Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

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


>|> 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.


>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.  :)

AppleWorks was the best selling software for several years.


>
>[ snip ]
>
>|> >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,
have greater screen res, 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.

>
>|> >|> 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.


>|> Laser would have come out with IIgs clones.
>
>Why didn't they?

Because Apple didn't continue supporting the IIgs.