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:
>
>:     I am interested in the Apple II computer, and so long as Apple
>: Computer no longer has any relation to the machine anymore, I have
>: zero interest in the company. When Apple dropped the Apple II, I
>: lost all interest in the company. I think you see the situation as
>: if Apple Computer is my parent, and now that they've had another
>: child and focusing all their attention on him/her (Macintosh)--and
>: I've moved out and supporting myself--I should still love them
>: and keep in touch because we're all still one big family.
>
>Don't pull a Nathan and say that just because you have no interest, there
>is no place for Apple Inc news.

    It has nothing to do with my lack of interest, it has to do with
the fact *current* Apple Inc news has nothing Apple II related to
offer. I welcome you to prove me wrong on that point.

    I admit your right about my opinion. The fact that I have zero
interest in Apple Computer does have no relevance here, although if
you look at the reason why I feel that way, that does (no products
related to the Apple II). I was out of place saying that though,
now that I look back at it.

>:     Well just talking about what kind of person Steve Jobs is, or
>: bashing Apple Computer out of the blue, has no place on this group,
>: I agree. However, how the company abandoned the Apple II has plenty
>: of relevance simply because it is part of its history (and stating
>: plain fact, not opinion or view). There are a lot of negative issues
>: which come up when you mix "Apple II and Apple Computer" in the same
>: sentence, but not because people like to just arbitrarily insult the
>: company.
>
>Saying they abandoned Apple IIs is a matter of opinion though.

    The dictionary defines the word abandoned as: "To give up,
forsake, desert". Those words sound very much like what Apple
did with the machine, unless you have another definition for
the same word. ;-)

    Seriously though, the company stopped development of the
machine when it was *very popular* and *selling better* than
any other computer at the company. They also left users stuck
with no upgrade path to follow, or even so much as an offer
to trade in your hardware for a discount off a Macintosh. Not
even so much as the truth was spoken, people were lead on to
believe the company was still going to support them (do you
recall John Sculley's open letter in InCider/A+ in the fall
of 1990?). If sales dropped off and people lost interest in
the machine, then I'd agree, but they didn't. Apple certainly
did abandon the Apple II and that is pretty obvious. I really
don't see how you can see otherwise.

>I've bought and used Apple IIs, and I've bought and used 68K Macs.
>Support for the former is all but gone, and for the latter it is going
>fast. Using a 68K Mac to get things done is getting more and more
>difficult. Do I feel abandoned? Not at all.

   Of course you wouldn't, you never were abadoned. The PowerMac
is backwards compatible with 68K Macintoshes in hardware and of
course software too. You can take all your software and hardware
over to a new PowerMac G3 and continue as if you were still a 68K
Macintosh owner. Whether you decide to upgrade or not is totally
your choice, but the point is Apple II users never got an
oppurtunity for a choice. Being left with no options or help
is abandonment.

>:     It's not a matter of people reacting to your saying good or bad
>: things about Apple, it is just people reacting to your talking about
>: Apple's CURRENT HAPPENINGS. Care to name some bits of news out of
>: Apple in the last 5 years that would interest someone who only uses
>: Apple II's? (Keep in mind that just because someone likes Apple II's,
>: doesn't mean they have a fondness for everything that comes from Apple).
>
>Without going to the trouble to fine a specific article, I've seen Apple II
>related stuff in the TIL more recent than that. That resource would certainly
>evaporate if Apple bit it.

    Yep, so I have. It'll say they're updated for formatting and
content. New TIL articles haven't been written in years, and there
has been no maintenance performed on them either (except as mentioned,
the occational reformatting so they'll look nice through a web
browser or whatnot).

    The Apple II articles in TIL are a nice resource (just as the
information about other older Apple products is, like the Lisa and
and Apple III) but as I said, much of it has been backed up and
stored outside of Apple since it isn't going to change.

>:     I don't mind hearing positive things about Apple Computer in
>: this group, so long as it has relevance to the Apple II. Talking
>: about Apple's stock value going up has no relevance since they
>: cut off ALL TIES to the Apple II (their stock going up has about
>: as much meaning to me as if General Motors or Fisher Price stock
>: prices changed, or for that matter, if GM or FP introduced new
>: toys or cars. Those companies products, just like Apple's, has
>: no relevance to my Apple II).
>
>Um, You can still get Apple IIs repaired at authorized dealers, download
>software updates, search the TIL for Apple II info, etc. I'd say those
>are ties. Plus read the last paragraph of any Apple press release.

    Hah! Good luck if you try, I'd say 95% of authorized dealers no
longer know what an Apple II is (I called *Apple Canada* not long
ago, and no one knew about the Apple II) let alone have the parts,
proceedure manuals or knowledge to repair them. At the very least
they'd have to send stuff out for repair, and you'd certainly be
charged more than the computer is worth. Would you pay a couple of
hundred dollars to swap a damaged Apple IIe motherboard?

    The software stored on Apple's FTP sites was put there years
ago, and hasn't been maintained since (I recall there were Mac
file headers in some of the ShrinkIt archives, but it took almost
a full 1 to 1.5 years of complaining before something was done to
correct the problem). I will give Apple credit for not going out
of its way to have those traces of Apple II software removed.
Trust me though, if the site crashed and had to be started from
scratch again, you can bet the Apple II software would go.

>:     Okay, tell me how current news about Apple has any more relevance
>: than news about Compaq. Both make computers that can't run Apple II
>: software or use Apple II hardware. So what makes Apple different?
>: Do you think Amiga users care what's up with (what little remains)
>: of Commodore or Escom? No, they're only interested in Gateway now.
>: If Gateway bought the rights to the Apple II and started producing
>: it again, then news about Gateway would be relevant here. Apple has
>: dropped the ball, and we, as Apple II users, only care about who is
>: currently holding it.
>
>I'll overlook your Nathanesque use of the pronoun we. Here's a thought:
>AE, AST, Chinook, Checkmate, and many other companies once made Apple II
>products but no longer do. Is discussing them in the scope of this group?

    The same idea applied to Apple would count. If you wanted to talk
about Applied Engineering Vulcan hardrives, TransWarp GS accelerators
or Phasor card, that'd be on topic. If you wanted to talk about their
TransWarp LC, DataLink Mac modem or ShadowLAN software, that'd be out
of place here. Talking about the AST Vision Plus or RamStack is okay,
talking about AST's line of Intel PC clones is not. What fits in the
scope of the group is couldn't be more simple: Anything Apple II.

>If someone posted here about a new Apple printer, is this topical or not?

    If it works on an Apple II it is. You can of course discuss
whether it would work or not, which is was the case with the
StyleWriter II for the longest time.

>:     There is no ban on discussing Apple Computer here, as long as
>: it has something to do with the Apple II (and in order for that
>: to work, you have to discuss the company between 1976 and 1993;
>: unless of course they reintroduced the II or came out with
>: something along the lines of the IIe PDS card again).
>
>Hopefully no "ban" exists on anything. When that happens, I'm off usenet.

    None as far as I'm concerned. If you post about Apple's current
stock value or the latest Macintosh product here, I'm not going to
flip out about it. I'll certainly notice it is out of place and be
slightly annoyed (the same way I get annoyed seeing the thread about
Microsoft here), but I'd just hit the "n" key and move on.

    Incidentally, the whole point of this is just a discussion on
how to make comp.sys.apple2 more enjoyable and a bearable place to
read. At least that's the way I see it. I hope this doesn't come
off sounding like its a personal attack on you, since I get the
feeling you think that with some of the comments made above.

>While we're talking about old boxes, recall how software emulation didn't
>count in your estimation. However, as you're doubtless aware, Pmacs use
>software emulation to remain compatible with Macs like my Quadra. Now if
>68K software emulation is good enough to say that Pmacs are compatible
>with 68Ks, why doesn't it work to say they're compatible with Apple IIs?
>Before you say that the hardware is compatible, bear in mind that a nubus
>Mac has about as much G3 compatible hardware inside it as your average
>IIgs has on it.

    Well the thing is there are key things about the 68K built-in
to the PowerMac, like the Macintosh Toolbox for example. The only
major thing being emulated in those newer boxes are the 68K CPU.
A PowerMac running 68K Mac software is very different from F.E.'s
Bernie ][ The Rescue running IIgs software.

>I've trimmed large chunks out of this article in the hope of winding this
>thread down. I think the solution is to not complain too much about content,
>especially when it's so easy to avoid reading stuff which doesn't interest
>you. It's not like this group has a suffocating amount of traffic or anything
>like that. I let stuff that bores the snot out of me, like those endless
>threads about how Apple should have used ARMs in Apple IIs, the current
>boycott Microsoft junk, yada yada pass on without complaint. To complain
>only serves to increase the useless newsgroup traffic. I think using my
>email method with people who post off topic stuff will work better.

    I personally have no problem about the odd bits news about
Apple straying in here, or some mention about the Macintosh that
comes into passing (no more than when any other computers come up
in messages, either as a tangent or because of some relation they
have with the Apple II). What I do get annoyed at is when someone
posts Macintosh or PC specific questions here, and several people
post public answers to those questions as if this group were also
comp.sys.mac.misc or comp.sys.ibm-pc, in additional to comp.sys.-
apple2.

    I'm not trying to write up rules for this place, or about to
go about enforcing any such ban on off-topic messages. And I'm
especially not out to attack any specific person(s) here because
they like Apple or the Macintosh. I just joined this message
thread to share some of my views. Though really, if you want to
look at what's more important here, I think first people here
should focus on ending all the fighting and then worry about
off-topic messages that filter in.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca