Re: Apple Computer

[Gabriel Morales <Togega@concentric.net>]

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?
> 
>     Yeah, for it to step on and all over it seems. The Macintosh is not
> part of the Apple II's evolution, or a step towards it as you imply; in
> fact it's not even a branch off of the same tree. As you state below,
> Apple started from scratch with the Macintosh.

Actually, you can see the GUI stuff in the //e and specially IIGS. I don't
mean that the technology was a step to the Mac, but the concept. Sometimes
companies have to "think different" and create a new product that puts in
practice new technologies and concepts.
> 
> >The Mac owes it's very existence to the Apple II and previous lines of
> >computers.
> 
>     That's for certain, all the revenue the Apple II produced went into
> Macintosh R&D instead of back into the Apple II. Apparently despite the
> Mac not making enough to support itself, Apple refused to give up on it
> and continued pushing forward. Nothing wrong with that since it paid off
> in the end, but logically, they would have done better if they took some
> of the revenue to put back into the real money maker at the time--the
> Apple II.

Sure- I don't disagree. It IS regrettable that they didn't expand on the //e.
> 
> >Apple is still very much an innovator- A real innovator-
> 
>     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? Isn't that what the
multi-colored Apple stands for? It's not only the cosmetics, but it's design
makes it easier to carry around and it begins the use of USB on a Mac. 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.
> 
>     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.
And, by the way, consumer reports gave Apple one of the highest customer
service ratings.
> 
>     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.
> 
> >The Mac still offers the best graphical OS ever.
> 
>     Nope, that is past tense. Without being biased, I can honestly
> say Windows 95, as well as other GUI's out there, have managed to
> surpass the Apple GUI. I've used everything from a Lisa, to a all
> kinds of 68K Macs, to the Apple IIGS and finally today's PowerMacs.
> I have also used other machines too. I know Apple is no longer the
> king in this area from hands on experience.
> 
>     I still very strongly believe, despite what others say, that
> the Mac GUI was vastly superior to anything else offered several
> years ago. An example: recently I had a job working on a 25 MHz
> 486SX machine running Windows 3.11. The experience was not at all
> pleasant and I would have *much* preferred using a Macintosh over
> this. When I'd return home and use my Apple IIGS running GS/OS, I
> almost felt a kind of relief. Your statement only stands true if
> your comparing a Windows 3.11 system. These days I'm sure even
> the latest version of Amiga Workbench is equal or better than the
> Mac's OS, at least it does true multitasking (that is something
> that is just a plain given on any GUI system).

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. Just throw out all the technical issue
and use Windows95 and the MacOS and see which one freezes more often and gives
you more headaches.
> 
> >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. 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.
> 
>     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.
> 
> >And this all started before the Mac. The IIGS has a graphical toolbox, right?
> >Well, then let's not be so critical of the Mac. The only thing that Apple
> >shouldn't have done is to make the Mac incompatible with the Apple II, but
> >this really has nothing to do with the Mac, herself.
>                                              ^^^^^^^
>     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? I
thought everybody on this newsgroup saw their computer as something more than
an old piece of hardware. 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. 
> 
>     As for the compatibility issue, your right, it has nothing to do
> with the Macintosh, it has to do with the company who was responsible
> for building it. It was very unresponsible of Apple to abandon all
> those millions of customers. I'm not even talking about whether they
> should have continued the Apple II as a product line, I'm talking
> about making a transition from point A->B painless, and it was
> anything but that. You had to dump all your hardware and software,
> as well as your experience and knowledge from the Apple II, and
> start over again from scratch.

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?