Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>In article <53mcb6$87f@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Shane <zatezalo.2@osu.edu> wrote:
>>George Van Treeck <treeck@sybase.com> wrote:
>>Ah, but Apple *killed* the II - the demand never dropped. And if you
>>think Apple came out of it w/ no ill-effects, just go visit
>>comp.sys.apple2 for a bit.
>
>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.  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.

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.


>
>I was talking to some wintel jockeys at work the other day and mentioned that
>the current Mac system software still runs on a Mac which debuted in '86.
>This brought sneers and a line about how they wouldn't want to run an OS which
>can run on something that old. Such is the mindset of the computer buying
>public. Apple would be long dead and forgotten if they still only had 6502 
>boxes.

Gee, IBM compats are doing pretty well and they still run PC/XT software.
They are doing better than Macs!


>
>Some people seem to think that Apple could still sell Apple IIs if they still
>made 'em. Imagine yourself at an Apple dealer, looking at say a Powermac 8500
>and an Apple II sitting side by side. Take a wild guess which box will attract
>the attention of John Q. Computerbuyer. Some say a 50 mHz, 32 mb, Apple II
>with this or that feature would sell. When Mr. Computerbuyer asks if it will
>run Mac software and is told it will not, then asks if it runs windows soft-
>ware and is told it will not, and then, flabbergasted, asks just what exactly
>it does run and gets a blank stare from Joe Salesdroid, just imagine how many
>would sell.

Well of course!  The Apple II has been absent for years.  If it remained
all those years (Apple did not kill it), then John would be asking
if it runs **Apple II/GS** software.  If he asks about Windows, well hey,
AE would still be alive and the PC Pentium Transporter would be around!

>
>People who still like/use Apple IIs should keep right on using Apple IIs if
>they get the job done for them, but not bitch and gripe because Apple had to
>come out with more up to date products. Apple supported 'em for far longer
>than any computer company has supported old products.

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.