Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>In article <54u17v$1i9i@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
> <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>[major snippage since it's pointless to discuss what could/should have been
>done at this point]

You were arguing that Apple abandoned the II because its hardware was not
as extensable as the Macs.  We proved that the original IIGS was as capable
as the Mac of its day, the Mac Plus.  Therefore, your original argument is
flawed.

>
>>WHAT new apps can you run on the Plus?  You can run new apps created by
>>GS programmers on the GS.
>
>The current versions of Wordperfect and Microphone Pro, to give examples of
>apps I use regularly.

That must be slow...

WordPerfect was available on the IIGS until a few years ago.  If Apple
supported the IIGS, we'd also have a current version.  However, thanks
to its slots, you can run the current version of WordPerfect for DOS on
the GS with the help of a PC Transporter.


>>You don't understand.  I'm not saying we should force the OS to work on old
>>model computers.  GS/OS dosn't run on a //e.  I'm saying we should maintain
>>BACKWARD compatibility.  The Pentium can run MS-DOS!  The GS can run ProDOS!
>>This does not mean you have to make Windows 95 run on an XT or GS/OS run
>>on a //e!
>
>Listen up, because I'm only gonna say this once. The Mac Plus can run the
>current Mac system. The //e could never run GS/OS. When you say "force the
>OS to work on old computers", you're trying to say make something run on a
>box it could never run on. When I talk about running systems on old boxes,
>I mean maintaining compatibility with an old box which could at one time run
>that system. There's an important difference. Microsoft is axing compatibility
>with old boxes the way I say axing compatibility.

Let me answer that.  The //e could run "Apple II System Software".  When the
IIGS came out, Apple decided to make a clean break and design a pure 16-bit
OS, GS/OS.  GS/OS retains the ability to run the old 8-bit stuff, though,
because ProDOS 8 is bundled with it.  GS/OS is the current Apple II System
Software.

This is exactly what you are talking about.  DOS and Win 1.0 could run on
an XT.  Today, you have the Pentium.  It runs Win 95.  The XT could never
run Win 95.  The Pentium, however, can still run old XT software.

The next Mac OS will only run on PowerMacs.  It has never worked on 680x0s
before.  But it will retain the ability to run 680x0 Mac softeare.


>Read my explanation again if you still don't get it. They're axing support
>for machines which once were supported for the sake of improving performance
>on newer boxes.

Apple II System Software used to support the //e, but for the sake of
improving performance, they axed //e support when it was upgraded to GS/OS.


>
>>Have you ever used a Mac Plus?  I have.
>>Have you ever used an Apple IIGS?  I have.
>>The Apple IIGS was a better machine.
>
>I own one Mac Plus and five IIgses. I can do more up to date, real world stuff
>with my Plus than I can with my IIgses. They are nice boxes, but they never had
>very many quality native apps. So like I say, depends on how you look at it
>which one you say is better. If you look at each sitting on a desk running the
>finder, you'd say a IIgs is better. If you try to get some work done, you'll
>give the Plus the nod.

That Mac Plus is so slow running new Mac software designed with faster
machines in mind that I'd honestly prefer AppleWorks GS running on a IIGS
for things like word processing.  The output, after all, is the same.
Besides, on the IIGS you can play music while you work.  Try THAT on a Plus!

The lack of apps is not the fault of the computer.  The IIGS is capable
of running apps with modern features.  They would have been written had
Apple supported it.

Software aside, the IIGS is definitely better.  Put a Plus and a GS side
by side each running HyperCard (an example of an app available on both).
I would go with the GS.


>
>>Macs are fine machines today.  If a fine Mac could evolve from a sucky Mac
>>Plus, a GREAT Apple II could have evolved from the superior GS!
>
>So what would be the point, in these days of affordable Macs? The appeal of
>the II in the olden days was to allow mortals to experience Apple computing.
>Since mortals can afford a Mac now, who's gonna buy a non Mac Apple product?


An open architecture hackers machine rather than a closed box.  Support for
a command line as well as a GUI.  A computer whose OS revolves around
multimedia.  A modern synthesizer chip (new Ensoniqs) built in, probably
tied in to an ADB based (music) keyboard for composition.