Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>In article pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes...
>
>>shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>>>Yeah, Apple incurred the wrath of a couple dozen piss-and-moaners who hang
>>>out there and bitch about it, while other people understand that a machine
>>>based on an 8 bit processor dating from the '70s has little viability in
>>>the '90s. Apple came out with other products to remain competitive.
>> 
>>My God, man, the Apple II of the late 80's did NOT have an 8-bit processor.
>>The Apple IIGS has a 16-bit processor.
>
>    Agreed! I'm rather tired of hearing that stereotypical response
>spoken out so often, claiming the Apple II is "'70's technology"; and
>that Apple was right to end it. The words "Apple II" seem to conjure 
>up images of a 48Kb Apple II Plus, with monochrome screen and 5.25 
>drive in people's mind. Why? The Apple II line was more than that, 
>but ever so much more so if you consider the Apple IIgs.

Well said.  Everyone seems to think that the IIgs runs Apple DOS 3.3 for
an OS.

It was a 16-bit computer with Amiga like features.  To run Apple //e
software, GS/OS has to launch //e ProDOS.  It does not normally run
under ProDOS 8.

>
>>There was no reason why it could not have evolved into a 32-bit computer, 
>>like Pentiums have evolved from the PC/XT!  The demand WAS there.  Apple 
>>chose to ignore it.
>
>    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!

Exactly.  If they could turn a PC/XT into a Pentium, they could turn
a GS into a PowerGS.  The GS even turned in profits for years with no
advertisements or improvements.  It deserved to live.

A modern GS with the features of a 15MHz 65816, SVGA, and 8MB built-in
would certainly have been possible.  People are doing it themselves
today through the computer's slots.

Also people should remember: if Apple kept the GS alive and supported
it like it supported them, GS sales would fuel WDC's R&D.  Faster 65816
chips and 32-bit versions of them would come out at a faster rate as
a result of the R&D bucks.

The future feasability was there, just never realized.


>
>    It would have been such a _simple_ matter to enhance it's design,
>it was so blatantly obviously that Apple left it in a crippled state
>on purpose. The VGC could have easily been updated to support at least
>a 640x400 mode, and 256 colors per scanline. The Ensoniq chip could have
>been given a full 128Kb of DOC-RAM, with stereo sound-out and sound-in
>connectors built-in (being forced to buy a "stereo card" was as silly 
>as selling a car without a steering wheel!). Better yet, they could 
>have dropped in newer Ensoniq chips with more DOC-RAM, as they became
>available. A reasonable amount of memory could have shipped out of the
>box (why did they wait until 1989, and then only supply 1MB?) as could
>a faster 65C816 have been incorporated. A hardrive and 3.5 floppy drive
>built-in would have been possible (as seen in the Mark Twain prototype)
>and as well numerious other bits. As time went on, the design could
>have grown and evolved. At some point the backwards compatibility with
>older II's could have been placed on a separate card, allowing Apple
>to have overcome the limited bus speed. The IIgs was two machines in
>one box don't forget.

Exactly.  Apple deliberately kept the IIGS down.  That's why they killed
the Mark Twain (and why the Mark Twain wasn't better than it could be)!


>
>>When the GS came out, the Mac sucked.  It is better now, but what Mac are
>>we talking about in '86?  The Mac Plus?  The GS was and is better than
>>the Mac Plus.
>
>    The fact of the matter is Apple purposely negelected the IIGS.
>As was stated previously in this thread, they failed to advertise
>it or reduce it's price over the years. Is there a reason the price
>remained virtually unchanged from 1986 until 1992 - when it was dropped?
>Or was there a reason why, during the 6 years Apple sold it, the only
>major update was the 'ROM 3' motherboard? The only significant advantage,
>from non-Apple users looking in from the outside: it shipped with
>a full megabyte of memory. If this was the *only* meaningful enhancement 
>Apple could come up with in 6 years, perhaps they're not as good a
>bunch of engineers as some may have thought. The Mac 128 started off
>as a very limited machine, though they somehow got it where it is 
>today. If the GS were a flop, it would have been discontinued fairly
>early in the game, but it made Apple large profits (I recall it even
>outselling the Mac one year!). Apple didn't want to kill it right away 
>because it made them profit, so they instead choose to milk it while 
>at the same time smother it (no enhancements, no ads, no cost cuts).
>There were people in the company who shared Steve Jobs' ideals, that
>there should only be the Macintosh. So despite all logic, they let
>a potentially killer product slip through their hands.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Apple used to have 54% of the
market share in the Apple II days.  Now they have around 10%.

Laser was already making II clones in the late 80's.  The II could have
been as successful as the PC in the larger arena, clones and all.

>
>>Apple could have kept compatibility and gone up to date.
>> 
>>The GS was a great example.  Compatible with the II but better than the
>>Mac of its day.
>
>    The Macintosh has come a long way since the first all-in-one 
>box unit with tiny little B&W screen. Though, from my own personal 
>experience with them (and I stress that this is an opinion ;) I find
>them rather dull and limited. Although I highly dislike the PC's
>design, I find them more attractive now since they have that opened
>design similar to the Apple II. There are all sort of cards you
>can drop in and choose different kinds of music synthesis for
>example. Yet on the Mac...? Same with operating systems too.

Yes, I too find the PC design similar to the II.

The Pentium with Win 95 is as close to a next generation II we will ever see.
Sad.


>
>    I feel it's rather too late to change things, though I think
>Apple made some very poor decisions and let the PC clone "steal"
>the market that could have been theirs.
>
>Mitchell Spector
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca

I agree.