Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>In article <24OCT199621281979@vax2.concordia.ca>,
>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>    Agreed! I'm rather tired of hearing that stereotypical response
>>spoken out so often, claiming the Apple II is "'70's technology"; and
> 
>Yeah, but there's no getting around the fact that all Apple IIs use a processor
>derived from a chip which debuted in '75. Staying compatible means sacrifices
>in power. The Pentium is pushing the limits of performance since it still
>can execute 8086 code. The PPC is not encumbered like that.

    At least the 65C816 debuted 10 years later in 1985, with significant
changes and improvements. The 68000 is older than that, and evolved from 
the 8-bit 6800. :) 

>>    I have little doubt that continuing the original 8-bit Apple II 
>>design wouldn't have made sense in today's market, but not the GS. 
>>I hate seeing it lumped in with the rest of the Apple II's as far 
>>as any future feasibility would have been concerned! 
> 
>Computers don't improve without newer processors. No successor to the
>65816 ever left the design phase.

    If Apple had shown an interest in the Apple IIgs (or even a faster
65C816 for that matter), WDC probably would have finished the 32-bit
65C832 design. In any case, even a faster 65C816 would have done 
wonders for helping the GS.

>Memory was still expensive even when the ROM 3 came out. It went through
>the roof in mid '88, when a set of eight 256K DRAMs was ~$120. Gotta keep
>in mind the time context. No faster processors were available, memory was
>expensive, and hard disks were unholy expensive. It's easy to forget that
>in these days of $200 gigabyte hard disks and $100 16 mb SIMMs.

    True, I remember that all too well (I recall paying several hundred
dollars just to add 768K to my Apple IIgs Memory Expansion Card in 1988).
Still, why was it the Macintosh II, SE and Plus continued to ship with 1MB 
RAM as standard in 1988, while the Apple IIgs shipped with only 256K? It
was no less expensive to supply those machines with that amount of RAM.
As well, the II and SE had support for internal hardrives which you had
the option of buying, why didn't Apple do the same for the Apple IIgs?

    So that argument holds when you just focus on one computer, but then
falls to pieces when you see the _same_ company shipping their _other_
computers with these supposedly "unaffordable" extras. I see a bias here,
when a Mac Plus could ship with 1MB, but not a IIgs. The GS *required* that
1MB of RAM for running software just as much as the Mac Plus! Also, keep in
mind Apple bought things like memory and hardrives in bulk, so they paid 
much less than the public. I don't buy these excuses...

>If you want a new up do date computer with Apple II compatibility on a card,
>all you need is a Powermac with a PCI Apple II card to go in it. Would everyone
>be happy if there were such a card?

    No, many wouldn't. Not everyone wants a Macintosh (even if it can run
Apple II/IIgs software - the PowerMac with 'GuS' is a good example of that).
Besides, doing so makes running that software a novelty amusement, at most.
I see software emulation (or a hareware card) acting as a bridge, until you
finally convert totally over to the new system (Apple II->Macintosh). I doubt
any people with GuS will be using AppleWorks GS, when they can use MS-Word
or PageMaker on the same machine.

    I wanted an enhanced Apple IIgs, not a Macintosh. The two are not the
same, even though they may externally look and (to some extent) even feel
and act the same.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca