Re: What apple ][ is the best?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article louiss@gate.net     (Louis Schulman) writes...

>>>In spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) writes:
>>>>In article "mflynch" <mflynch@msn.com> writes...
>>>>
>>>>>What is the best kind of Apple II? (//, //+,//c, ect...)
>>>>>E-mail me at prodos3@geocities.com
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me what you think
>>>>
>>>>    Simple. Without a doubt, the Apple IIGS.
>>>
>>    So what your saying here is the Apple IIGS is not an Apple II?
>>It can seem like that, it is very different from any other Apple II
>>computer ever made -- it doesn't even look like an Apple II for that
>>matter. I suppose the reason you might see it as not being related
>>to the Apple II family is because change occurred, it is the first
>>and *only* Apple II computer that used new technology. All the other
>>models are just minor variations of the original 1977 Apple II. From
>>the II Plus right up to IIc Plus, little ever changed.
>
>Yes, to me the GS in not an Apple II.

    Well to quote a TV interview on the Computer Chronicles between
Gary Kildall and Anne Bachtold (then product manager of the IIgs at
Apple Computer), who is about to demonstrate GS/OS -- System 4.0,
and PaintWorks Gold...

Gary ---  "Anne, over the years we've seen various versions of the
           Apple II. We just saw the C Plus and so forth -- how do
           you differentiate the GS from the rest of the Apple line?"

Anne ---  "The GS is the top of the line for the Apple II product
           family, and it sells into both consumer as well as
           education markets -- but it's really the most powerful
           platform we have..."

Gary ---  "But it is still, an Apple II...compatible."

Anne ---  "Oh it's definitely an Apple II and it runs all the Apple II
           software that's available!"

    So according to Apple Computer, and the name stamped on the outside,
it is officially an Apple II. :) I suppose it could be debatable though,
from a technical stand point it probably qualifies as less of an Apple II
computer than even the Apple III. For years, I always thought Apple could
have released it as a separate entity from the Apple II line, just as was
done with the III.

    Afterall, just like the Apple III it does have an emulation mode.
They managed to squeeze almost an entire Apple IIe into a single chip
called the Mega II (all that is lacking to make it complete is video(?),
memory and a processor. The 65C816 was able to emulate a 65C02, and
the VGC could emulate IIe/IIc video modes and parts of GS memory was
borrowed/reserved too). Natively, it is even further away from the II
than the III was, it was able to directly address memory without bank-
switching (so could the III, but with extra bits of hardware), it had
video modes completely different from any other Apple II (the III's
video modes are basically an early version of Double-Hi-Res) and it
had a synthesizer chip for sound. Also, the majority of its software
was GUI based and absolutely required a mouse present (some people
went against the trend, take Diversi-Tune or ProSel-16 for example).

    I kind of agree with your sentiments -- to me the Apple IIgs was
an entirely new machine which happened to contain built-in emulation
of the Apple IIe and shared a few traits with Apple II's. It would
have been justified to have made it a separate computer line (like
how the Apple III is to the II, or the Macintosh to the Lisa). Still,
you make it sound as if releasing the Apple IIgs was negative. There
I disagree with you though, it was a machine that gave Apple II users
a path to head towards the future without making them start over and
giving up their past (the Macintosh was the opposite and forced you
to start completely fresh).

>>    That's a surprise to me. What "modern features" does the Apple IIe
>>support?
>
>Name it.  1.44 drive. SCSI devices. Fast serial transfers. Modern graphics.
>There are cards for almost everything.

    Those are all options on the Apple IIgs too, and furthermore, much
better supported and utilitized on that machine. Start off with 1.44 MB
floppy drives, is there software to read/write MS-DOS diskettes for the
Apple IIe? Take SCSI next, the transfer rate is about _half_ the speed
it as on an Apple IIgs. Serial -- the ports on the Apple IIgs handle a
speed much greater than an SSC card, and with more control and full
support when attaching high-speed modems (there is that enhancement
option for the SSC, but you can plug an SSC into a GS as easily as you
could in a IIe). Graphics? The Second Sight firmware was never finished
to the point you can seriously expect to use it in an Apple IIe, and you
can forget about viewing better graphics as no 8-bit programs support
the card presently.

    If I had both in front of me, what advantage is there to taking
the Apple IIe over the Apple IIgs? I seriously doubt it is for the
cassette interface or the auxiliary slot that you would want it, so
then what? Just wanting to have the classic look maybe or to be 
totally retro?

>>>I think there has been a real trend towards forgetting about the 8-bit
>>>Apples and focusing on the GS.  In the long run, however, it the 8-bitters
>>>that will be remembered and honored, and rightly so.
>>
>>    Die hard 8-bit Apple II users have always been bitter about the
>>Apple IIgs. Go read any old copy of InCider or A+, there were many
>>letters which complained the magazine focused too much on the GS
>>and forgot about the classics like the II Plus, IIe and IIc. The
>>thing is the Apple IIGS was and still is the future of the Apple
>>II,
>
>The Apple II has no future.  Forget about it. I like it, it is useful and
>important historically, it is fun, and more, but its future is an a
>collectible.  The GS is the least collectible, in my opinion.

    Of course the Apple II has no future, the platform is commercially
dead and there is no interest in it today, other than our community of
several dozen people sticking around this newsgroup, Delphi, Genie or
meeting every year for KFest. The other hundreds or thousands that
still use it mostly just do so because it is there (schools mostly)
and it is useful to them. Many have no attachment to the machine, it
is just a tool to them.

    I don't see the GS being any less collectable than an Apple IIe,
in fact I find it more interesting and exciting if anything. It has
as much significance in the Apple II's history as any other II, if
not more so (it is the closest thing to the Apple IIx that many, for
years, dreamed about). It is also holds as much significance as the
Amiga, Atari ST, C64 or any other computer that once was. The GS
had pioneered many things too -- the first computer with wavetable
synthesis, the first computer to use the Apple GUI in color (back
when all Macs were B&W), the first machine to use ADB -- even if it
was developed originally for the Mac as some claim. Gee, it was
even the very first platinum colored computer at Apple Computer!

>I understand your point, we just look at these things from a different
>perspective.  BTW, the 8 bit II also supports preemptive multitasking,
>when used with a 6809 card and OS9.  In fact, there is a demo program
>with the card (that only works on a II+, where the 6502 and 6809 run
>separate programs simultaneously, perhaps the first example of multi-
>processing on a pc.

    Hmm, aren't those 6809 cards very rare? I doubt very many II users
own that co-processor board, or that anything beyond that demo program
allowed you to do multitasking. You can do preemptive multitasking with
GNO on the IIgs, and that works on stock Apple IIgs hardware once you
add a hardrive and extra memory. :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca