Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Mitchell Spector wrote:
> 
> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> 
> >Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >>     The Apple II and II Plus, yes, were adequately supported. Beyond
> >> that (from 1979 and onwards to be exact) Apple did everything it could
> >> do try and kill the Apple II. Do you know the stories behind the Apple
> >> III? Oh, and the Lisa and Macintosh were not just another interesting
> >> product within the company, they were made to replace Apple's bread and
> >> butter: the Apple II (which Apple feared people would lose interest in,
> >> so kept looking to replace it as quickly as they could and let its
> >> development lag).
> >
> >The Apple IIe and the Apple IIc were supported for many years by Apple
> >and by third party companies, despite what you say above.  I have the
> >software and hardware items in my possession to prove that.
> 
>     How do you define support? Keeping the machines on the price list?
> Third party support has nothing to do with _Apple Computer_, I thought
> we were discussing the mother company's support.

Exactly, most of the support came from third parties.  Wozniak himself
lamented in _several_ InCider and A+ interviews over the years that
Apple purposefully neglected the Apple II and the the GS as black
sheep, as though they were dirty little secrets.

In one interview, he described how management forced the engineering
team to make the IIe boot up in 40 columns in order to make the
Apple III's 80 columns look more professional and how they
deliberately crippled the II+ emulation in the III to prevent it
from accessing III features (no FTA style programmers for the III,
I suppose).  In another, he lamented on the neglect of the GS.

When even the co-founder of ACI speak, why don't the Mac
advocates listen?  Perhaps because support of the II and GS
would have meant the death of the Mac, since the early GS
was clearly superior to the early Mac.

> 
>     Sure, Apple did occasionally do software revisions to ProDOS 8 and
> released some hardware accessories add-ons to sell to owners, but try
> and imagine what would have happened to the Macintosh if this kind of
> "support" were done to it. Try turning the tables here and think about
> where the Macintosh would be in that case?

Exactly.  They can't seem to imagine it.  :)  Sad, really.

> 
> >>     I think people who've brought up Intel machines make an excellent
> >> point. Those machines are totally backwards compatible yet still are
> >> able to maintain state-of-the-art technology and power.
> >
> >And as I told them recently, that has to end and end soon or else future
> >upgrading or expansion will hit a brick wall.  No machine can remain
> >backward compatible forever, period.
> 
>     Those people have also made yet another excellent point, doing
> upgrading and advancement in steps. Always one step forward and one
> step back, enough of a buffer behind the machine for people to have
> a chance to make a transition. By doing so you continually leave a
> path to follow, with no one being left behind. Apple made no path
> for Apple II users, they just created a dead-end with the IIgs.

Yes.  Notice that even Amiga users see this, and B.J., Lewin,
Randy, etc., keep avoiding this point.  :)  And they accuse us
of illogic.

When MS merges Win95 with WinNT, removing last remnants of DOS,
I'm sure many of the early DOS software will break, but PC users
have had a buffer long enough that this won't matter.  This is
why B.J., Randy, and Lewin are not upset that Apple is going
PPC native.  Had they done that when the PowerMac was first
released, they'd be screaming.

> That was a fatal mistake in the long run and now they're paying for
> it today (they lost millions of loyal customers!). That dead-end
> was _artifically_ created too, and that is where the problem lies.

Yes, they literally lost millions.  There were around 8 million
Apple II's, including all models, if I remember correctly.
That's only IIe/IIc/and IIGS too.  Add in Laser, Franklin, and
the II and II+ and the number rises.


> >>     Any future with the Apple II lies within the IIgs model, it is much
> >> more capable for the type of jobs and applications most people out there
> >> want. Considering it is also backwards compatible with older Apple IIs,
> >> it makes sense to upgrade to an Apple IIgs. This is 1997, not 1987,
> >> there is no price barrier as there was then. Notice how the TCP/IP
> >> projects are being written for the Apple IIgs, not any of the 8-bit
> >> Apple II models. Have you also noticed TrueType font rendering
> >> technology, FAX sending/receiving and 3-D model rendering has been
> >> adopted to run on the Apple IIgs and not the Apple IIe?
> >
> >Sorry, but again I have to say "so what"?  For years I had an internet
> >shell account that I accessed with my Apple IIe and ProTerm.  The only
> >reason I no longer have that account is that it was more expensive per
> >month than what I'm paying now to use my Mac on the internet.  And in
> >every message now you are continuing to bash the Apple II 8-bit line.
> >*So what* that they were 8-bit?  They are STILL very useful machines.
> 
>     Have you totally ignored everything I said? Read what is quoted
> above from me, then read your reply below it. I think your "so what?"
> in response to it sums up your thinking towards any kind of serious
> discussion I attempt to carry out with you (it is most evident in
> some of the recent replies you've just posted in the last day).
> 
>     Where the heck do I bash the 8-bit Apple II line? Where did I
> say they are not useful machines? Could you please _read_ what I
> write _carefully_ before replying?

You did not.  She was misreading.  And she did not answer your
point either.  The GS was immediately backward compatible with
the IIe from day one.  If a user moved to a GS, he or she did
not abandon the 8-bit II's.  The user could take his/her software
along.

Upgrading can only be construed as bashing _if_ the platform is
not compatible from day one.  If a IIe user in '86 switches to
a Mac Plus and proclaims it has more of a future than the IIe,
that may be construed as bashing because there is an upgrade,
the IIGS.  The IIGS was an equally bright future and so the
Mac user's claims that the II did not have a future is wrong.
But a GS user making the same claim is different.  He or she
would be saying: sure, the IIe has a future and that future
is the GS.

> 
> >> >*And for the last time*:  I have 4 megs of memory (and amplified
> >> >speakers as well).
> >>
> >>     That is good to know, that makes 1/3rd of the formula towards
> >> getting the most from your Apple IIgs (a hardrive and accelerator are
> >> the other ingredients). A stereo card would go along well with those
> >> speakers.
> >
> >And again, it's my machine and my setup.  Whatever else I decide to add
> >in the future will be my decision--not what someone who has no use for
> >Apple II 8-bit machines thinks I should have to be a "productive" or
> >"power" user.
> 
>     Gee, it was nice of you to cut out the lines of text that went
> below that when quoting me. In those lines I specifically said your
> completely free to do as you wish with your Apple IIgs and I will
> NOT disrespect or treat you any lesser. I did say I will continue
> to point out errors if you state them as fact (e.g. when the GS was
> introduced, 256K was enough to run native software of the time).

And she and Lewin claim that _we_ keep avoiding the subject.
Sheesh!

-Scott G.