Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

<pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> B.J. Major wrote,

> >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.

"On the surface?"  No and no.  Rather than repeat everything again, I'll
just refer you to the other posts and comments I and other folks made
this week on this subject that back up what I say about very old
software on 5.25 disks *not always* being able to run on a brand new PC.
 
> 
> 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.

You say "should".  That's not a positive answer, but a speculative one.
I cannot prove this particular point either way because I do not own a
Mac that old nor those original software programs.  If I ever do own
them someday, I'll let you know if it works.  Further, one day very soon
*all* 68K emulation will be gone from future PowerMacs, severing that
backwards compatibility.  This is a necessity.  As I said, the future is
about change, as difficult as that may be.

> The Pentium II can run the earliest DOS, but the Mac could never
> run Apple II software.  

Correction.  The entire (more than one model) Mac LC line can run all
Apple IIe software with the LC PDS card.  This card was around for quite
a while as well, and the software to use it is still available on
Apple's FTP sites.

> 
> 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.  :)

No, it was a direct analogy.  I have nothing to be "desparate" about.

> 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.

As I said before, some day very soon that backwards compatibility is
going to have to be severed--completely--for your beloved PC as well.
I'm not the only person who knows this for a fact, either.

> 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.  

But I never said that.  I realize it had its own software and its own
place in the II line from the very beginning.

> >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.

We'll see.  Time will tell on this one.

> >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.  :)

No, not these companies at all.  IBM is not a "foreign" company,
BTW....I meant "foreign" as in overseas, home based in Asia.

-- 
--bj   Auto reply will not work; remove "black" to reply.  
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.   
"None of my computer systems do Windows."