Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)]

In article <55apdo$1n4o@uni.library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes:
|> christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
|> >|> Some Apple II's were.  The IIc/IIe/IIc+ were argurably largely 80's
|> >|> technology.

|> >They were always 8-bit machines with a 64K address spaces.  Some fancy
|> >tricks to push that address space, but it really got in the way. 

|> True.  But the 8-bit Apples probably had the best 8-bit processor.


Conceded.  On the other hand, the only 8-bit processor whose legacy is
still with us is the 8080.  It's legacy is with us, but no processor
claims compatibility with 8-bit code.  The IIGS was the last.

|> It could keep up with Intel 8088 chips four times greater in MHz
|> and implemented bank switching to get around the 64K address space.

Bank switching clearly qualifies as "fancy tricks".  You can't argue
that it gets in the way, even more than the 8086's segment registers
did. 

|> >|> The Apple IIGS was DEFINETLY NOT '70s technology.  It has a
|> >|> 16-bit CPU and an Ensoniq chip that was not even around in the
|> >|> 70s!

|> >The 65816 had a "mode bit"; read Tracy Kidder's "The Soul of a New
|> >Machine" for why that wasn't an elegant solution to the problem.

|> It had the best sound of any personal computer in its day.

As Creative Labs has shown, synthesizer chips can be bolted onto any
box.  The 65816 suffered from architectural compromises.  It would
have taken more engineering dollars to keep the performance comperable
to other chips availaible (e.g. 680x0 and 80x86), and it had the
smallest sales volume.  Plus the 32-bit question.  680x0 was a pure
32-bit chip.  I'm not qualified to talk about the architecture
differences between 8086 vs 80286 vs. 80386.

|> >All I can do is agree to disagree.  I own a //e, so I wore those
|> >shoes.  The Apple II line was doomed, because there wasn't enough
|> >volume to generate the revenue needed to engineer the next
|> >generation of the chip.

|> Nonsense.  It generated enough revenue to make the Mac.  :)

The Appple II made enough money for Apple to start over with a clean
slate.  Apple II profits are probably what let Macintosh live, while
Atari ST and Amiga didn't.

|> AppleWorks was the best selling software for several years.

While Lotus was sliding, and before Microsoft cornered the
Applications market.

|> >|> >I did an awful lot with a //e.  Boy was I proud when I counted up
|> >|> >all the RAM chips, and realized that I nearly had half a megabyte.

|> >|> But that's not the Apple II that people see as having had a
|> >|> future.  They saw the 4-8MB GS with the hard disk and a CPU the
|> >|> speed of a Mac LC.

|> >|> That's the Apple II system that many csa2 readers have.

|> >Possibly, after they got done adding 14 MHz accelerators, etc...  But
|> >they paid a lot more for the maxed-out IIGS than the Mac LC cost, and
|> >got a lot less.  The best screen resolution was still 640x200.

|> If Apple built those features in, it would cost no more than a Mac
|> LC, 

I disagree.  Getting the fundamental architecture right has
advantages, and a 16 MHz 32-bit processor on a 16-bit data bus is
going to beat a 14 MHz 16-bit processor running on an 8-bit bus.  The
LC spent some of that speed driving twice as many pixels at twice the
bit depth, and ended up faster, cheaper, and better.  If you make the
screens comperable, the IIGS+ would lose the performance competition.

|> have greater screen res, 

Huh?

|> and still had seven expansion slots, unlike the LC.  It is always
|> cheaper for the manufacturer to build the feature than for users to
|> add it.  The slots at least give that choice.

But the slots cost money -- for the user and for the engineering
staff, even when they're empty.  Compare the Mac IIx (six slot) and
the IIcx (three slot) prices.  Count the circuit boards users actually
put into those slots.

|> >|> >|> The Apple II line was more than that, but ever so much more
|> >|> >|> so if you consider the Apple IIgs.

|> >|> >But the IIGS was always underpowered compared to the competition.

|> >|> No.  It had, out of the box, IBM PC/AT speed and a fabulous
|> >|> synthesizer chip.  It was like an Amiga, but purposefully held
|> >|> back (it could have been faster than the AT).

|> >The problem was, it came out at least a year after the PC/AT, and
|> >only six months before the Macintosh II.

|> Apple should have made a GS II instead of a Mac II.

I disagree.  Mac II made the Macintosh acceptable to mainstream
business.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@CFAnet.com