Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
>In article <24OCT199621281979@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) writes:
>
>|>     Agreed! I'm rather tired of hearing that stereotypical response
>|> spoken out so often, claiming the Apple II is "'70's technology";
>
>It was.

Some Apple II's were.  The IIc/IIe/IIc+ were argurably largely 80's
technology.

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!

>
>|> and that Apple was right to end it. 
>
>They were.

No.  It was their biggest mistake.


>
>|> 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?
>
>Because most people's experiences with Apple IIs were with that
>caliber machine.  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.

>
>|> 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).

 
>
>|> >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! 
>
>Apple was the only customer for 65816s in any appreciable quantity.
>By the time the IIGS came around, 286s at 12 to 16 MHz were popular.
>The only places that were buying GSs were places that already had
>Apple IIs.  The II market wasn't growing at anywhere near the same
>rate as PCs.

Ah, those 12-16MHz '286 did not come out until later.  They were expensive.
WDC had 6-8MHz '816 chips available by then which were about the speed of
12-16MHz '286's.


>
>All of your engineering updates would have cost money, and Apple
>couldn't project enough sales to generate a return on the investment. 
>My other comments on Alpha vs. PPC RISC processors applied to the
>65c816 vs. 68000.  By the time the IIGS came out, Macintosh had taken
>flight.

That's not true.  The IIgs, in its first year, was outselling the Mac.
Laser would have come out with IIgs clones.