Re: Apple II info please...

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

In article schefflr@news.msus.edu (Bill Scheffler) writes...

>Nathan Mates (nathan@visi.com) wrote:
>:    Almost diametrically opposed in philosophies: the Apple II is
>: designed to let the user get very close to the hardware and software,
>: should they want. The Mac is designed to *prevent* the user from even
>: thinking about that. One produces people that can think for
>: themselves, the other produces mindless zealots who refuse to hear
>: anything bad about their sacred Macintosh.
>
>       Or produces people who vent their bitter feelings towards Apple
>Computer, Inc. on the Macintosh...

    After the way Apple Computer treated users of the Apple II--not
to mention the blatant negelect of the Apple IIgs where *mountains*
of potential were literally thrown away--is it any surprise?

    I completely agree with all of Nathan's points above. While maybe
not all, the majority of Mac users operate their computers as simple
appliances and known nothing about computers. In theory that is a good
thing, since you want the average person capable of sitting down and
using a computer without any previous training or experience. However,
when something unexpected goes wrong, they freeze and become utterely
helpless (just go ask anyone who's worked in tech support about Mac
callers and you'll hear all sorts of interesting stories). The most
unfortunate part is, whether inexperienced or experienced, the vast
majority of Mac users are religious about their machines and cannot
deal with criticisms. The largest ISP in this part of Canada actually
had to issue a _written_ memo warning all technical support staff to
*never* criticize Mac users' machines, or Apple Computer, because of
negative reactions they'd been having. No such memo was issued about
PC's, Amiga's or other machines.

    Apple builds a whole psychology around its machines. I have to
admit, during the first several years I owned my Apple IIgs, I was
quite religious about my machine and Apple Computer. Quite frankly
I'd argue bitterly when someone criticized the IIgs, and I refused
to believe anything could be better than it (the Amiga was clear
as day better than the GS on several fronts, but I would close my
eyes and convince myself otherwise). Now that I've stopped believing,
I feel like I've escaped from some cult, been deprogrammed and
looking in from the outside. :)

>SIMILARITIES:
>       Actually, anyone who has seen modern Macs (PowerMacs) would see a
>LOT of similiarities in design.  My 9600 has SIX PCI slots and a dedicated
>processor slot for EASY upgrades to faster processor speeds.  TWELVE DIMM
>slots for RAM expansion up to 1.5 gig.  It has a Toolbox in ROM like the
>Apple IIgs.  It supports the Apple Desktop Bus like the Apple IIgs.  All
>Macintoshes since the Plus have built-in AppleTalk (networking).  That
>means any Apple IIgs or Apple //e with a Workstation card can be part of a
>AppleTalk network to share files, printers, etc.  The floppy drives in
>Macs can STILL read 3.5" 800K or 1.4 MB floppies from Apple IIs.  All in
>all, I'd say Mac's and Apple II's share similiar design for the most part.

    If you want to know the truth, I find the Intel PC clone a lot more
similar to the Apple II than today's PowerMac's. The machine has a very
opened architecture that practically begs the user to open the lid and
poke inside. You have 7 internal slots that can be filled with an almost
unlimited variety of interface cards, from countless 3rd party companies.
There are people who take soldering pens to the motherboards and do home-
brewed modifications (I was just reading up on how to modify my older ASUS
Pentium board to accept CPU's that require higher voltage the other day).
People like to break rules when writing software and do things not thought
possible on the machine. You can exit from the graphical GUI and drop into
a CLI, even with a character generator (Windows and DOS remind me a lot of
GS/OS and ProDOS, or even GS/OS and GNO). There are countless games written
for it too, just like during the golden era of the Apple II.

    I assembled my PC myself, from a collection of hand picked parts.
I had lots of fun doing it too, and still do whenever I have to open
the machine and get my hands on the hardware. This is very much like
it was (and still is) when I play with my IIgs and other Apple II's.

    With a few of obvious exceptions surrounding the IIgs, the Mac and
the Apple II have _nothing_ in common. One is a appliance like a TV,
VCR, microwave -- you turn it on, use it, and not worry about what
it is doing or what's going on inside. The other is just the opposite.
Also, one is entertaining and fun, while the other is rather dull and
boring, though that is just my personal opinion working with both for
many years. ;)

>Whereas Macs, The Apple //c, //c+, and IIgs, have the most useful ports
>built-in and ready to go.

    The IIgs was never "ready to go" as shipped from Apple, unless you
planned to use it as a glorified Apple IIe compatible. In order to be
a useful machine, you _have_ to add a hardrive, additional memory and
even an accelerator card.

    Despite all my complaints about the Mac, I still wouldn't mind
adding an older one to my collection. There certainly are a couple
of interesting and appealing aspects about the machine (at least
from a historical stand point), though I wouldn't want one as my
only computer. I know there are many reading this newsgroup who
choose the Mac as their computer, and I respect that and think no
lesser of them. I just have different tastes than they do (just as
they have different tastes and feelings about what I use). At least
we all share a fondness for the Apple II, whatever we may use today.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca