Re: quicktime - dibeng.dll

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Cyrus Roton <croton@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:

(posted and emailed)

>Supertimer wrote:
>
>> The II series COULD have been updated to be equal to what the Mac has
>> become HAD APPLE WANTED TO.
>
>You seem to know a lot about the subject, and I respect that. But, you are
>missing a point. If the Apple II had been updated to what the Mac has
>become, then it would not be an Apple II. It would be a Mac with a
>different name. And the same people who complain that Apple deserted the
>A2 users would still have the same complaint, having a no-longer supported
>system and unable to run newer software.

Ah...but they can upgrade and carry along their software and hardware.
What is important is not that the OLD computer can run the NEW
software, but the NEW computer can run the users' OLD investments.

To give you a concrete example, on my Wintel unit, I have on two
ISA cards that I bought about three years ago and half my software
is Windows 3.1 programs.  These use to run under a 386, but now
run under a Pentium clone with Windows 95.  Does it bother me
that Windows 95 software can't run on a 386 using Windows 3.1?
No.  The real question is would it bother me if I could not bring my
Windows 3.1 software and 386 hardware to the Pentium -- hell
yes!  If that happened, I would have sent hate mail to Microsoft and
Intel!

The same thing with the Mac 68k to the PPC transition.  Sure you
can't run PowerMac software on a 68k, but that doesn't bother you,
does it?  What would have happened if Apple NEVER included the
capability to run 68k Mac software on the PowerMac.  How do you
think 68k users would have felt?

If the original Mac could run II software (that is, if it was a new A2
instead of a "next big thing" incompatible Mac), A2 users would
not have been upset.  No need to bring up the LC IIe card either,
because that was MANY YEARS (almost 6) later and it could not
run IIGS software....

Now you might say, but soon Apple is going to drop 68k support
in new MacOS or soon Microsoft is going to drop DOS in Win98.
Ah....but you had a couple of years of transition, right?  By that
time, you would have slowly updated your software and hardware.

>There are people who have and drive the Ford model-T, but Ford does not
>support it. Why should they? The Model-T could never have been "updated"
>to become a T-Bird. When new models come out, what is wrong with giving
>them new names?

Heh, bad comparison.  The Ford model-T and the T-Bird, like the
Mac Plus and the Quadra, both uses the same fuel/software.

Look at GM....see how difficult they are at making their electric car
sell?  A better solution would be a transition car that can use both
gas and electricity...like the Toyota Prius...and GM and Ford and
Crysler are backtracking to catch up....

Good business sense is not to abandon your installed customer
base!

>There was an upgrade to convert the IIe to a IIGS, by replacing the mother
>board. The result was not an "upgraded" IIe, it was a IIGS (well, almost),
>but the point is that the name changed. Putting a risc processor into an
>A2 would not give you an updated A2. It would be something entirely
>different, and the new software to take advantage of that would not run on
>the non-upgraded machines. Hey, I don't here anyone complaining that apple
>deserted the II+ when they came out with the IIe. It is just as true
>though.

A IIe could run II+ software.
A IIGS could run IIe software.
A Mac in the 1980s could not run IIGS software.

See the problem?  It alienated the users because they had to DROP
EVERYTHING and buy a completely new software library to use the
Mac.

Now compare a more reasonable transition:

Mac 68k to PowerMac.
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.

>There was no real reason for Apple to continue the Apple II line, even
>though there were so very many users.

How about good business sense.  Build on your existing customer
base, then penetrate and expand into new markets.  Microsoft
knows this, so they are successful.

>But Aple did not "desert" the A2
>users. For some time they continued to offer some components, and even
>updated ProDOS. They allowed a team to update AppleWorks, and they kept
>the operating system software on their ftp site for some time. Gradualy,
>Apple turned Apple II support over to third party vendors and to the user
>groups.
>
>croton@ridgecrest.ca.us
>Cyrus Roton
>Ridgecrest Apple User Group

In business, when a product is popular, you are supposed to go
with demand and continue to sell and update it.  If you alienate
your user base, you'll have to start over again.  That's why Win
95 can run Win 3.1 programs.  Do you think Win 95 would be
as dominant today if Microsoft made it Win 3.1 incompatible.  I
think users would have stuck tenaciously to Win 3.1 then and
in order to prop up Win 95 sales, Microsoft would have to axe
Win 3.1 deliberately.  Users would have went to another OS in
protest.

>Electronic Musical Instrument Technician

Did you know the same chip that's in the ESQ-1 synthesizer
from Ensoniq is in the IIGS?