Re: Have we forgotten this newsgroup is about the _Apple2_ ????

[phillip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough)]

In article <2ouhoe$guh@paris.ics.uci.edu> jlee@ics.uci.edu (Orion Pax) writes:

[ ]

>He does have a point that the base of your argument seems kinda silly about
>the Apple IIGS is not a Apple II.  As to whether the GS could've became a
>multimedia machine, highly doubtable back then.  It was Apple Co.'s
>responsibility to advertise the IIGS as a multimedia medium (which it
>didn't do) and the GS could do only the barest of multimedia.  CD-roms
>weren't so inexpensive nor fast, you needed lots of hardware enhancements
>to the GS (memory, LD or cd-rom player, stereo card, VOC, etc) that makes
>a GS not worth the price to be paid back then since most of the stuff came
>from Apple and they were still in their premium pricing idiocy.  It takes
>so much to put in to make what the GS should have been designed, how could
>people not insist on using it as a fast IIe?

At the time that the GS was still a going concern it did in fact make for 
a very cost effective "multimedia" system. Despite all the hype, CD-ROM 
is not what multimedia is all about. I remember giving talks using 
HyperStudio and a VOC for a fraction of the cost of using a MacIIci with
$2000 cards to input and output NTSC. The only system which was better than
the GS, although it had its shortcomings, was an Amiga. The Amiga still is
an excellent multimedia computer. the Mac, in my opinion, is not. It's a
very nice system, but it's simply too expensive for what it can do in the
video arena. As you might guess I simply consider Quicktime unimportant at
this time.

Go back a few years and price some of the NTSC ou cards for the Mac, Director
from Macromind, etc...

>To make a fair comparison, look up how hard a time Apple had in convincing
>the tight cliques of business world that the Mac was not a toy. Their
>multimillion advertising was impressive to the public, but not to the
>business people.  The way the Mac made it was through desktop publishing
>where it impressed enough people to give it a second look.  It then slowly
>spread by word of mouth and then through educational sources.  Now, it's
>a common buzzword.  You say Macintosh to somebody and they'll definitely
>remember the Mac pluses from school, but then they'll remember all the
>neat stuff they saw Macs do on tv or heard from friends.  Sure aren't
>hurt being a "toy" computer in the past.

The point is that the GS brought in a lot of new concepts, but it was 
hampered by an image of over the hill.

>Another contrast is PC's.  They're pieces of crap back then and they still
>are now, but they are well supported and heavily advertised.  They also
>got enough raw horsepower and openess in its architecture for people to
>fiddle with and do what they want.  Sure aren't hurt by being a XT 
>previously nor still running an unfriendly, archaic OS.

PC's are not pieces of crap. They make for very cost effective Unix boxes. I
have one running NEXTSTEP which I wouldn't trade for any Mac.

>Therefore, just saying a computer is not what it is doesn't change its
>design limitations and roots.  Image matters less.  Here's the
>argument, if Apple Co continued upgrading the IIGS, being an Apple II
>would not have hurt it.  A Quadra is world's away from a Mac plus.  A
>486 is world's away from a XT, but a GS is only a step away from a IIe.

An SE is very close to a Mac+. There was no reson for the GS to be close
to the IIe. The fact that Apple chose to market it that way or whatever
is neither here nor there. I never used an AppleII. I have already indicated
that I can't stand computers without sound ( the C64 has better sound than 
the II). The GS was roughly the price of my AppleCare renewal on my ci, at
the time I bought it. Since all I needed was a terminal, local editor, 
etc...the ci was overkill. As it stands, Apple went through a period when
they gave up the notion of a personal computer, and I'm not sure they have
ever regained it. They lost me as a longtime Mac user, and I doubt that I
am alone.

>Btw, do you see these computers (mac, pc) denying their roots and previous
>incarnations?

I don't see them promoting them.

>Joseph

-- 
Philip McDunnough                    OR     P. McDunnough (U of Toronto-stats)
philip@utstat.toronto.edu (NeXT Mail)       phillip@utstat.toronto.edu (no NeXT)
[Where sheep may safely graze...]           [Where sheep bite...]