Re: What specs would your Apple ][ clone have today?

["bieling@terra.es" <bieling@terra.es>]

On Apr 1, 9:35 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I think that Apple was unusually supportive of an "old" platform--
> look at the production schedule and new peripheral introductions
> for the II line far past its actual competitiveness as a platform.
> Most companies show much less reticence about leaving their early
> adopters behind as they pursue the mass market.  I attribute this
> long-tailed support for the II line as a mixture of sentimentality
> within the company for the II and the _esprit de corps_ of the
> dwindling II team.
>
> -michael

Michael,

For what I've read, I believe that Apple gave just the absolute
minimum to the Apple II line, they redesigned it to be cheaper to
build and they did it solely to increase margins because it was still
selling so well.

(Sentimentality ended for Apple at the exact minute Sculley arrived.
That same minute Apple started a trip full of errors, starring Mr.
Sculley -and friends-, while the visioneers -i.e. Woz, Jobs, or Raskin
to name 3- had nothing to say, had already left, or were fired. Apple,
the pioneer, ended in the wrong hands, managed as a Pepsi, when
managing a Pepsi-Co obviously has nothing to do with managing an Apple
Computers, Inc.)

OTOH, first Acorn's and later BBC's computers and Basic, are sons of
Roger Wilson, all the way up to the ARM and it's instruction set,
afaik. A quiet evolution of a great product orchestated mainly by a
single person's vision along many years. Quite a different story.

Jorge.