Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)

[Eric Dietrich <madscientist@treebranch.com >]

In article <4llcrc$dl1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> RUBYWAND, rubywand@aol.com
writes:

>     The clincher is that GS users seldom run II+/IIe software. Even when
>new wares were rather scarce, the attraction of oldies was limited to a
>few programs. Worse yet, many users ended up keeping their old II's. They
>can run old II software whether or not it's supported on the GS!

Really?  Somehow, I doubt that.  75% of the IIgs's I have seen were
bought,
and are being used as feature-rich, fast Apple IIe's.  People who 
still have Apple ][gs's need to be able to run 8-bit programs.
Who (on average) has the desk space for a IIe and a IIgs?  
And how many IIgs users out there use it as their only computer?  I find
it hard 
to believe that most folks don't have a pc or a mac somewhere on the
scene.  
I use LOTS of II+/IIe software. I even write some. 

>     How do you suppose the "pure GS" would have fared against PC
>competition which waited a full two years after GS for 320 x 200 color
VGA
>and AdLib Sound? which, just now, is moving toward a decent desktop OS?
>Given a choice of a truly new, pure, higher-performance GS and the GS
>Apple delivered in 1986, how would you vote?

A pure "GS" would have prolly been an excellent alternative to a PC,
but it seems that one of the strong points of the ][ is that nowhere
along the line did Apple decide to lopp off large amounts of
compatibility 
in trade for performance.  Your pure GS would have been nice, but would
it 
have been an Apple II?  I have been resigned to the fact that Apple ]['s
aren't
the fastest, most stable, easiest to program computers.  That simply
seems to be
the way it is.  But high performace isn't everything, even today.  There
are
still things I would rather do on an Apple IIe then on a PowerMac.


>     Is our hypothetical non-II+/IIe compatible pure GS an Apple II?
Would
>Apple II users have bought this New II in 1986? Are you kidding?! We
would
>have waltzed into the local Computer Smart showroom, bitched about
non-IIe
>compatibility, been blitzed by a super demo, and plopped down our money
on
>the spot. The "_Apple II_gs" name helps; but, it's Performance that
really
>counts.

Apple already had a high performace computer that didn't run Apple II
software.
How many of us tossed out our IIe's in favor of a Macintosh?  Apple II
users 
bought IIgs's because the had software and wanted to run it, and they had
some
hope of being able to do that on the same machine that had some nice new
capabilitys and the promise of a future.  They didn't buy the IIgs
because they
wanted something competely different. And if they did, then they left the
Apple
II world looking for it.

If the machine had come out, then sure, II users would have complained,
because 
there would have been a new platfform completely.  They would have gotten
over it.
But that never happened.  So here we are with an very ][ish Apple IIgs.

>     My point is that "Apple II" is, chiefly, a design concept. 

In your interpretation.  But if its a design concept, then you might do
better to shrug off any notion of compatibility and start from ground
zero.
PC's, Macs, Apple ]['s aren't concepts, they are implementations of
concepts.
When you build a new computer, you take what ideas you have, you see what
others
have done, and you build what you think people need.

>     Integrated: Sound, Video/Graphics, ... are built-in and
standardized.
>
>     Open and Expandable: it has Slots matched to system capabilities.
>
>     User Accessible: Firmware, Slot pin-outs & functions, key registers
>and soft-switch locations, general machine operation, I/O features,
>low-level Monitor commands and routines, etc. are all well-documented.
>
>     User Controllable: a built-in high-level language, GS-X BASIC
permits
>the average user to develop programs which harnass machine capabilities
>with reasonable efficiency.
>
>     User Affordable: The computer's price is within the range most
buyers
>allow for spending on such items.
>
>     Competitive: Feature-for-feature, the computer is a match for any
>competing machine in the same price range. 

And whats to stop any other platform from being distilled down to this?  
Yes, these are features that the Apple II has, and Yes, these are features
that would be good to have in a new computer, but are they uniquely Apple
II?
Do they make the GS-X more of a ][ then a pc or a mac?  I could cite
exapmles of
these qualities in other computers.

> Nevertheless, GS-X is more genuinely an Apple II than any machine 
> introduced in over a decade.

Sorry, but I still don't see it.

-Eric