Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu> wrote:

>Many businesses were using computers other than the Apple before the ICM
>PC, like TRS-80's (Models 1, 2, and 16), and a few others, and some had
>Apple II's and III's.

But ONLY the A2 had 95% market share before IBM!

>At any rate, the Apple-anything would never have crushed the IBM PC. 
>Never.  There were public perception problems in business that Apple
>could never have overcome:  they weren't IBM, and Apple's PR nightmare
>with the Apple III.  There were just too many business people who would
>not be swayed until IBM came out with something which they felt they
>could rely on.

Ah...but even AFTER the IBM PC came out, Apple still held 50% of
the sales.  It was not until Compaq came out and Apple neglected
the A2 that this number further slipped.  IBM's failure to stem the
clones was what made that architecture dominant, not IBM itself.
The cloners used the existing business base and penetrated and
expanded into the education and home markets. Apple failed to build
on its user base.

>One thing IBM did right was get the PC out on the market as fast as they
>possibly could.  They sniffed opportunity, and they wisely pounced on
>it.  Another thing IBM really did right was to go right away with a
>16-bit processor.  Between that and it's open architecture (and it's
>business clout), the introduction of the PC in 1981 changed the industry
>much quicker than it would have changed otherwise.  It was a watershed
>event.

BUT, the Apple II had slots before the PC did.  PC copied the A2.
Also, that 16-bit CPU was really an 8-bit CPU at heart or at least
based on the 8-bit 8080.  There was no reason OTHER 8-bit CPU
could not have sprung 16-bit successors.

I disagree that IBM was the main watershed event, however....
clearly, COMPAQ was more important.  After Compaq, many
cloners followed and that was when both IBM and Apple saw their
sales slip.

>Since the days of 8-bit processors were numbered, the "original" big 3
>microcomputer makers, Tandy, Apple, and Commodore, all had new 16-bit
>platforms on the drawing boards fairly quickly afterward, when it became
>apparent where things were going, and how quickly they were going
>there.  Apple put out their 68000 Lisa in 1983 and Mac in 1984, Tandy
>dropped their Z-80 Model 2, 3, and 4 computers and concentrated in 1984
>with the  8088 and 80186-based Models 1000, 1200, and 2000 MS-DOS
>machines, and Commodore released the Amiga 1000 in 1985, which also was
>a 68000 machine if I remember right.  Users of the older 8-bit Z-80
>Tandy computers also felt abandoned.  (I have less knowledge of the
>history of Commodore computers, and I'm not sure how that transition
>went.)

But the 8088 used from the IBM PC was based on the 8080, an
8-bit CPU of the 1970s.  In fact, today's Pentium II 32-bit CPU is
compatible with the lowly 8088.  The 8088 was not a 32-bit CPU,
right?

Also, there was an ARM based 32-bit RISC powered Apple II.
Between this computer and the prototype for the Macintosh,
Apple chose the Macintosh.  Now the 32-bit ARM powered A2
was actually MORE powerful, could easily have run the "Mac"
GUI, and was backward compatible.  It was the logical choice,
but Apple vetoed it because...Steve Jobs wanted to do something
that Wozniak had no part of.  It was personal ego, not sane
business sense.

ARM was originally a 6Mhz 32-bit RISC chip.  Today, chips of
this family run hundreds of times faster.

>My question is, how much is it worth to maintain complete backward
>software compatibility when a computer maker decides to begin making
>computers with newer, more powerful processors in them?  How much is it
>worth it to their clientele, both established customers and potential
>customers, for the new 16-bit computers (and the even later 32-bit ones
>for that matter) to be able to run every last piece of 8-bit software
>going back to 1977?  Is it possible that something might be sacrificed
>in the new chip design just so absolute backward compatibility can
>always be maintained?  I really don't know - I'm just posing the
>question.

Dropping backward compatibility is OK, but you want to give the users
a period of transition.  For example, Windows 95 can run DOS and
Windows 3.1 software.  The Pentium computers have ISA slots.  I
am happy because several years ago, I had a 386 with 2 ISA cards
and tons of Win 3.1 software.  Today, half my software is still Win 3.1.
Microsoft will soon drop DOS from future Windows, but that's OK.
In the years since 1995, I have slowly phased out DOS software. I
am slowly upgrading those Win 3.1 programs too.

Same thing with Mac 68k -> PowerMac.  PowerMac users have
been using the past several years to slowly upgrade their 68k
software to PMac native.

The important thing is the period of transition.  It gives the user and
the software publishers time to make and buy upgrades.

If Microsoft initially made Win 95 non-Win 3.1 compatible or Apple
made the PowerMac intially non-68k Mac compatible, millions of
people would be pissed.  Give a good 5 years for transition BEFORE
cutting off backward compatibility, and no more pissed off customers.
You would retain your user base too.

Apple had the opportunity to make a 68k->PPC like transition
if it had chosen the 32-bit ARM based RISC Apple II instead of
the incompatible Mac.  It could have done this earlier and saved
its user base....

>And regarding future sales of those new machines, wouldn't it eventually
>follow that the number of computer buyers who would think that backward
>compatibility with 8-bit software was important would become less and
>less anyway as time goes on, even if the computer makers had pledged
>absolute support to all their original customers from the 1977-1983
>period?  At some point, even those older users would want to move on.

Yes; but the point is to give them SOMETHING to move on to.
I don't care that Windows 95 can't run MS-DOS 1.0 programs.
I DO care that Windoes 95 can run Windows 3.1 programs. Give
them a period of transition.

The Apple II users NEVER had a period of transition.  See the
problem?  Basically, if the original Mac could run A2 software
and use A2 hardware, Apple would be a lot better.  The ARM
based A2 prototype says that this WAS possible, but Steve
Jobs wanted no part of it...