Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) wrote:

>Suppose Apple bundled an IIgs emulator with all Pmacs. Then what?

Too little, too late.

If Apple had a IIgs emulator for the Macintosh LC is a different
story.

What you are advocating is like...Apple introduced a PowerMac 6
years ago THAT COULD NOT RUN 68K MAC SOFTWARE!!!

Now, 6 years later, THAT'S ALL RIGHT, EH?  The FIRST Pmac that
can run 68k software is the G3 Pmacs.

No problem, right?  6 years too late is ok, right?

>:     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.
>
>You could run software at 2 MHz with the card. Can't see how that's slower
>than a real //e. And the //e software let the host Mac's hardware stand
>in for everything from slinky type memory to a clock card to a hard disk card.

>Unless you have some really esoteric cards like a Z80 or A/D converter, you
>were set.

Have you ever used a Mac LC card?  Sure, that 2Mhz makes for some
speed to a bare bones IIe IF you don't count the slow screen redraw
necessitated by Mac LC's bitmapped text.  Factor that in and Mac LC
card is much slower.

>:     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.
>
>Not a problem in my opinion.

For the love of God, if Apple released an APPLE PENTIUM, dropped
Macintosh, and tried to convince you that since the Gemulator emulator
for Wintel can run Quadra software faster than Quadra, that's ok...see,
it ONLY provided a migration path for Quadra (Apple IIe/IIc) -- so what
if there's no emulation for the Pmac (GS).

>: >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.
>
>First point: it has been said that 2/3 or thereabouts of the million IIgses 
>produced went to schools and served as glorified //e's.

Yeh right...schools mostly stuck to IIe.  1/2 is a more correct number.

>Second, what software
>do you use most? I bet 80% is ProDOS 8 based, e.g. 8 bit Appleworks and 
>Proterm.

Mitchell has already said he runs ALL native GS 16 bit software EXCEPT
one -- Proterm.

>I can't think of a solitary IIgs native title which is better than
>any equivalent Mac title.

Well, since in MY opinion I can't think of a Pmac title that was better than
any Wintel equivalent, why don't you just destroy all your Macs and
migrate to Pentium.  Yeh, what if Apple abandoned Pmac?  What if they
made Wintel and provided you with Gemulator for your Quadra software?

That's OK because in MY opinion, there is little worthwhile Pmac software.
That's what you sound like.

>So the decision to not make a IIgs card, taking into
>account the added complexity and added cost, makes sense to me. Obviously

So if Apple decided to go Wintel, provide Gemulator for 6 year old Quadra
software, and decided to forget Pmac software emulation, that would
make sense?

>Bad example since 1) Apple is becoming more profitable, not less; 2) Adobe
>has pledged support until doomsday; 3) I use Netscape under Win95 daily
>and it utterly sucks compared to even the 68K Mac version

Hahahaha...Microsoft also pledge support for Apple.  So what if Apple
turns Wintel and provides Gemulator?  Would you be happy?

Netscape is identical under Mac and Win95.

>: >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.
>
>There was nowhere to put a card in'84. But software emulation existed back 
>then. You've heard of II in a Mac right?

If Apple went ARM A2, fast emulation would be there.

Nowhere to put a card?  Come on Randy, they could have MADE a slot.
Or they could have built it into the motherboard.  They DESIGNED the
beast (Mac) in the first place!

II in a Mac?  PLEASE...that thing ran at 1/5 the speed of a real II
on a Mac SE and 1/4 to 1/3 the speed in a Mac LC.

If I gave you Executor, would you say Wintel is a reasonable upgrade
to Mac?  Executor is a Mac emulator much more sucks than
Gemulator.

>:     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.
>
>I suppose you gotta decide if you're gonna base future products on the past
>or on the future. I've heard talk that Intel will drop the x86 instruction
>set and make more RISC like chips in the future. I guess even they've caught
>on. When they get out of trouble with the FTC maybe.

SO WHAT?  As long as there is a transition.

There was NO reasonable transition from A2 to Mac.

>I wonder if there are any statistics on how many Apple II owners went the 
>Brand X route versus how many stayed with Apple. I guess you'd first have
>to figure out how many people you're talking. Units sold doesn't translate
>into owners when you figure how many went into schools. I'd bet it was
>half and half.

Half and half my ass...Apple was hurt damn bad by there neglect and
infanticide of the A2 series.  FACE IT.

>I tell you what, I think the time has come to agree to disagree and give
>this thread the death it so richly deserves. Eh?

Because you are losing the argument?