Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     In practical terms they have not. Apple was very careful about
>: making sure all the 68K software could run on PowerMacintoshes, so
>: to avoid a repeat of what happened with the Apple II. Back in 1994
>: (right up until the present) Mac users have been able to migrate
>: to the new system without losing anything. Compare that to Apple II
>: and IIgs users migrating to the Macintosh.
>
>You're talking about a different kind of support. In my opinion 68Ks are
>being pushed into premature obsolescence because Apple and everyone else
>has quit making software for them. MS Office 98 is native only for example,
>even though Quadras are perfectly capable of doing word processing and the
>like. So my Macs are high and dry when it comes to new software for the most
>part.

    The premature obsolescence of 68K Macintoshes, be it true or not,
is an entirely different issue which is completely irrelevant to the
argument. Yes, the Macintosh Quadra machine itself will be abandoned,
but *YOU*, as a Macintosh user, will not. There is a path for you to
follow, and you have the choice of whether or not to take it. The way
it goes is you use your old 68K software on the new machine, while
slowly starting to use PPC native software as well. Eventually, you'll
only be using native PPC titles.

    Sound familiar? It should. When I first bought my Apple IIGS,
I continued to use my 8-bit II Plus software titles, while slowly
trying out native IIGS software. Eventually, I found myself only
running native software. Sure, my Apple II Plus machine had been
abandoned by the industry, but it made no difference to me since
I had an Apple IIgs that let me move on painlessly. The transition
was very smooth and did not affect me negatively in the least.

>Also, there was a migration path offered to Apple II users in '90, namely
>the //e card. That card works in a lot of machines, up to the Performa 575-8,
>which are quite capable '040 boxes.

    Yes, but there were some serious problems your conveniently ignoring.
First of all, this migration came about 6 years too late for the Apple
IIe/IIc crowd. Shortly after the Macintosh was introduced is when this
migration path should have been offered. Secondly, the emulation was
just good enough to serve as *ONLY* a migration tool. The Macintosh
had to take care of video emulation, so in many cases it was slower
than a real Apple IIe, not too mention you had to give up something
the Apple II crowd valued heavily -- SLOT EXPANSION.

    The biggest problem here is that it offered a migration path to
Apple IIe/IIc users *ONLY* -- there was not Apple IIGS emulation to
run GS software.

>Now before the "it should have been a IIgs card" chant breaks out, keep in
>mind that there was (and still is) little native software worth using, all
>of which has a Mac equivalent.

    Whoah, excuse me? Whether the IIGS was a solid worthwhile machine
or complete rubbish is irrelevant here. The fact remains software for
it *WAS* written and there *WAS* an existing user base on that machine
with well over ONE MILLION units sold. You cannot simply brush those
facts under the rug and try and rationalize dumping that user base.

    Here's a thought. At present, I personally feel there is little
native software on the 68K or PPC Mac that is worth using, and there
are much better Intel equivalents or often, the identical title (using
Photoshop or Netscape is a lot nicer under a preemptive environment).
When Apple falls and the Macintosh slowly fades out of existence, how
would you feel if I said, "What does it matter, you can run all your
old 68K tiles in crippled emulation under Executor, and as for the
PPC titles? Well who cares since there are better Intel equivalents
you can run instead".

>Having a //e card is a perfectly viable way to move from Apple II to Mac.

    It was a perfect example of too little, too late for the Apple
IIe/IIc crowd. It was not even an option at all for the Apple IIgs
crowd (how can it even begin to be, if it meant losing the entire
GS half of your machine and accepting a *crippled* half of the IIe
side). Now if the Apple IIgs never existed and this option was made
available in 1984, then your above statement would make more sense.

>:     Nor do I, but it is not at all surprising when you consider
>: the Apple IIgs selling in 1990, was the same machine they were
>: selling back in 1986. Add to that the price remained relatively
>: untouched in those 4 years, making it look utterely ridiculous
>: to consider when for the same price or less, you could purchase
>: a Macintosh with state-of-the-art technology (and equipped with
>: more memory, a hardrive and high-density floppy drive, superior
>: video, etc).
>
>In '90, Apple decided to come out with low cost Macs, which made the Apple
>II market superfluous (to their thinking at least.)

    It is what also killed the "Mark Twain" Apple IIgs. A low cost
Apple II that worked as a color Mac-like machine with a built-in
hardrive, decent graphics and speed (I have no doubt if finished,
the M.T. would have incorporated a faster 65C816 and enhanced VGC)
would make the Macintosh LC, Classic and IIsi seem superfluous.

    Steve Jobs was not the only religious guy about the Macintosh,
there were still plenty of people working there who believed you
could not make an Apple II that was equal or better than the Mac.
Faith and interest surrounding the Macintosh today is based more
on a religious following, than actual merits the machine may have.
That is why the Apple II was ignored and pushed aside at Apple.

>:     Apple II support began tailing off soon after the GS was
>: introduced (I cannot think of very much offered beyond that
>: point, except for some software updates and the occasional
>: bone thrown at users--like the ROM 3, HS SCSI, VOC, FDHD).
>
>There weren't many updates which could be done in those days without raising
>the price to a prohibitive amount. Recall what an SE with a 20 mb internal
>hard disk cost back then?

    Oh please. The cost of the Apple IIgs never dropped from what
it was when introduced in 1986. As the years went by, the cost of
manufacturing and parts went down, so the price of the GS should
have remained relative to that. Other computers and technologies
coming on the market have an influence too. The fact that the
Apple IIe (1 MHz, 8-bit CPU with 128K) sold for about the same
amount as 386/486 machines (33 MHz, 32-bit with 8 MB) in late
1993 was absolutely digusting business practice.

    If Apple insisted on keeping the price of a GS unchanged
from 1986 to 1993, they could have at least justified it by
offering built-in enhancements (i.e. hardrive, more memory,
faster CPU, better color/resolution). Your price argument has
nothing to back it up.

>:     Granted they may be in the same boat, 68K Macintosh users can
>: easily migrate to the PowerMacintosh and maintain full backwards
>: compatibility. Apple II users are stuck in the boat, and if they
>: want to get out, they're going to have to jump in the water and
>: get wet for awhile (and all traces of their past will get washed
>: away in the water).
>
>I can't reuse any of my hardware such as nubus cards in a new Pmac. And
>again, I'm talking continuing support of my existing equipment. There is
>very little difference between a IIgs and a 68K Mac there.

    Did you not tell me a few months back that there were early
PowerMac's with Nubus slot support? The important thing here is
offering backwards compatibility at each step, but not forever.
PC's have kept ISA slots for backwards compatible since the 286
era, but that is soon going to be phased out soon. Care to refresh
me on which, if any, Mac's have had 50-pin Apple II slots?

>:     I think the 68K Mac/PowerMac is akin to the Apple IIe/IIGS.
>: Support for the Apple IIe started winding down when the GS was
>: introduced, but you could upgrade to the newer machine and have
>: full backwards software and hardware compatibility (there was
>: even a motherboard swap made available for IIe users, just as
>: Apple has offered motherboard swaps for certain 68K Macintoshes).
>: There never was a step to take after the GS, you were just left
>: hanging with no place to go (except start all over again, fresh,
>: with a Mac, PC, Amiga or some other platform).
>
>Many Mac models were dead ends upgrade wise too, e.g. IIfx, Q700. Logic
>board upgrades were never cost effective versus the sell-n-buy approach
>either.

    Dead ends in themselves, but the user was never abandoned since
software that ran on the IIfx and Quadra 700 could run on any equal
or higher model Macintosh. I could say the Apple II Plus and IIc were
dead end upgrades too, since neither could take a motherboard swap to
turn them into Apple IIGSes -- However, you could buy an Apple IIGS
and run your II Plus and IIc software on the IIGS. Do you see the
point I am making here?

>As I mentioned, the advent of low cost Macs plus the arrival of
>the //e card in '90 ended the Apple II's market viability. Not for those
>with old Apple IIs of course, but to the average Joe wandering into an
>Apple dealer, they were a better deal.

    Not quite. APPLE COMPUTER ended the Apple II's market viability.
How so? They refused to back it with any support, which turned off
software and hardware companies (Western Design Center would have
continued the 65C816 evolution had Apple been willing to back them).
Apple never made the Apple II price competitive with the Macintosh
or any other machines on the market--in fact they made them look
like utterely ridiculous options (see example of IIe above). They
also refused to update the technology in the slightest, leaving it
quite stagnant when the Macintosh and the rest of the computer world
kept moving forward every year.

    There was a huge following of people loyal to the Apple II, the
market was there and the companies to back it too. Apple decided to
squeeze the life out of that market so they could focus entirely on
the Mac market and eventually succeeded. Some people were unphazed
by what happened and remained loyal to Apple and its products (rather
like someone in an abusive relationship going through denial) while
the largest majority went elsewhere.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca