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:
>
>:     How so? Current company happenings are about a computer system
>: that is completely foreign to the Apple II. Granted the Macintosh
>: shares same traits in common: It is produced by the same company
>: (the rainbow Apple logo on the front of Apple II's certainly makes
>: that apparent) and in the case of the Apple IIgs, they share many
>: similar hardware components (i.e. ADB bus, Z8530 SCC for serial
>: and AppleTalk, floppy drives) and similar types of software
>: (i.e. a Finder application, Toolbox in firmware for a Mac-like
>: OS and software, etc).
>
>One doesn't need to have the absolute latest product from a company
>to be interested in what the company's up to.

    Apple totally rid itself of the Apple II (manufacturing, selling,
support, software) and there is *zero* chance this is going to change.
You seem to see all products from the company as one, but they're not.
They're totally separate products that have no relation to each other
except the company that made them.

    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.

>I stand by my claim that news about Apple Inc is topical here. This
>is by definition a group about Apple products so discussing the company
>in any way fits here.

    Apple is only topical if you discuss the company in relation
to the Apple II. If you want to talk about other Apple products
or what Apple is selling these days, unless it can run Apple II
software or use Apple II-specific hardware, it has no place here.
This group is for discussing *one* Apple product and no other
(the Apple I and III are okay, because they're part of the Apple II
evolution, unlike the Macintosh which has absolutely no relationship).

>: >the rounds of woe-is-us-Apple-rooked-us-II-owners rigmarole that
>: >start up every so often.
>
>Following up would work better if those lines hadn't been split up. My
>point is, people don't bat an eye at posts which say how evil Steve Jobs
>or how the company rooks its customers etc. But if anyone says anything
>good, certain people flip out. Like I mentioned elsewhere, that endless
>thread about Jobs didn't raise any such complaints.

    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.

    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).

>:     Those discussions have very little productive value, I'll
>: admit that, but at least they're on topic. Like it or not, it
>: is the history of the Apple II (or at very least, II users'
>: perspectives on how things unfolded at Apple over the years
>: concerning the *Apple II*. Regardless of whether people agree
>: or not on that history, it _is_ discussing the Apple II). As
>: to how useful dredging up the past is over and over and over
>: again, that is another story. :)
>
>I get sick of seeing that crap over and over, but nonetheless I'll go along
>with its being germane here. With that, I will say that it's hypocritical
>to consider bad talking Apple Inc on topic and saying anything positive about
>them off topic.

    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).

>Discussing specific non Apple II products from Apple in a non Apple II
>context is indeed out of the scope of this group. But talking about the
>company is not. You can't about any company which makes PCs the same as
>you can Apple in a group about Apple products. That's my point.

    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.

>:     This group is for discussing a particular line of computer,
>: not the company that was responsible for it (you can discuss the
>: company in direct relation to the computer, but just talking
>: about the company in general and what it does today is not
>: keeping on topic). Pretend this group were "rec.bose.speakers",
>: where we all discuss stereo speakers made by Bose Corporation.
>: Now, let's say one day Bose starting making frozen microwave
>: dinners. Would it make sense if suddenly in the middle of
>: discussing sound equipment, people started jumping in the group
>: and began talking about food? (And they would rationalize
>: this being on topic, because Bose the company was the common
>: factor in both). Okay, this is an extreme example since both
>: the Apple II and Macintosh are computers, but that is about
>: all they really have in common for what matters most.
>
>But if people who know about Bose brand frozen dinners mention Bose Inc
>in the Bose speaker group, there's no problem right?

    Those people who'd buy and eat Bose brand frozen dinners would
be more than welcome in the group, so long as they discussed Bose
speakers and _not_ frozen dinners. They could also discuss company
news about sound and speaker technology, but I'd imagine people
would get irrate if discussions began about the excitement surrounding
a new fried chicken dinner from Bose. (Heh, people looking up the
word "Bose" in Dejanews probably find this a bit curious ;).

>: >Suppose someone were to mention that Apple has had consecutive quarters
>: >in the black and its stock value is up 230%. Is that only of interest to
>: >Mac users?
>
>:     Absolutely, it _is_ only of interest to Mac users. I would be
>: quite interested to hear how Apple Computer has any bearing on
>: those of us who still use and own Apple II's (not every Apple II
>: owner is automatically also a Mac owner/user--I'm certainly not).
>
>I still think there are Apple II users who don't use other Apple products
>who might like to hear about what the company's up to.

    Yep, and most definitely there were quite a few here who fit that
category since they now own Mac's in addition to their Apple II's.
However, the fact remains there are OTHER newsgroups they can join
to learn about what Apple is up to these days. There are many of us
here who now own PC clones and like to keep up with news in the PC
world, but they'd be way out of place to start posting about the
fastest Pentium II's or the latest software product from 3D Realms
Entertainment. The Macintosh is as foreign a product to the Apple II
as the PC is, and simply because Apple makes it doesn't mean it is
exempt.

>I don't get how people buy a product from someone and totally lose
>interest in who made it afterwards.

    Let me explain then. When I went shopping for a computer back
around 1982-83, I choose the Apple II based on the *computer* and
not the company (actually that is why I ended up with a clone, as
it was cheaper than buying an Apple product). When I wanted a new
computer in 1987, I bought the IIGS because I liked the product
(trust me, if there were a clone version of the GS, I would have
saved myself a bundle and bought that instead).

    I'm interested in the product, not the company. Sure, at first
I was curious about the Macintosh since I liked the Apple II that
the same company made (it's kind of like an artist, if you like one
their paintings, chances are good you'll like most of their other
works). I checked out the Mac -- I've looked at them, read up about
them and even used them extensively for hours on end. The end result
is they're not may taste. Of course even if they were my taste and
I liked them every bit as much as I liked Apple II's, that still
would not make it right for me to post Mac stuff here (and the company
is 100% devoted to making and selling Macs today. So if the Mac is off
topic, and all Apple does now is Macs, how can discussing Apple's
current affairs be on topic?).

>Market share is directly related to a specific product. Discussing
>a company is not the same as talking about its products.

    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).

>Aside from talking about how the new age floppy controller can cause new
>boxes to reject 800Ks at times, whether they have old Sony style drives
>or the new kind, is topical. Aside from that, they rarely are. The point
>I was making is that all of my Apple products are old and support is
>rapidly drying up. (E.g. Quicktime 3.0 doesn't run worth a hoot on my
>840av even though Apple claims an '020 running OS 7.1 can run it. That's
>a laugh.) But having ancient products doesn't mean I don't want to know
>what they're up to.

    Yeah, but even though your Mac's are no longer current, news
coming out of Apple is still relevant to *you* since your a Mac
owner (if you bought a G3, you'd still have backwards compatibility
with your software and hardware). I know it sounds biased to say
stuff about Apple suddenly no longer belongs here, but it makes
sense when you think about it. The only announcements coming out
of them these days are about Macs. I'm not saying G3 Notebooks
and the iMac are unnewsworthy (I thought the iMac looked rather
unusual and read up about it myself) but there are groups where
that news belongs and groups where it doesn't belong. Csa2 is of
course the latter.

>But there's no way to make that fit the scope of this group. I contend
>that saying Apple has had two profitable quarters and that its stock
>is at 30 points is in the scope of this group, which is devoted to
>discussing a particular Apple product.

    How is Apple's stock value of any relation to the Apple II if
they no longer make, sell or support Apple II's? They may as well
be making Apple pies.

>:     I sometimes wish there were a "comp.sys.users.apple2.ibmpc"
>: (or in your case, "comp.sys.users.apple2.mac", though I guess it
>: can be easier to try to blend Mac's and Apple II's rather than
>: with PC's, because of the company they share in common).
>
>I suppose a group like comp.sys.apple.current-events is in order. RFD
>anyone?

    That'd be a Macintosh-only group, since the Apple II is not part
of Apple's current events, see my point? I'm sure if Apple suddenly
introduced a calculator/watch-sized version of the Apple IIe (now
that would be cool!) you'd not have to worry about missing news of
that on this group.

>:     But the whole point is this group isn't simply devoted to all
>: Apple products in general. It is devoted to a one *single* Apple
>: product -- the Apple II computer. To be what you describe above,
>: it would have to be "comp.sys.apple.computers".
>
>There is no group that isn't devoted to specific products. Company news is
>as relevant to all of them as it is to any of them.

    Except when the company drops said product and TOTALLY washes
it hands of it forever, moving on to something unrelated.

>:     Anyhow, considering how much junk there has been in this
>: newsgroup the past couple of years, I'm more tempted to just
>: unsubscribe to this group altogether (ironically, after all
>: this talk about whether Mac posts belong on csa2, it is not
>: Mac discussion that I consider the "junk", it is the fighting
>: and insults getting hurled back and forth. Mac stuff is just
>: noise within that junk).
>
>I go along with the idea that Mac related posts outside of an Apple II
>context don't belong here. But like I keep saying, it's within the scope
>of the group to talk about the company. People who can do nothing but bash
>Apple sure appear to think so.

    I still don't see how Apple fits in the scope if they no
longer make anything that is even closely related to the Apple II.
Well actually, they do make ADB keyboards and mice which sometimes
work on at least the IIgs. So then, if Apple releases a new mouse
or keyboard (which you can purchase separately) then that is of
relevance here. I'd challenge you to name anything else though
(and don't say printers, modems, speakers or hardrives, since
those are just generic parts that'll work on most any computer
system).

    You see, if we all owned Apple II's simply for the sole reason
we believed Apple Computer was a cooperation of genius engineerings
who made earth shattering products, then we'd all own Macintoshes.
Yep, we'd see it as Apple's latest and greatest product and buy
that, giving up our Apple II's (except as historical objects that
hold sentimental value, like people who hang on to things like LP
record players, 8-tracks and vaccum tube radios). By talking about
Apple's current products in here (the Macintosh) your effectively
killing the whole meaning of this newsgroup.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca