Re: Solutions in Modernizing GS (Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs)

[hurry@imap2.asu.edu]

On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 10:38:17 -0800, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu wrote:
[mostly snipped]
> and Apple would be in better financial straits and still be
> "Microsoft free."

Apple hasn't been "Microsoft Free" since 1978 or so.  Every Apple since
the II+ has had Applesoft (I wonder who wrote that) and a popular Z80
coprocessor of the day was called the Z80 Softcard.  So, Microsoft
produced both hardware and software for the II line almost from day 1.  If
you mean "modern" Microsoft free, it's impossible to say with such
assuredness that the GS could have solved Apple's problems.  Maybe it was
better than a Mac +.  Maybe it can be upgraded into a powerful machine. 
However, one can't tell for sure what would have happened.  If the GS had
been concentrated on, Intel might have answered with some kind of superior
machine that would have once again blown Apple out of the water. 
Microsoft may have even wrote Windows '95 for this "PowerGS" as Scott G
calls it. 

Of course, the GS was never designed to replace the Mac.  That's why 
Apple "crippled" it.  My personal opinion is that the purpose of the GS 
was to be a migratory machine between the IIe and the Mac.  However, some 
II lovers put the sound chip in it and gave it color.

On the subject of lack of advertising, it would seem that most people are 
right.  However, the best GS advertising I ever saw was the Owner's Guide 
that came with it.  The version I have discusses all sorts of wonderful 
things that can be hooked up to a GS including hard drives, memory 
expansion, CD ROMS, and MIDI controllers.

My last comment is this.  I have never used a Mac.  So, my opinion does 
not come from being "an Apple worshiper."  Every computer has its place 
in the world so long as it has a keyboard and can display text.

--
Adam Myrow