Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote: 
> Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >     Nope. If someone comes trolling on this group and says "The IIgs
> > sucks, get a real computer like my <insert brand here>!" I will just
> > ignore them and think very little of that person. Though what does
> > tick me off is when someone comes in this group and starts posting
> > misinformation, claiming it is fact when it is blatantly not (even
> > after several people have informed them they're incorrect).
> 
> I don't know what you are getting at here, except that you seem to be
> harkening back to the memory question and exactly how much of it the GS
> shipped with.  That is NOT disputable; it is a known fact exactly how
> much memory the early GS shipped with.  Now, whether it was enough
> memory to do what a certain person needed is a whole different ballgame,
> and a question I've tried to keep separate, but you insist on lumping it
> in altogether.

For God's sake, B.J., _you_ lumped them together.  Mitchell first said
that the GS was crippled because it shipped with 256K, not enough to
run native software.  You then said that 256K made the GS very usable
and claimed to have a disk full of native programs, which Mitchell
later revealed were fake-native programs only (using IIe style
double hires, speaker beaps, etc.).  That started the whole argument.

1) Mitchell is not disputing that the GS shipped with 256K.  He
   said it first.
2) You lumped 256K and whether it was enough together.
3) You claimed that it was enough for the GS.
4) 256K is in fact _far_ too less memory for the GS and was
   a purposeful attempt on Apple's part to cripple it to make
   the 1MB equipped but otherwise inferior Mac Plus look better.

Apple did everything in its power to kill public support for the
GS.  That's a fact.  William Mensch and Steve Wozniak both agreed
(look in 1988 InCiders for the Woz interview).

-Scott G.