[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS
- Subject: Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS
- From: christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
- Date: 1996/11/01
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.be, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: LEXIS-NEXIS, Dayton OH
- References: <5344fe$36v@masters0.news.internex.net> <elisha-0910962208490001@news.dot.net.au> <325C52F2.62CD@sybase.com> <53mcb6$87f@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <53tdik$l77@europa.frii.com> <54o8mq$1pm8@uni.library.ucla.edu> <326FB037.4287@eccosys.com> <54oc1n$1p3e@uni.library.ucla.edu> <54rbc2$ijt@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com> <54u4c8$285u@uni.library.ucla.edu> <5538a7$pl9@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com> <55app1$1n4o@uni.library.ucla.edu>
In article <55app1$1n4o@uni.library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes:
|> christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
|> >In article <54u4c8$285u@uni.library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes:
|> >|> Considering that the GS outsold the Mac in the first year,
|> >Do you have a source for those figures?
|> Sure, it was from Compute. They used to publish a list of the "Most
|> Popular Personal Computers."
Issue and page number would help; I'll check to see if the public
library has back issues from that long ago.
|> >|> Apple should have made a new, more advance GS after two years.
|> >|> They could easily have built a GS that eclipsed the Mac II.
|> >But it wouldn't have come close to the Mac IIci that was on sale in
|> >1988.
|> It might have. Basically, any improvement you can cite for the Mac
|> should have been possible on an extended II(GS).
"should have been possible" is not the same as "was a realistic
business option". Motorola had a lot of customers besides Apple
buying 680x0 processors, and their money, together with Apple's,
funded the development of the full 32-bit 68020, 68030, and 68040
processors. There is zero evidence that IIGS and Nintendo sales could
have generated enough revenue to fund the development of a 32-bit
version of the chip. WDC tried and failed. No 32-bit, 6502 and 65816
compatible chip, means no extended IIGS.
[ snip ]
|> >|> Well now, if Apple didn't cancel the GS and still supported it, more
|> >|> software would be around.
|> >Not with sales numbers in the hundreds of thousands per year...
|> In the //e days, when Apple provided some support, AppleWorks eclipsed
|> Lotus 1-2-3 sales. 1-2-3 was the best seller before AW.
A reference would help me accept these claims. Appleworks was very,
very good. I played with a pirated copy for about two months, and was
sufficiently impressed that I bought a copy. This would have been in
1984 or 1985. On the other hand, the software industry was in the
middle of a revolution by 1987. 1-2-3 was the fading old guard.
Lotus had all their eggs in the OS/2 basket.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood christw@lexis-nexis.com cats@CFAnet.com