[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Complete Basic?



Charlie wrote:
"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com">news:lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com...

*** much snipped ***


The original Apple II "idea" was that its considerable capabilities
were accessible out-of-the box to anyone who was patient and could
read--a true "bicycle for the mind."

By contrast, the Apple IIgs (like the III before it) had even greater
capabilities, but access to them was wrapped in prodigious complexity
and locked up by the absence of out of the box documentation and tools.


Ah..., now you've hit on what I believe are the true reasons that the Apple IIgs was different. No toolbox documentation out of the box and no built in GS specific BASIC.


I still say that the IIgs, like the III, departed radically from the
original Apple II idea of *accessible computer power*, and having Woz's
signature on the case of the first 50,000 or so was irony.


Well, departed yes, radically no, I can't see that. After all the IIgs still has nearly all the capabilities of the other Apple IIs (more than the Apple IIc in my opinion) and the bundled documentation deteriorated with all the later Apple IIs.

It's not "compatibility" that makes a machine an Apple II--it's the
whole spirit of the thing--the way the case snaps open, the way it
greets you with a "program me" prompt when you turn it on!

(That's why I can't get excited about emulation of a II on a modern
structural behemoth.)

-michael

NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."