Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>
>>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>>>    Apple II users actually did have a transitional phase, or
>>>at least the start of one; That of course was the Apple IIgs.
>>>Owners of the Apple II, II+, IIe and even IIc could upgrade
>>>to the new machine, while preserving their entire software
>>>collection and a fair bit of their hardware as well (through
>>>its built-in slots and ports). The GS gave you a near state-
>>>of-the-art computer during that time period without having
>>>to sacrifice _anything_ as an Apple II user.
>>
>>The Apple IIGS was not the same...don't get me wrong as
>>I am a big GS fan, but did nothing to link the Apple II and the
>>Mac.  It was an UPGRADE for the A2, but not a TRANSITION
>>to the Mac.
>
>   So what? Are you sure you would have WANTED the Macintosh as
>a final solution when the transitional phase was complete? Why
>must history be distorted in a way where the Macintosh was the
>_only_ viable option for an evolutionary computer? The Apple II
>evolved into the Apple IIgs, and the IIgs could have evolved to
>a higher step, and so on. It is complete and utter NONSENSE to
>claim the Apple IIgs was the Apple II fully peaked out in terms of
>technlogical growth. The machine was in it's infancy stage when it 
>was killed, anyone with common sense can see that!

The ARM A2 "Mac" was the computer that Jobs rejected.  With
the powerful RISC ARM processor, it would have been able to
generate the "Mac" GUI with no problem.  As an A2, it would have
slots, expandability, and software compatibility A2 users expected.
It is no surprise the Jobs axed this transitional computer.  He not
only wanted a computer free from ties with Wozniak, he has a
dislike for open architecture.

I agree that the IIGS could have evolved into the future of Apple
had it the full force of Apple behind it, but that was not going to
happen...it was already Macintosh Inc.

If you roll back the clock to the decision between the ARM A2
"Mac" and the 68k Mac, had Jobs not been opposed to linking
the A2 and Mac in transition and gave the go ahead to the ARM
A2, that would not have meant what we come to love in the IIGS
could never have appeared...

By 1986, in response to the Amiga (which would probably had
been powered by ARM, following in ARM A2 "Mac" footsteps),
Apple could have still released a "GS" powered by an Ensoniq,
a graphics chip, etc.  The difference this time would be the GS
NOT being a competitor to a second Apple line.  Since it
would be a model of Mac (ARM A2, or whatever you want to
call it), Apple would not have tried to stunt it and the GS idea
would have continued to grow...