1989, of AdLib sound ended all doubt. For many
II users, ROM 3 was the final insult; they bailed out and, mostly, bought PC's.

      

> 
> >    Meanwhile, PC was bumbling along without decent sound and no strategy to
> >attack the home market. We were, however, beginning to see incorporation of
> >the '186 and the promise of '286 machines. Everyone knew the PC had more raw
> >power-- definitely _not_ a good sign-- and the cloners were catching on to
> >ways to produce lower-cost machines.
> 
> True, but at the time (1986), the 6Mhz/8Mhz genuine IBM AT (a '286
> based unit) was certainly not very fast.  In fact, it ran GUIs much slower
> than the IIGS could and can.  I know because I have such a unit.  ;-)
> You have to remember that not only was the Intel architecture slower
> per Mhz (so 6Mhz or even 8Mhz was no big deal) but the IBM AT
> was LOADED with wait states.
>
> Even as late as 1990, the "Turbo" AT clones that ran at 12Mhz still ran
> the GUI slower than the IIGS does (even though by that time the
> resolution had reached VGA).
> 

     Given the 16-bit data bus and x3 osc frequency, the clone PC mentioned
earlier would be a good speed match for a 2.8MHz GS. (Don't forget that, thanks
to old-II compatibility, the GS has the equivalent of 'wait states', too.)  

     One of the advantages of GS design is that it could handle a GUI display
better than PC-- i.e., there is more than just speed involved.



> Not until the '386 became very popular and really until the '486
> (followed by AMD's "super-'486" the K5, and Cyrix' '5x86) did PC
> power really take off.

     A good way to see when PC power took off and took over is production of PC
games. The big move to PC entertainment software releases began in 1988, and
accelerated in 1989 with the arrival of AdLib. This coincides, roughly, with the
beginnings of a for-real PC home market.


 
> >     Basically, the GS was not a 'high end' machine. No computer lacking a hard
> >drive could be considered high-end in 1986. GS was a way to upgrade II
> >computing. That is why II users bought them.
> 
> Well, for the $1000 price difference between the IIGS and the
> Mac Plus or the IIGS and the IBM *XT* (yes, in 1986, IBM was
> selling the genuine *XT* for $1000 more than a IIGS system),
> you could add a hard drive to the IIGS.  Or Amiga for that matter.
> Or Atari ST.

     The official IBM models are a pretty poor gauge of PC price vs.
performance. By 1986, the clones were well established as good, lower-priced
alternatives.

     Your comparison should be GS vs. clone PC-AT. In 1986, the price difference
for roughly equivalent machines with hard disks is closer to $500. Since you
want to be able to play games with good sound, the difference should be
discounted somewhat because PC's could not match GS sound.

     Even so, the fact remains that, in the real world, IIgs was a non-hard-disk
machine whereas PC's routinely included hard disk. For machines of roughly equal
speed, RAM, etc., the one without hard disk simply is not in the same league as
the one with hard disk-- it's like a face-off between a monochrome system and
one with super-res color.

     The IIgs was overpriced because, lacking a hard disk, it retained a toy
computer image. It needed to be priced lower in order to sell well vis-a-vis the
competition. It wasn't, it didn't, and PC soon took over the home market.



Rubywand