Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 00:40:18 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >     Forcing built-in, integrated old-II compatibility was a fundamentally bad
> >design decision. There was, simply, no need; and, the costs were enormous.
> >
> >     Just as the first PC was a from-the-Intel-manual design with Apple
> >II-style Slots, a straight-forward native mode '816 design could have been
> >finished within 2-3 months of any 'Go' decision. There _could_ have been a IIgs
> >ready to battle the spiffy new Amiga's and Atari's in 1985.
> >
> >     A pure native mode GS would have included new Slots supporting full
> >addressing. I/O would be out of the Zero Bank, "language card" kluges would be
> >gone, RAM expansion would be easy, and everything would run at the base speed.
> >For the same development and production cost, the GS could have started with
> >built-in stereo sound plus 320 x 200 256-color and 640 x 400 16-color video.
> >
> >     Agreed, coming up with a hardware design which can also run most old-II
> >software was quite an achievement. Even so, it was a bad idea. As TrackStar
> >demonstrates, old-II capabilities would have been available within a couple
> >years as a plug-in option.
> 
> Umm, Apple came out with the Mac which couldn't run Apple II 8 bit
> software and how many of us II users jumped onto it hoping that there
> would be some way to run our old software in a year or two?

     Don't know-- never met a II user who expected much in the way of Apple II
support from Mac.

     In the mid-1980's we were very conscious of which microprocessor was in what
machine. One of the reasons Atari's ST flopped is that Atari 8-bit owners felt
betrayed by the shift to the 68xxx series. Similarly, lots of C-64/128 users
rejected the 68xxx-based Amiga.

     Remember, we are not talking about just running 6502 software-- hard enough on
machines without 5.25" drives. We are talking about program creation and long-term
investments in developing 6502 expertise and resources. Besides which, Apple's
promotion of the 68xxx-based Mac was taken as a 'slap in the face', an insult.


 
> If Apple had done as you said and come up with a third computer line
> that was incapable of running any of the existing applications for
> their other two computers it would have flopped even bigger than the
> original Mac did.
>

     The original Mac did not flop. To be fair to Apple, the 'hobbit' Mac was a
clever concept. It was, very nearly, the perfect yuppie computer; and, lots of
yuppies bought one. Still, when a friend brought over his nice, compact new Mac and
demoed the super-res mouse-windows interface, we were very impressed; but, we never
seriously considered 'going Mac'.

 
> The only reason the IIgs was as popular as it was was because it was
> backwards compatible with the Apple II line.

     We got a machine hobbled by compromises to squeeze in old-II compatibility and
no hard disk. "Support" included zilch documentation, a partially-finished
GS-BASIC, a make-do OS, and nearly zero applications and utilities. Given the GS
package which Apple delivered, it had darn well better have been backwards
compatible. 

     II users did not buy the IIgs to run old software. We bought it to run _and_
create super-res, super-sound IIgs software. We wanted the best hardware possible.

     Had the GS arrived as a pure 4MHz '816 machine with 256-color video and 20MB
hard disk, hardly anyone would have missed old-II compatibility. Agreed, at first,
the machine would probably not attract the 'average home buyer'. But, within a
year, new games, productivity wares, and utilities would have attracted hordes of
new users.

     Since we are talking about popularity (which = user base), had an
optimal-design IIgs arrived in the summer of 1985 it would have wiped out the
competition. Most important, it would have been snapped up by II users; and, given
the size of the user base at that time, that alone would have been enough to
qualify the machine as a commercial success.

     A simple, fast IIgs with hard disk was doable by 1985. An old-II-compatible
kluge packed with toolbox firmware possibly was not. In any case, we neither needed
nor especially wanted either old-II compatibility or the toolbox firmware.

     The one year delay was very costly. With the fancy new Atari and Amiga plus
dropping prices on PC clones, there were many defections. 1985 was the year the II
user base ceased to dominate home computing.


> 
> I'm all for coming up with a new Apple II with modern speed and
> features but I'll be damned if I ever build one that can't run the
> current 8 bit and 16 bit software that already exists for the IIs.
 ....

     A GS expansion with plenty of speed and RAM should be able to run current
stuff okay under emulator software. Some software could be converted; and, as
already mentioned, IIgs owners will always be able to run their present software on
the old-GS front end of the expanded machine. How attracive old software will be
once wares utilizing the new hardware start to arrive is, for now, unclear.




Rubywand