Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote:
>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>What killed the Apple IIgs was _Apple Computer_.
>
>Is there 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.

Amiga users have a right to talk about their computer on their
group and GS users _have the right_ to discuss what unjust actions
happened in the past on _our_ group.

>
>>It was absolutely disgusting that Apple was shipping the GS
>>with just 256K of memory for the first 2 years the machine was
>>out! Out of the box the computer could not run any of the
>>GS-specific software titles out there, this was plain stupidity
>>(it would be like selling a car without a gas-tank and engine,
>>later informing the customer they'd have to buy that as an extra
>>option when they discovered the car won't run!). It was not until
>>late 1989 that the GS shipped with a full 1 MB of memory out of
>>the box, pretty much towards the end of its life span (and by
>>that time most applications were demanding 2 MB or more).
>
>You indeed are comparing yesteryear's memory requirements with
>memory requirements of present day.  Back then when the GS debuted,
>256 was ample for running games that were available; I have games
>on floppy disk for the gs that only require 256K.

My God man, are you nuts?  B.J., I'm not angry and I'm not
flaming, just shocked.  For a _few_ *games*, sure 256K may have
worked.  But the majority required 512K to 768K.  I remember
becauseI actually looked for GS software back then.  And what if
you wanted to do more?  What if you wanted to use _GS_ specific
16-bit software under the GS operating system?  My God, when I
first started using AppleWorks GS with _1 MB_, it was not enough
memory and I got memory out errors.  Early GS word processors
like Multiscribe GS, WordPerfect GS, Writers Choice Elite, etc.,
also required 768K (more if you had much text).  Just to sequence
some music required 1MB, and the GS was built for that.

Unless you were resigned to run IIe software, the GS _did not_
have enough memory.  Since you don't seem to use GS software, let
me tell you about something.  It required 768K just to boot
System 4 (about 1987-88) and 1MB to do anything useful.  Systen 5
basically required 1MB to do anything.  And System 6.0.1 requires
2MB to do anything.  But if you load AppleWorks GS on top of that
and some printer drivers, 4MB is basically necessary (otherwise
it may run, but run out of memory when printing).  HyperCard IIGS
won't run without at least 2MB (more needed for most stacks) and
HyperStudio GS won't do anything with less than 1.25MB (in case
you don't know HyperStudio was and is popular in schools; so
popular that there are now Mac and PC versions).

>And, it was more than ample for
>running productivity programs such as Quicken and Appleworks.

Only if you were running ProDOS 8 based IIe software?  Has it
_ever_ occured to you that GS users want to run GS software? 
It would be as if you went around trolling about how you didn't
run any PowerPC native software and trying to get everyone to
believe that old Mac 128 software was better.  This is simply
not true.  For me, early productivity software meant
Multiscribe GS, WordPerfect GS, and Writers' Choice Elite and
post '88 that meant AppleWorks GS.  I don't consider Quicken and
8-bit AppleWorks to be GS productivity programs.  They are IIe
productivity.  And you can't make extensive use of the GS' 32
channel Ensoniq wavetable synthesizer with available ProDOS 8
software and 256K of RAM!  Music was something the GS was
_designed_ to do!

>Huge megabytes of memory were not needed for MOST things back
>then.

I beg to differ.  1MB was the bare minimum to do anything useful
on the GS.  You have to be able to boot GS/OS and AppleWorks GS,
otherwise the poor machine would be just a fancy IIe.

>And like
>Randy stated, memory was VERY expensive back then--many, many
>times more than what it is now.

Funny, they could equip a Mac SE with 1MB and SCSI for the same
price they were selling a stock GS.  No, B.J., if memory was not
too expensive for the SE, it was not for the GS.  Apple simply
wanted to cripple the GS.

Also, economics teaches that if something sells in greater
volume, you can sell it cheaper.  The GS outsold the entire Mac
line in its first year.  Why did Apple not lower its price to
below that of the SE, considering the SE's memory was so
expensive like you claim?  The price was again designed to doom
the GS (while milking it for all it was worth while it died).

>As I remember it, most software manufacturers back then took
>into account the amount of memory a computer shipped with (NOT
>what was added on later); so everything that was "store bought"
>like Epyx games, Broderbund software, etc. always managed to run
>within the limits of what the computer shipped with.  If this
>were not true, I would not have been able to buy software for
>my 128K Apple IIc way into the late 1980s.

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?

As for GS games, ones like Hoverblade and Tetris required 768K
at least.  Good games like Out of This World requires at least
2MB (1MB for the game and 1MB for GS/OS).  Now Tetris shipped
with a IIe version.  If you did not have 768K, you had to use
the IIe version.  I've used both and the IIe version sucked.
Similarly, Defenders for the IIe sucked while Spacefox for
the GS is the best defenders I've played on any computer (the
16 voice music and 256 color graphics help greatly).

>
>>Another annoyance was the lack of a built-in SCSI port. The
>>Macintosh Plus had one from the beginning, the Macintosh SE
>>even allowed you to add a hardrive internally. In order to
>>make a IIgs usable, as most here know, that has always
>>required a hardrive. Why did Apple not ever add that?
>
>The Mac Plus was the first Mac to have built-in SCSI "from the
>beginning".  The 128K Mac and the 512K Mac did not have
>built-in SCSI.  And a IIgs is VERY usable without a hard drive,
>especially if you are Appletalked to a hard drive connected to
>a Mac, as my setup is.

The Mac Plus was introduced in 1986. The GS was introduced in 1986.
The GS had more capable hardware than the Mac Plus.  You can't
base the GS' memory requirements on computers built years earlier
(128K Mac and 512K fat Mac).  The GS needed 1MB.  Commodore also
shipped the Amiga with 256K and 512K first, but quickly realized
that for a computer of the Amiga/GS/ST class requires 1MB to do
anything useful.

The GS is not useful without a hard disk except for use as a fast
IIe.  If you wanted to use it for tasks like word processing and
page layout with TrueType fonts and laser or ink-jet printers, you
need at least 2MB (1MB for the typical GS programs of the '86
to '87 era), preferably 4MB or more.  I know this because I use
the GS for these tasks and AppleWorks GS requires 2MB to run
well and for my high resolution printer drivers, TrueType
rasterizer, and large documents to run without flaw basically
demands at least 4MB.  I make use of 8MB for decoding large
page-sized scanned documents.  To recap, even in the mid 80's,
the GS needed at least 1MB to be useful _as a GS_.  Otherwise
you'd have a fancy IIe, and most of us didn't want that.

As for AppleTalking to a Mac: how many people in 1989 would want
to buy a Mac just to use its hard drive?  This is absurd.  It
would be like if Apple said: "well, we know you Mac users need
a hard disk.  Just go buy an IBM PC and network to it to smuck
off its hard drive."  Wouldn't you be upset?


>>    Leaving these things purposely out made it clear Apple
>>was not serious about the Apple IIgs, and if you wanted a
>>"serious" product you had to buy their Macintosh. The Apple
>>IIgs was just there if you wanted an Apple made product (as
>>opposed to Commodore/Atari solutions) for school, home, hobby
>
>You are totally forgetting what markets each computer was
>aimed at that Apple produced.  The II line was ALWAYS the home
>and school computer--no businesses/corporations I know were
>using them (except small family businesses which were using
>them).

Oh no?  I remember rows and rows of "Apple IIe Professional"
systems as late as 1984 sold as a business solution and articles
in InCider about businesses that ran on networked IIe systems,
including one insurance company.  Lamps Plus was using them as
point of sale machines in 1986 (I remember seeing them quite
clearly behind the counter and the register's monitor had the
IIe 80 column screen running a POS program).

The insurance company equipped each IIe with hard drives and
5MB RamFactors.  So much for 128K being enough even for the
8-bitters.

All the early business software started on the II. VIP
Professional (a Lotus 1-2-3 clone), WordPerfect, BusinessWorks,
SuperCalc 3a. In fact, the spreadsheet was invented on an
Apple II.

Apple had to deliberately dissuade people from using the II.
First, they tried the Apple III, then the Lisa, and finally
the Mac.

>The II line was never marketed to
>the business community at large, because the business community
>chose IBM from the start only because of the association with
>IBM's mainframes

What about before the IBM PC?  Funny because IBM was using
Apple IIs on their desks as they were designing the PC.  After
IBM, the Apple II still had a hold in business.  What happened
was that paranoid Apple kept trying to steer people away, first
to the Apple III, then to the Lisa, and finally to the Mac.  The
Mac lost much money before finally making a profit.  How did it
survive the crunch years?  Simple: it smucked off Apple II sale
profits!

>and other business machines such as typewriters, etc.  The Mac
>was designed to compete with the IBM pc from the very beginning
>--the Apple II was not.

The "Apple IIe Professional" system was positioned to compete
against the IBM PC from the very beginning.  It was the better
machine (I know because I had to try to upgrade an IBM PC/XT
system and I also have one [a PC/XT] in my GS  :)  The Apple IIc
was positioned against the PCjr.  Consumer Reports said the IIc
was the better machine (PCjr. had "chicklet" keyboard) and soon,
the IIc killed the PCjr.

I agree with Mitchell: the only other personal computer that even
comes close to being as neglected as the GS is the Amiga.  In the
Amiga's case, however, Commodore tried all it knew how to in
order to promote it.  They just bungled it.  Apple, on the other
hand, had the resources to make the GS a winner but, even though
it outsold the Mac in its first year, deliberately destroyed it.

>--
>--bj   Auto reply will not work; please reply to bjbear@ibm.net
>Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984
>Barbie & Ken doll fan since 1961

B.J., since you don't have a hard drive in your GS and not enough
memory and don't run GS/OS based software, you don't know what
we are talking about.  In a sense, you are not really a GS user.
You are using the GS to run a IIe emulation (literally).  I don't
normally recommend emulators, but why don't you just get the
Bernie II emulator from Henrik Gudat and run some real GS/OS
software (available for free).  Run HyperCard IIGS and the many
things on ground that require more than a meg of memory.  Bernie
is not perfect (I'd prefer a real beefed-up GS), but at least
Bernie on a PowerMac will give you a reasonably fast simulated
GS with enough memory (allocate 8MB) and a simulated hard disk
(faster and better than AppleTalk).  Then you'll know why we say
Apple crippled the GS to kill it.  256K _never_ was enough memory
and the GS _always_ needed a hard disk and a faster 65C816
(which were definitely available by the time of the ROM 3; Bill
Mensh, the chip's designer, argued in the open with Apple's CEO
in the 1989 AppleFest about Apple's deliberate neglect of the
GS while he had _much_ faster chips available).

If you won't properly equip a GS, Bernie II is better for you
than trying to use a GS without all the parts Apple left out.

-Scott G.