Re: Of course we can trust Apple for our next OS!

[ericb@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)]

In article <01bd5f0a$7b085fe0$c07498cf@edwint.rauland.com>, "Edwin E.
Thorne" <edwin.thorne@rauland.com> wrote:

> These were good reasons from 1984 to 1986.    They're nothing but
> historical trivia in 1998.   Besides, the whole idea of the Mac OS was to
> eliminate the need for the CLI.

They would not be historical trivia if the II had been developed beyond
the 1986 IIgs.  Did you expect me to find Apple II features that are
superior to computers ten years later?

And while I prefer a GUI most of the time, it's nice to have a GUI and a
CLI available.  Each is well suited to certain tasks.

> What type of GUI did the Apple II have?   Was there a name for it?   Was it
> like GEOS or the Mac OS?

There was a GEOS or something similar for the IIe.  The IIgs has a Finder
and looks more or less just like a Mac, except that for quite awhile the
GS Finder was nicer to use.  In some ways, it still beats the Mac Finder. 
For example: When a file copy is overwriting some existing files, the Mac
asks if you want to replace all the files or cancel the entire copy
operation.  The GS Finder gives you those two options plus "don't replace
this existing file" and "don't replace any existing files, but copy
everything else".

I made a note of this to the MacOS suggestions form on Apple's web site a
long time ago, but the MacOS Finder still has this idiotic behavior.

> BTW, your description of the Apple II could be applied to the Amiga.  ;-)

Except that the Amiga was not replaced by an incompatible product from the
same company.  The company and the product croaked together.

-- 
Eric Bennet (www.pobox.com/~ericb)
Cornell University Biochemistry Department