Re: Apple Computer

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article Togega@concentric.net writes...

>Mitchell Spector wrote:
>>     Anyone who has to ask the question, "But why...?", was either not
>> an Apple II user between 1980 and 1993--or, someone who holds a religious
>> kind of faith and following towards Apple Computer. The latter, just like
>> followers of a real religion, will deny anything that may cast doubt and
>> negativity (even in sight of plain facts) upon their following. What
>> Apple did to the users of the Apple II is not something that makes the
>> company look good in the eye's of outsiders, that's for sure.
>>
>How about all those other companies that did the same? - That is, make their
>next generation computers incompatible with their last?

    Which companies and machines are you referring to? There were few
manufactures that would qualify as having done this, and the few that
did, are no longer in business. You still managed to dodge the issue
above, just because another company did something wrong, does that
justify Apple to have done the same?

>Sure- I don't disagree. It IS regrettable that they didn't expand on the //e.

    It is much more regrettable they didn't expand (or a better word
perhaps, "complete") the Apple IIgs. It was such a trivial matter to
fulfill the GS's potential. A faster 65C816 built-in, support for
640x480 and 256 colors per scanline, built-in hardrive, FDHD floppy,
2 MB RAM (with SIMM sockets for adding the rest), stereo-out, sound-
in and 128K for the Ensoniq and you would have had a *killer* machine
in the late 80's. Unfortunately, it would have made the Macintosh
look like a toy, so Apple kept the GS in a crippled state.

>>     I disagree, I haven't seen very much innovation from the company for
>> several years now. What do you consider innovative, the iMac? A computer
>> whose sole innovation is the _cosmetic look_ of its plastic housing? If
>> Apple were a toy company, this might be considered innovation, but a last
>> time I checked, they were still a computer company.
>
>What's wrong with creating colorful computers?

    Absolutely nothing, so long as there is something good *inside*.

>Isn't that what the multi-colored Apple stands for?

    Nope. It originally stood for color graphics the Apple II offered
in 1977. These days it is just a symbol indicating such-and-such item
costs a fair bit of money and, serves as a religious icon to most.

>It's not only the cosmetics, but it's design makes it easier to carry around

    Innovation is making something that is easy to carry around? Gee,
again this rings of the type of innovation you would except to hear
about from a toy company, not a computer company. So far, the best
features of the iMac are it looks nice and it is easy to carry around.
Those weren't exactly the reasons I purchased an Apple IIGS from the
same company 10 years ago.

>and it begins the use of USB on a Mac.

    And ends "useless" features such as a SCSI port, serial ports,
ADB port, video port or floppy drive. How are you supposed to get
data on and off this wonderful innovation from Apple? What if I
write a word processing document or download a file. How on earth
do I get it to another computer?

>True there's more hype than anything else, but isn't Apple entitled to it?
>God (and everyone else) knows that Intel, Microsoft and the multitude of
>PC makers out there have done their share hyping.

    What happened to Apple's "Think Different" motto?

>>     I guess I find it disappointing since Apple was once quite invovative
>> at one time, and I strongly believed in the company and its products back
>> then. I didn't just lose interest in Apple Computer because they dropped
>> the Apple II, but because their products have been so dull and grey ever
>> since. Their biggest focus is MONEY--not customers, technology or trying
>> to think up new and refreshing ideas no one else has. Granted that needs
>> to be a concern of any business, but there has to be more than just money.
>> I want to see technological innovation, not psychological innovation (the
>> iMac's innovation is based on flash and eye-candy appeal, nothing else).
>
>That's not true. True Apple has made, and, well, keeps on making mistakes. But
>what about software - OpenDoc, PlainTalk, AppleScript, ect, ect.
>Hardware - Firewire, the Trackpad, ect, ect.

    None of those developments you list above, most of which are software,
scream of the word innovation. Speaking of software, why is it Macintoshes
still cannot do preemptive multitasking with a GUI? That is not just some
negative issue, it is a totally unacceptable one.

>>     I'm not fan of Microsoft either (I'm pretty digusted how Windows
>> 98, an operating system of all things, can contain so much blantent
>> advertising) but Apple isn't much better, acting like a miniturized
>> version of Microsoft. Despite those warm and fuzzy TV ads, Apple is
>> only interested in money and monopolies too.
>
>MANY would argue with you on that.

    Yes, those blinded by such ads and Apple's propaganda.

>True that there are some OS feature which have not been yet implemented 
>on the MacOS, but although everyone agrees that Windows95 is much better 
>than 3.1, it IS certainly NOT better than the MacOS.

    Oh? Explain to me how it is not better than MacOS, I'm quite curious
to hear your arguements. Just the simple fact that it cannot multitask
and halts _all_ operations when you hold down the mouse button does very
little towards making that statement hold any validity.

>Just throw out all the technical issue

    Sounds like a motto for defending current Apple products. :)

>and use Windows95 and the MacOS and see which one freezes more often and 
>gives you more headaches.

    I have, extensively. I will say that neither is perfect, but
in my experience it is the Mac that freezes and gives me headaches.
If one Mac program crashes, I found the entire OS crashes around it.
If your working with floppy disks and CD's, beside not being able to
get them out when you want, I've had the Mac consistantly "forget"
the disk was present and had to go running for paperclips. Ignorning
crashes and lock-ups for a moment, the fact that I couldn't multitask
and that the machine was so sluggish left me feeling unhappy with the
machine to say the least.

>> >And, let's not forget, that the Mac is the only REAL graphical computer.
>
>>     That's nonsense. My Apple IIgs is real graphical computer, so
>> is the Amiga, Atari ST, NeXT and yes, even today's Pentium PC. If
>> not, what makes a "real graphical computer" then? Does it have to
>> have GUI code in ROM and lack a character generator? How do these
>> things make it any more or less real?
>
>The Amiga, yes, the IIGS, maybe, the Pentium PC- no. The Mac, like the Amiga,
>I believe, was made for graphics, and has no command lines.

    The Amiga has a command-line incidentally, it's built-in to WorkBench.
Does that make it any less of a "real graphical computer"?

>Weather or not the Mac has GUI code in ROM may or may not matter. The point
>is that the Mac, unlike the IBM PC, is relatively new. It was made "from
>scracth" to be a graphical machine, not one with graphics put on it. It was
>reinvented with the PowerMac, again. Intel and others have pushed this
>technology too far, forcing on it things it wasn't designed for.

    Now your being silly. Having graphics built-in from the beginning
or having graphics capabilities on a separate card make no difference
as far as being a real graphical computer. Actually, it is an advantage
to have your graphics on a slot card because you have this concept
called "upgrading" available. Look what happened to the GS when the
video was intergrated into the motherboard.

>>     Windows 95 is not a mask, your confusing Windows 3.11 which was
>> a graphical shell (and a pitiful one at that) running on top of DOS.
>
>If you could enlighten me on this, I'd be willing to listen.

    Windows 3.11 is just an MS-DOS application, not much different from
running any other DOS program except this one offers a graphical shell
to operate DOS and run GUI applications. Windows 95 is different in that
while it offers DOS support, it is more or less a stand-alone operating
system. There is also native 32-bit application support and preemptive
multitasking. On my own system, when I want to run MS-DOS games or
emulators, I don't merely open a DOS prompt, I have it setup to reboot
the system into "pure" DOS mode.

>>     You mean "itself". The Macintosh is an object, not a person or a
>> living thing. It is also the reason people shouldn't be so offended
>> when a critical comment is made about it, it is just a machine (the
>> same way people shouldn't take it so personally when something is
>> said about the Intel PC, or even the Apple II).
>
>Okay then, throw away those old Apple IIs. They're only computers right?

    Yes, they are only computers. I wouldn't want to throw any of them
out though, or any other computer for that matter (I get equally uneasy
when I hear about Mac's being thrown away, or even ancient PC/XT's).

>I thought everybody on this newsgroup saw their computer as something more
>than an old piece of hardware.

    Your probably thinking of the comp.sys.mac.* groups, where their
machines are thought of as religious objects. :)

    Sure, I hold nostaligic attachment towards my GS, or my very first
computer which I've still kept after 15 years. I just don't value and
worship them like a religious artifact. They are just machines, and as
a mass produced object, they're replaceable (like say if there were a
fire or something). They're not irreplaceable works of art or such.

>We do name ships, don't we? Are they also "just machines?" Everthing we
>create reflects a part of ourselves and our desire to create and advance.
>The Mac, like the IIGS, the //e, and all the other //s, <<represent>>
>something. A philosophy, the desire to create, advancement. It's
>a shame you don't understand this.

    I don't require a specific machine to be creative. The creativity
comes from me, not the machine! It makes no difference whether I have
an Apple II, Macintosh, IBM or Amiga. It's rather sad if you need a
specific machine to inspire you to be creative.

>True- but would Apple have been able to create the Mac while supporting the
>IIe, and is that enough reason to leave Apple products behind?

    Why not? The company could have handled two separate lines of
computers, and if not, they could have launched a spin-off division
(a la Claris) to handle the Apple II line. The only reason the II
was killed off, especially the IIGS, was because of the Macintosh.

    Now, can we wrap this up? This is started to get off-topic. :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca