Re: Yay! Finally got myself a IIgs!

[heuser.marcus@freenet.de]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> heuser.marcus@freenet.de wrote:
>
> > Ah, ok -- sounds uncomfortable.
>
> More like impenetrable.  ;-)

See the Apple /// - the first personal firewall!

> > In my eyes the II was the exception from the rule, anyway.
> > The later models (e/c/gs) didn't have it as standard, or am I wrong?
> > (Not to speak about Ataris or most/all Commodores)
>
> In the later machines, the info migrated to the Technical Reference
> Manual, but it was still freely available to all.

"freely" as in without additional costs for the user?

> This was inevitable, as the market expanded beyond enthusiasts, but
> even the IBM--imitating the Apple II in this way, too--provided
> Microsoft BASIC in ROM.

Didn't know that, thanks for correcting me.
On the other hand it even had a cassette port - BASIC on cassette may
have been a bit unlikely for this machine and its intended customers...

> The early market for personal computers was almost entirely people
> who were interested in them as programmable devices.  Although this
> market was much smaller than the eventual market, it was "presold"
> on the benefits of a computer, and it seeded the later market as it
> developed demonstrations, games, and applications that showed members
> of the larger market that a computer might be fun and/or useful to have.
>
> In some ways, the closed nature of the /// prefigured later machines
> (especially the Mac) that were intended to be used, not programmed,
> by their buyers.

Which is of course true and still continues.

See the new home theatre PCs that begin to "flood" the market -
pre-configured for largely only one application: The media center.
Not to speak about mobile "smart" phones with Windows variants...

> Such machines were completely dependent for their success on a willing
> cadre of application providers who would address the needs of the consumer
> market.
>
> By breaking significantly with the programming model of the Apple II,
> the Apple /// essentially reset its application provider base to zero,
> which was a very poor decision for a "second product" dependent on
> that provider base for value.

Which was a great learning example for IBM and Intel in the years
following the original PC. They provided upward compatibility at all
costs (even the dreaded A20-gate) and cemented the success of the PC.

So maybe the unsuccessful Apple /// had bigger consequences for Apple
than thought.

bye
Marcus