Re: A2 Dead?/ Future Apple // compatibility

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Gabriel Morales writes ...

>>

     Omnicomputer? No, well, I don't believe that it would necessarily
have to be a supercomputer; emulation seems to be advancing greatly. I
can run DOS & Windows on my Power Mac 8600/200 quite decently, and
Bernie seems to emulate the IIGS <<Pretty>well.

     But what I mean to ask, is, would it be relevant at all? How many
people in the US, at least, will be using Apple //s or older in 2007? I
myself believe these programs must be saved from cybernetic extinction,
since they represent the works of early Personal Computer programmers,
and thus a part of our history. But, what do you think?

<<

     Currently available software, including old games, etc., will
continue to run on Apple II's for as long as we use them. A 2007 machine
which can run all current A2, PC, Mac, Atari, Amiga, C64/128, ...
software is not especially attractive. In 2007, people will, mainly,
want any new machine to do a good job of running 2007 software.  


 ....

>>

     I have an Apple //e and a IIGS, and I plan to keep them up and
running for as long as possible into the 21st century.

     Nevertheless, the Apple // is a (great) machine of the past and I
believe there are only two ways to approach producing new software for
it:

1.) See the Apple // more as a versatile appliance; a limited computer
to be programmed for certain limited tasks.

2.)Improve upon the Apple //, designing new hardware for it and
ultimately creating a modern-day computer capable of understanding,
executing, and being programmed as the old Apple //.

<<

     Your #1 describes the present situation. That is, we tend to use
our Apple II's where possible while accepting the need to employ a PC
for things the PC does well.

     The push continues toward the ends described in your second choice.
There are ways to significantly upgrade II hardware.



>>

     Personally, I'd like to see the Apple // grow and become a "modern"
computer.

<<

     Apple could do it and have a reasonable shot at winning back a
large share of home, education, and business users.

     We could do it, too. However, while a group of users might come up
with a good, affordable design and an attractive prototype, the project
would be a shoestring operation.

     Clearly, if there is _any_ way to get Apple interested in a new II,
that is the way to go. This option will be gone should the company
collapse; but, at least, the tendency to 'wait and see' will be gone.


>>

     If Apple would have only included backward compatibility in the
original Mac and then in the newer Power Macs, the Apple // would have
grown- into the Mac-like the 68K into the Power Mac. But, instead it was
a dead end,

>>

     A 68000-based monochrome no-Slots Mac and Apple II "backward
compatibility" are mutually exclusive concepts. There is no way Mac
could have been A2-friendly and still have been a "Mac".

     Mac did not have to be a dead end. Most of us have bought two or
three PC's since 1990. They could just as well have been Macs _if_ Apple
had been willing/able to engage in a serious battle for the home market.

     Once Mac 'grew into' the "Power Mac" PC, its fate was sealed. To be
able to run PC software is to be forced to run PC software. A PC is a
PC. Paying extra for non-standard unsupported features makes no sense.
As you say, Mac does appear to be a dead end. 



>>

 and we're still in the alley.

<<

 ....

     Yes; but, at least, we are not a PC. We can get out of 'the alley'.



Rubywand