Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[xyzzy@ponyexpress.net (Edward Franks)]

pubpc1@library.ucla.edu says...

[Snip]

> Let me answer your "horsepower" assertion first.  A couple of years
> ago, a friend who owned an Amiga 500 took the source code for one
> of the Amiga system utilities index benchmarks and recompiled the
> code on both the IIGS and an original IBM PC/AT.  Based on this
> benchmark, the IBM PC/AT (a 6MHz '286 without a '287 math
> co-processor) benchmarked 510.  The IIGS made 595.  The Amiga 500
> scored 610.  The Amiga 500 uses an MC68000 processor, so the
> result should be representative of, say, a Mac Plus as well.
> 
> Where is the "lots more horsepower?"  The IIGS basically ran at
> the speed of computers of its day!
> 

	Not an acceptable comparison.  What _type_ of benchmark was 
this?  Graphics, CPU, I/O?  Also, the compiler (and code!) has a 
profound affect on the speed of the code.
	I'm not saying that you are lying, but without hard data to 
evaluate your benchmark we can't trust it.  Benchmarking accurately is 
difficult to do across different platforms.  Without the details most 
computer people discount benchmarks because we have seen too many 
marketdroids misuse them.

[snip]

> Set up an early Amiga running Alter Beast and a IIGS running Task
> Force and you could swear that one company made both machines.
> Once back in the desktop, though, it is clear that the IIGS has the
> better GUI and quality apps.  The Amiga has pre-emtive MT built
> into the OS, though.  In this respect, it was superior to most other
> PCs of its day.

	The Amiga OS is _still_ an amazing OS.  Microsoft could learn a 
lot from the multitasking of the Amiga (and UI issues from GEOS 
<grin>).

[snip]

> Regarding someone's assertion that Apple II's were not in business,
> business software was developed first on the Apple IIs.  The first
> spreadsheet, VisiCalc was developed on a II.  The first integrated
> software, AppleWorks, was developed on the II.  Were early Apple II's
> in business?  Sure.  I see Apple ads in circa 1980 magazines
> advertising the II for business.  For several years, according to
> Compute, Family Computing, Incider, and A+ magazines, AppleWorks
> outsold all software packages, IBM ones like Lotus 1-2-3 included.

	How many of the 'sold' copies of AppleWorks came bundled with a 
computer?  (Microsoft, among others, uses this trick to inflate their 
figures.)
	Yes, Visicalc was developed on an Apple II, but Lotus 1-2-3 1A 
(on an IBM) was a superior product to Visicalc (on an Apple).  For one 
thing you could build a larger spreadsheet on 1-2-3 than you could on 
Visicalc.
	By the way, I've used both.


> It was not that the II was doing bad.  Apple had a 54% market share.
> Its strength was not in the home, but in the schools where PCs
> had a hard time competing.  Commodore had the home market, but
> Apple IIs were strong competitors there too because they were in
> the schools.  When IBM appeared, it is true that many businesses
> shifted from the II to the PC (not because the original IBM PC was
> better, but because "Big Blue" was a respected maker of business
> hardware like typewriters and mainframes), but the II was still
> prominent (witness software like BusinessWorks, AppleWorks,
> SuperCalc 3a, WordPerfect, even Lotus 1-2-3 clones like VIP
> Professional - slap in a CP/M card and you could also run WordStar
> and dBASE).  Why Apple lost the computer wars was because they chose
> to abandon the successful II series, thus alienating users, and
> starting up new with the Mac.  Remember, I am not saying we should
> sell Apple II Pluses today.  What I am saying is Apple should have,
> based on the GS outselling the Mac Plus in its first year (source:
> Compute's list of the best selling personal computers), came out
> with a GS II instead of a Mac II - followed by a GS IIcx, GS IIci,
> leading to a PowerGS today.

	I would contend that Apple's strength in the education market 
really started when Apple started targeting Macs at universities and 
other schools.  Yes, schools had bought Apple IIs before, but schools 
also bought a lot of C64s and (ugh) TRS-80s.

	Humm.  I think in some ways the IBM PC was better.  For example, 
640K memory space versus 64K.  After Lotus 1-2-3 started selling so 
well, many software companies starting making native apps for the IBM 
PC.
	Also, the IBM PC fit into the work environment better.  A 
detached keyboard is easier to use than the integrated one on the 
Apple II.

	Slap in a CP/M card and you have a CP/M clone, not an Apple II.  
CP/M apps hurt the Apple II because companies were less likely to 
develop a native Apple II version.  Do you realize who sold the most 
Apple II CP/M cards?  Microsoft.  They used the cards to keep from 
having to develop native Apple II apps.

	Apple management was trying to bury the Apple II ever since the 
Apple ///.  The Mac was a continuation of an already existing trend.

[Snip]

Edward

-- 

Edward Franks
efranks@msn.com
xyzzy@ponyexpress.net

-==(UDIC)==- Fortran Dragon

Microsoft Certified Product Specialist: Windows 3.1

Now _where_ is my sliderule?