Re: Apple ///?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

ps10600@cedarnet.org wrote:
>In article <1APR199702301346@vax2.concordia.ca>,
>  spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>> >>     As things turned out, the Apple III was a miserable failure and
>> >>so was the Apple Lisa. Despite that, the Apple II not only kept the
>> >>company afloat, but highly profitable too (which came as a surprise
>> >>to management at the Apple Computer). Oddly enough, Apple once again
>> >>decided to try and replace the Apple II, this time with the Macintosh,
>> >>but yet again their new computer didn't do to well and _again_ it was
>> >>the Apple II that kept the company afloat and profitable. By the late
>> >>80's the Mac was strong enough to stand on it's own though, so this
>> >>3rd replacement had worked out. Ironically though, now that Apple has
>> >>finally killed off the Apple II, it doesn't look like the company will
>> >>have any future. :)
>
>Yep..IBM killed off the PC Jr and Commodore killed off the Vic20..  Whats
>your point?

Hey, Beavis: you could take your PC Jr software to your PC and your
Vic20 software to your C64 and then Amiga from DAY ONE.

Apple trashed their II customers by not making the Mac capable of
running II software.  The GS proved that they could do so.

Randy S., don't start posting about how your PowerMac can run GS
emulation.  You know that's not the same.  There is a seven year
gap when the Mac COULDN'T run II software, which drove many customers
to the PC.  Also, the GS emulation is not the same.  With sound
turned on, it is slower than a real GS and some emulators don't
even have sound.  Until Apple makes a PowerMac that has a PPC
native GS version of the Toolbox, I don't consider Macs capable
of running GS software.  (A Pentium running Executor to use Mac
software in emulation is not a Mac)

The GS outsold the entire Mac line in the first year, but Apple
neglected it and developed the inferior Mac Plus.  If a Mac Plus
can turn into a PowerMac and an 8088 can turn into a Pentium PC,
an evolved, modern GS, would be superior to today's Macs.


>Apple needed to refocus on their bread and butter, The Mac divsion.  Apple
>was
>getting distracted by working on hundreds of projects that eventualy
>failed to
>bring to the bottom line.  Apple focused and reduced R&D to get their
>finances
>in order.  Same thing will eventually will happen to Microsoft in the
>future.
>Microsoft is spreading outside of their OS and app business to content
>areas
>and other markets not related to their core business.  This will be their
>undoing!

Apple deliberately trashed their bread and butter Apple II devision
when it was still generating more money than the Mac devision.  This
was back in 1986.


>
>>     With all the PC can do (preemptive multitasking, real music synthesis,
>> complex games, more variety/expandability, etc.) which the Mac can't do or
>> offer at the moment, along with the fact PC clones are cheaper, custom
>> configurable and more available -- not to mention have a GUI more than
>> comparable to the Finder -- how does Apple expect to survive? The PowerMac
>> hasn't exactly made people stop dead in their tracks and jump back to
>> Apple, nor has System 7.5.6 made much of a splash in the computer world.
>> I may sound like I'm putting down the Mac, but there needs to be significant
>> _advantages_ to make people think twice before rushing out and buying a
>> generic PC clone. The argument about easy of use and plug'n'play doesn't
>> cut it anymore, PC's have or are quickly catching up in that area, so what's
>> left? I'm not much of a PC fan, but when it came time to choose between the
>> two, I found more pluses on the PC side.
>
>Have you talked to wintel 95 users lately.  Many are pissed that their DOS
>games do not work properly.  Plug and pray is alive and well in Redmond.

I have Win95.  Works great.  I use IBM's OS/2 partition manager to
install multiple OS partitions on one computer.  With a flip of the
switch, it goes from Win95 to Win3.1 to DOS 6.2 to OS/2.  Amazing.

With an Executor partition, the PC user can even run Mac software.


>
>As for your asertion that PC clones are cheaper is fallacy and shows that
>you
>have not been in the Mac picture for awhile.
>180 mhz PowerMacs from Apple(6400/180), Motorola and APS can be had for
>$1199
>which includes CD rom, adequate memory and HD size.  You can purchase OEM
>Motorola Mac OS motherboards with processors starting in the $500 range.

You can get a Pentium PC from discount catalog places such as
Damark for about $600.

>
>There are significant advantages for the Mac is their strength in
>multimedia,
>internet and digital video.  True plug n play.  Can't say the same for
>wintel.

You've obviously not seen the Amiga.  It could do, back in the
68000 days when the Mac was still a Mac Plus, what your vaunted
Macs can do only recently.  Had Commodore survived, modern Amigas
would be wiping the floor with the Mac (and PC for that matter).

Want to talk about multimedia?  The first season of Babylon 5
and SeaQuest were done on Amigas with Video Toasters.

The GS could have evolved in the direction of the Amiga, with
the addition of a blitter chip (TurboRez on the motherboard?).
The GS sound was even better.


>
>>
>>     Apple has had a history of abandoning it's users in terms of support.
>> I've seen it done with the Apple III, the Lisa and first hand as an
>> Apple II owner (lately I've even seen repeating trends with the Mac).
>> It's rather like patting a dog and getting your hand bit, your not going
>> to try and pat the dog again so quickly. Still, this is only part of it,
>> just a bad taste in my mouth and probably others out there. If Apple were
>> selling technology I liked, I'd probably hold back my gripes and purchase
>> from them again. Unfortunately the Mac has failed to catch my interest,
>> and I'm turned off by the low-quality hardware they're now being made up
>> of (at one time if you bought Apple hardware, you _knew_ it was quality,
>> but today they're cutting back and throwing any junk at the users in hopes
>> that they'll be computer "newbies" and not know any better). There is
>> a whole list of reasons why I don't see a future for Apple, and there
>> most likely won't be, unless things drastically change...
>
>Apple gave Lisa users a price break on Mac Plus with HD's as I recall.
>Apple's
>quality has risen with the new PowerBook and Desktop line released in the
>last
>month.  And you think PC hardware is quality?

HP has one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings.  They are
PC makers.


>>
>> >I'm still having trouble figuring how people think the II could still be
>> >a state of the art platform in the late '90s, held back by '70s architecture.
>> >Apple could do a PCI card like their Pentium DOS card, or offer Gus as a
>> >free product, but only running on an up to date platform.
>>
>>     I'm talking about the Apple IIgs, it was different from the rest of
>> the Apple II line. You won't get any argument from me about pushing the
>> Apple IIe, IIc or IIc+ in the 90's, that would have been a mistake. They
>> could however, have updated the IIgs, just as they did with the original
>> Mac 128 (as someone else mentioned here a few months ago). Had they done
>> that, I'll bet they wouldn't have lost most of the home and education
>> market to PC clones. They had their foot in the door there, but yanked it
>> out and came back later with Macs as a solution -- bad move (yes, the Mac
>> is a fine computer, but an evolved IIgs would have been a better solution
>> for home users and schools. Or at the very least, Apple could have held
>> onto that market longer). What was even the point of the IIgs if they
>> were just planning to kill it all along?
>
>Apple eliminated some of the bumps to upgrade to the Mac from the Apple II
>era.  Most of the peripherals such as printers and external drives worked
>on the Mac eliminating some cost.

How about running my GS software library, back in 1986-92, when it
still counted?

>
>The Apple IIGS and the II came to end of the life cycle.  It was not
>feasible
>to continue the II line with miniscule improvements.  Apple wanted to get
>their Apple II k-12 customers on the Mac via the Mac LC to thwart any
>wintel
>penetration.  The Mac is the ultimate k12 computer than the II is today.
>Apple did provide a II card for the LC so schools could preserve their
>Apple
>II software library and investment.
>
>Apple did support the Apple II technology as long as they could.  Do
>manufactures of 8086, 286 and 386 PC's still support those line?

Yes they still support those lines.  That's why your '86, '286, and
'386 software will run on the latest Pentium hardware.  Most Pentiums
still have one or two 8-bit ISA slots to support your hardware as
well.

What do we get from Apple?  Trashed for a decade and then a bad
emulator with no sound, and no hardware support at all.  This
emulation was deliberately put aside until this late stage, when
the II is now completely killed (can't have Macs running II software
in 1986...hey, maybe if we did that, people wouldn't by Mac native
software [sarcasm]).


>
>
>> >>the advanced features of the machine. By purposely crippling the product,
>> >>this shows just what kind of company Apple Computer is (things didn't change
>> >>years later when the Apple IIgs was introduced, it too had things purposely
>> >>crippled or left out so to force you to buy them as extras). As for software,
>> >>little was really written, other than business applications and productivity
>> >>software.
>
>Made no sense for the consumers to invest in a GS system because of the
>end of
>the life cycle.  Apple knew it and that why they made sure that their
>peripherals were cross platformed compatible with the Mac.

If the GS was at the end of its life cycle in 1986, then how come Apple
generated a completely new motherboard design with custom VLSIs?

The GS design is completely different from that of 8-bit Apple IIs and
was superior in many ways to the Mac of its day, the Mac Plus.  It could,
for example, address more memory than the Plus, had more horizontal res
than the Plus, had slots, had a true grayscale unlike the Plus, had a
20-bit color palette (4096 colors) to the Plus' black and white, and had
the first ADB bus.

Since the Mac Plus was obviously an inferior design than the GS, why
did they push it instead of the GS?  Answer: to force the Apple II
users to pay big bucks and upgrade to the Mac.  Gotta keep the cash
coming.  If they schools got the GS, they could keep their old II's.
Greedy Apple wanted BIG cash.  Guess what happen?  Dissatisfied users
went to the PC instead.

Now Apple's in trouble.  Will they ever learn?

>
>>     Apple is not some kindhearted, caring company. In fact they don't
>> even seem capable of making levelheaded business decisions (putting
>> so much effort into killing a successful product is not a way to be
>> profitable). I disagree with people who blindly bash the Macintosh
>> because Apple choose it over the Apple II (I like to judge a machine
>> for the machine itself, not the company) but by the same token, I
>> no more like it when Apple blindly praise Apple and pretend what
>> they did in the past didn't happen (or try and find logic in it).
>
>What ever...Apple's K-12 customers were telling Apple to make a line of
>low
>cost Mac line for them.  The bulk of the Apple II installed base were to
>the
>education/k12 market.  Apple has done well responding to their needs and
>still
>is today with their recent roll out of the PowerMac 5500 and 6500 line.
>
>Apple's K-12 customers indicated to Apple that they need to move on with
>the
>Mac and away from the Apple II.

Then why has Apple lost market share?  Why have the schools started
to migrate to the PC instead of the Mac (Randy S., I saw the web
article and it is obviously a biased sample...show me something not
on Apple's site?).

The only reason schools are dropping the II is because there is no
new II.  If there was a new II with modern features, they'd pick it
over the Mac.  It is only logical, to protect their software investment.

-Scott G.