Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote,
in response to my reply:
>> B.J. Major wrote:
>> >Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>> >>What killed the Apple IIgs was _Apple Computer_.
>> >
>> >Is re a point to going over this stuff over and over again?
>> >I mean, I just don't see what the point is.  Everyone knows what
>> >happened back then and everyone has their own opinions on it or
>> >who was at fault, etc. etc.  This is like constantly dredging up
>> >the past--it doesn't help things NOW.
>>
>> B.J., I respect your opinion, but I am just about fed up with your
>> constant goading us, the GS supporters, for discussing the past of
>> _our_ computer.  If this, _our_ newsgroup, is not the place to
>> discuss it, what is?  What you are doing, trying to prevent this
>> discussion because it is unfavorable to Apple Computers, is like
>> if an Mac or PC user went into comp.sys.amiga.* and trolled about
>> how it was justified that the Amiga died because the Mac or PC
>> was better and so on.
>
>(snip)
>
>To make an analogy that's a bit more realistic, the current crop of PC's
>can't run the oldest PC software--or very old versions of DOS.  The
>modern architecture of the machine simply won't permit it.  PC's also
>haven't shipped with 5.25" floppy drives for some time, and there is
>still a lot of older 5.25" PC software floating around.  Yet I see no
>one like yourself running around and complaining to the masses about
>this.  If someone wants to run software that old, they go and obtain an
>older machine to run it, period.  They don't expect that the new
>machines will continue to run everything because that's not the case.
>So, if someone wants to continue to run Apple II software--they go and
>get a used Apple II.  The Mac shouldn't have *had* to run Apple II
>software from its beginnings as you have stated (although I know it does
>now in emulation mode and before with the LC IIe card), any more than
>the new PC's should *have* to run the oldest PC software and 5.25 disks.
>Change--especially technology change--is going to happen with you or
>without you.  Your being against it isn't going to stop the change from
>happening.

Just one comment: your correction to my analogy is wrong.  For a fact,
the Pentium II class PC can run the earliest DOS software.  It may
seem to you that it can't on the surface, but I can just uplug the
original 5.25" floppy drive and controller from ones own original
IBM PC/XT and plug it right into an ISA slot in the Pentium II PC.
The software _will_ run.

I am not all that sure that the PowerMac can't run the original
MacWrite and MacPaint for the Mac 128 either.  Sure, the Mac 128
used the MFS filesystem and 400K floppies and these may not be
supported on the PowerMac.  That's not the point.  The point is that
the new machines can run the _software_.  Just take it over to a
Mac Plus or Mac SE running System 6, copy the programs from the MFS
floppies onto HFS floppies, and the programs should run fine on the
PowerMac.

Now I can format and use 800K and 1.44MB HFS floppies on my GS.
Does that mean I can copy all of AppleWorks GS from ProDOS to
HFS and stick it into your Mac SE and get it to run?  No.

Filesystems and disk formats are not the point.  _Program_ support
(as in actually running the code) is.

The Pentium II can run the earliest DOS, but the Mac could never
run Apple II software.  They had a chance to support an Apple
computer line with all the innovations of the Mac and more (ie.
the Apple IIGS), but they chose to kill a superior GS for the
inferior Mac Plus.

Now you say that a few software products won't run on modern PC
computers.  They probably hit the hardware directly.  These
programs a few and far in between.  Even the ROM 3 GS can't run
some FTA demos that expect a ROM 1 GS, but the ROM 3 and ROM 1
are most certainly compatible.  That you would even think to pull
this rabbit out of a hat is evidence of desparation.  :)


>> Yes.  Basically, their next generation machine _should_ have been
>> Apple II and GS compatible.  That only makes sense not to alienate
>> the market.  Now you might point out that modern PowerPC based
>> Apples can emulate even the GS.  That's true, but the early Macs
>> such as the SE could not run GS software!  Apple alienated most
>> of its user base and it was all part of the plan to get schools
>> to buy new computers.  This plan backfired and Apple lost market
>> share even in education to the "Wintel" machines that are so hated
>> by Apple fans.  The fact that PowerPC machines are finally powerful
>> enough to do GS emulation, however incomplete, changes nothing.
>> All those users of the Apple II and the GS have gone PC already,
>> many convinced that they would never buy from a company that
>> abandoned users in this way again.
>
>This is the only personal comment I'm going to make on this point
>myself; sooner or later, the "backwards compatibility" of ANY computer
>system needs to be cut off and severed *for good*.  Or it inhibits and
>prevents future expansion and future reprogramming.  Just as the MacOS
>is finally letting go of its 68K emulation mode to run older software as
>the newer System software is ging more and more items rewritten in
>"PPC native" format.  If this is not done, it will never truly be
>operating as a full PowerPC machine, it will always be running in 68K
>emulation for a lot of its needs and therefore, not harnessing all the
>power of the machine.

I agree, but I say there must be a transition period where users
of older computers are supported and carried forward.  This
transition period should be at least 5 years, during which time
users are given an upgrade option.  Apple did this for 68k users.
They offered PowerMac logic board upgrades, then gave a good
emulation and enough time for users to migrate.  Apple sort of
did this for the IIe to GS migration, with the GS logic board
upgrade.  But when it came to the GS, Apple decided it was _too_
good a computer.  You know what it did?  One day they just dropped
real support for the GS when no Mac could run GS software.  They
offered no transition period and no user upgrade.  Then they tried
to assure us that they would continue to support the GS, but that
was no real support.

When Apple released the GS, the Mac of the day was the Mac Plus.
If you installed 1MB and a hard, the GS was much superior to the
Mac.  So Apple came out with the Mac SE, but no new GS.  Apple
paid lip service to GS users and we thought Apple was a great
company.  We were loyal like you, so we believed.  We put in hard
drives and DMA SCSI cards and the GS was better than the Mac SE.
Then Apple delivered the Mac LC.  The Mac had evolved at each
step, giving time for its users to migrate their data and their
computers, but the GS was being neglected to death by Apple.
Still, when John Sculley wrote that "Open Letter to Users" in
InCider/A+, we believed in Apple.  We put in accelerators and the
GS became faster than the Mac LC in running similar programs.
When Apple finally killed the GS, we were left wondering: if we
the users could push a computer of the Mac Plus era to faster
SCSI, 8MB of memory (16MB with RamKeeper), effective speed faster
than a Mac LC '020 16MHz, and SVGA resolution cards (1024x768 and
millions of theoretical colors), Apple could have done even more.
The fact that we the users could upgrade the GS to this degree
(and the Mac Plus could not) tells us that had Apple supported
the GS, we would have a superior Apple computer today compared
to the PowerMac.  It would probably be similar to a PowerMac,
with a RISC processor, but it would also have hardware graphics
chips and wavetable synthesizer chips that define the GS/Amiga/
Atari ST type of computers.  This GS computer would probably
be phasing off "65K" emulation now, just like the PowerMac is
phasing out 68K emulation.  But remember, with Apple's support
over the transition years, they would still have their loyal
base of not only GS, but Apple II customers in general.  You
would have an upgrade path from Apple II->GS->PowerGS.  Each
may lose a bit of compatibility to the previous model, but that's
not the same as "going cold-turkey" by suddenly switching to a
non-compatible Mac in a single day and losing all your software
and data (and Apple much most of its user base, which they counted
on to be loyal and forced to buy Macs, but were turned off by Apple).


>This very speculative question of whether or not a modern Apple IIgs
>could exist while running all the demand's of today's software, and
>STILL run all the games and apps from the early 1980s onward is very
>questionable to say the least.  *This is NOT a put-down of the idea to
>have a modern IIgs; it's reality*.  There simply hasn't been a modern
>day machine out there that can run things from that far back
>(emulators not included in this).

Incorrect.  The Pentium II class PC can run the earliest DOS software.
Just because it does not have a 5.25" floppy supports nothing.  If
you take out your 3.5" drive from your Mac, does that mean it can no
longer run Mac software?  I can plug my old ISA floppy controller and
5.25" drive into a modern Pentium II PC and run the earliest DOS
software.

You may hate Windows, but the fact of the matter is a PC can be at
least as productive as the Mac (if under the use of a PC lover).
If the PC could do it (evolve from an 8-bit, then 16-bit CPU) while
maintaining compatibility, so could Apple.


>> And how much more complex is the GS compared to the IIc? It may
>> not be evident to you, but just because the GS has a "hybrid
>> 16 bit" CPU does not mean that it is just a bit better than a
>> IIc.  The GS CPU has 24-bit addressing, meaning that it has a
>> memory range of 16MB.  The IIc had a memory range of 64K, and
>> it does bank-switching to get 128K.  In otherwords, the IIc was
>> using twice the memory its CPU was designed to use, but the GS
>> was using 256/16384 or 1/64 of what it was its CPU was capable
>> of.  The 68000 also had 24-bit addressing.  Wouldn't you agree
>> that a Mac Plus would be useless with 256K?
>
>Mac Pluses have never shipped with 256K.  It's not enough basic memory
>for its CPU usage which differs greatly from the GS.  This is not a
>proper comparison.

First of all, I'm sorry if I was being rude.  I am just fed up
with people insulting the GS and GS users.

Take a look at what I said above: both the GS and the Mac Plus CPU
have 24-bit addressing which means their memory usage capability
is _the same_ (direct access of to 16MB).

Of course the Mac Plus never shipped with 256K.  Don't you see?
Computers that run a GUI like the Mac Plus or the GS (or Amiga)
_need_ at least 1MB.  256K was not enough basic memory for the
Mac Plus, but it was also not enough basic memory for the GS
(and again, also the Amiga and the Atari ST).  These computers
need 1MB.  But to make the Mac Plus _look_ better, Apple (ACI)
_deliberately_ crippled the GS by giving it 256K instead of 1MB.

I'm not claiming to be all knowing, but I've used these computers
(black and white Mac, Amiga, Atari ST, and GS) enough to know
that they need at least 1MB to run their GUI based OS properly.
And if you say that "well, the GS could just run IIe software
if it had less than 1MB," you would have made my point.  Apple
shipped the GS with too little memory to run _its own_ software.


>> I never forgave Apple for axing the GS line.  I only tolerated Apple
>> when they allowed other, more enlightened companies to make
>> PowerPC based platforms more enlightened.  Umax, for example, had
>> a line that fixed all of Apple Computers' flaws.  Now the PowerPC
>> clone era is over, axed by Apple.  Whatever Jobs' reasons, Apple
>> killed good products twice: first the GS, now the PowerPC based
>> clones (which are clearly superior to Apple's own PowerMacs just as
>> the GS was clearly superior to the Mac Plus).
>
>>--Scott G.
>>
>
>The PowerPC clone era is NOT over.  Umax just recently got a license for
>Mac OS 8 (none of the other clone makers managed to do this), and it is
>going to flourish.  Its clones are still going to be made, and it was
>*not* one of the companies that has either had its license taken away or
>bought by Apple, nor have they announced that they are giving up making

Right.  According to MacUser (now incorporating MacWorld), their
strategy is to hit their biggest competitor first, PowerComputing,
then going after Motorolla and Umax.  Do you doubt for a minute
that as soon as Umax's sales hit anywhere near the 10% of MacOS
sales mark Apple will kill it?  And Umax sales will, I have no
doubt, start to skyrocket now that PowerComputing is out of the
picture.  Don't get me wrong, I like Umax computers scores of times
better than those made by Apple, but I don't have much hope that
Apple will keep their hands off Umax.

And even Randy says that only those companies that "follow the
rules" will be licensed.  No doubt that means any big innovation
on the clone makers part (PowerComputing's speed record or
Motorolla developing the first CHRP) will be rewarded with
corporate death.

>clones.  There are also at least two other foreign companies that
>are in talks with Apple right now about making and helping to
>design some of Apple's motherboards, etc.

You mean Intel, AMD, IBM/Cyrix, and others.  :)

Didn't you hear?  Steve Jobs' brilliant (choke) strategy is to
have Apple start making Intel type machines.  That's right, Apple
and Intel Inside labels side by side.  The firmware in these Intel
machines won't let it just boot DOS, but rather their Rhapsody will
run on it and Mac software on top of Rhapsody (apparently, the
firmware will let it do this, unlike the Rhapsody Intel versions
that will be shipped for non-Apple PCs).

>And the decision to end the GS was not done on Jobs' CEO watch but on
>Sculley's.

The chopping of advertisement and neglect of the II and GS started
with Steve Jobs.  At least with Sculley, the II and GS got a few
more good years.  Jobs wanted to kill them as soon as possible.
Did you know, according to A+, Jobs had one of his famous temper
tantrums when he discovered that some of his Mac team went over to
help the GS design team?  Yes, the fool didn't want a mouse and
the Apple Interface on the GS.  He wanted to "keep the two worlds
separate" meaning the keep the GS as a second class citizen.

The co-founder of Apple Computers (ACI) agrees:

"I just sat there, silently, never arguing, never really speaking
out, but it was a shame that the Mac used up a lot of resources
at Apple.  There was a complete lack of attention to a product
that still had life and deserved a lot; instead, the Apple II was
forgotten.  It's just wrong to forget it when there are people who
are using the computer and love it." -and on the topic of why Apple
didn't sell the GS to a third party (like Amiga rights are now
with Gateway 2000), he says this: "Apple is very monopolistic
and protective of its right to build Apple IIs and to stop clones..
.it would be very wrong for Apple to stop supporting the II when
third-party companies might not."  -Steve Wozniak, InCider

-Scott G.
(P.S. I have telnet access:)