Re: OS For IIGS

[shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

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

: >I take it you're talking about ending licensing. I can't figure out why
: >people don't understand why this happened. It made good business sense to
: >get rid of leech companies siphoning away sales from Apple while paying
: >a pittance in license fees and expecting Apple to continue R&D with its
: >dwindling revenue.

:     That is only one of many reasons. Others including excessive pricing,
: cutting corners on parts and manufacturing (Today's Macintosh is nothing
: like the Mac's or Apple II's of a decade ago in terms of quality parts),
: a blemished past and present in terms of support, the manufacturing of a
: non-mainstream system that uses proprietary parts (which potentially is
: okay since the Amiga was like that, but at least the Amiga offered
: technology other platforms did not). I could go on and on.

The only example of using cheaper parts I can name is replacing Sony floppy
drives with manual inject drives. There was a huge cost savings as a result,
and it's not that big a deal considering how useful a floppy drive is these
days. But I'm not so thrilled about how they switched to IDE for internal
hard disks and CDs in the G3 Macs. I would hop that someone can adapt the
SCSI bus so that internal drives can connect up.

If you consider Apple "non-mainstream", this is certainly a case study in
how marketing and hype can allow an inferior product to take over a market.
Apple invented the personal computer industry, and supplied the lion's share
of the innovation.

: >All the statistics show that the cloners weren't expanding
: >the market share any.

:     Apple II clones expanded the II market, PC clones expanded the PC
: market, why would it not be any different for the Macintosh? Think of
: what clones do for a minute. There is _competition_, and when there
: is competition, innovation and advancements soon follow as each company
: tries to out do the other. When only one company makes something they
: have no competition and evolution of the system suffers. Look at the

I'll dig up the Macworld article which substantiates this claim if need be.
Cloners were eroding Apple's sales, which are mostly people replacing older
Macs. They did nothing to get people to convert from Wintel to Mac OS.

: Apple IIgs, Apple was the *sole* manufacturer of the machine for its
: entire lifespan, yet it never evolved. In comparison, the Apple IIc
: was being cloned by Laser and the development of the Apple IIc Plus
: was a direct result of the Laser 128EX/2. Look at the PC market now,
: there is innovation and change going on all over the place, every day,
: and it is all due to competition. Imagine if IBM were still the sole
: maker of the PC today, how far do you think it would have evolved?

Funny you mention IBM. Do you know anyone with a real IBM box these days?
I think they might wish they had reined in the cloners a little, as Apple
did. They let themselves be run out of the market for a product they 
invented. Apple was giving licenses to companies who played by the rules.
When they didn't agree, Apple told 'em to get lost. 

As for no competition causing stagnation in a product, keep in mind we're
talking Apple, not a stodgy company like IBM.

:     I only see two fairly major steps in the history of the Macintosh:
: the first being the introduction of the Macintosh II line in 1987 that
: brought color, slots and the move towards being modular. The next one
: occurred in 1994, with the introduction of PowerPC RISC based Macs,
: though despite the hype, didn't do much to catch the attention of
: most computer using people out there. Sooner or later clones would
: have forced Apple into competition and they'd have to work hard at
: giving people reason to buy the _Apple_ Macintosh (the only reason
: they've had for the longest time is "It is not a PC").

So what would you call the equivalent milestones for Wintel? If you don't
consider new processor generations as milestones. I would definitely include
system 7 and Powerbooks as Mac milestones. Wintel hasn't made such great
leaps.

: >Just another pantywuss vendor buying into the hype.

:     Whatever you may think he is, there are countless more like him
: and his company doing the same. Even if they are just being scared
: off by hype, the result will be the same in the end...less software.
: After watching every single Apple II software and hardware developer 
: disappear one by one, I'd hate to have to go through it again as a 
: Mac user.

It isn't the same thing. There are many times as many Macs in circulation as
there are Apple IIs. "Experts" have been predicting Apple's demise since
the mid '80s. Some of their assertions are really funny to look at now.

:     Yep, I couldn't help but notice my 5x86-133 (486 compatible) lasted
: only about 10 months before I decided to upgrade to a Pentium. My Apple
: II Plus lasted me a good 4 years and my Apple IIgs will have served me
: a full _10 years_ as of next month which is not bad at all.

:     The only thing is, that 486 box I retired is probably faster and
: more capable than the 40 MHz Quadra 840AV your still using. :)

Macs aren't as prone to obsolescence. As far as speed goes, one of the guys
at work has a DX4/100 on his desk and complains about the slowness all the
time. This 40 MHz box seems fairly fast to me. Clock speed isn't the only
thing that makes a box fast or slow. I think not having a byte of Microsloth
code running on this box is a big difference. In any event, a new 266 MHz
G3 box would be around twenty times as fast as this box I would guess. But
this box is fast enough to last until I can get a new one with firewire 
(another Apple innovation) onboard and Rhapsody already installed.

:     Well I for one don't like the idea of Apple having a monopoly on the
: Macintosh once again, there is no advantage to this. What happens if you
: don't like what Apple is selling, what alternatives do you have except
: an alternative to the Macintosh itself, as mentioned above. As an example

There is the advantage of having your dollars fund future R&D. And Apple users
tend to be much more loyal to their brand. Ever see any statistics for repurch-
ase when people upgrade from old Macs?

: closer to home, look at video cards for the Apple IIgs, there was only
: ever one sold. Is it any wonder the Second Sight was such a piece of junk 
: and was never supported or updated? OTOH, look at what competition did for
: accelerator boards and SCSI controllers. I never did like the Apple HS
: SCSI or AE TransWarp GS, luckly other companies knew they could do better
: products and did, and in the end I got a RamFAST and ZipGS.

Second Sight debuted when the Apple II market was nonexistent, a good example
of what happens when there are no dollars to fuel development.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.