Re: Yay! Finally got myself a IIgs!

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Me, too--and it runs its relatively "closed system" software quite
> well.  But because it is so wierd to develop for, given its low unit
> numbers, there is relatively little software and it didn't keep pace
> with competitive developments.
>
> I feel like the best result of the "Sara" was that it resulted in
> some good software migrating to the already-neglected Apple II,
> particularly ProDOS and Appleworks.  In many ways, the Apple ///
> prefigured the monomaniacal obsession that Apple contracted with
> the introduction of Jobs other "child", the Mac.

To me, the biggest problem was that it was not an Apple II, and was
intentionally designed to distinct, even though there are architectural
similarities.

> Someday someone will write the history of Apple as the struggle
> of an ego with a non-combatant engineer.

I think the entire board at the time believed they needed to build
something different, that would replace the II as a fair dinkum
business machine (and doesn't the Apple /// feel like it was built by
IBM)

Unfortunately, it meant we didn't see the Apple IIe until 1983, when
really, it could've been delivered substantially earlier, even 1980.
Had they just built the /// as a IIe back then, it would've been a much
smart decision.

But yes, I suppose the engineering work done on the /// paved the way
for most of the enhancements in the IIe, with the exception of the
accelerated processor (which they could have done in the IIe as well).
Ah well, what might have been.....

Does any know the bank switching arrangement the /// used? I've always
been curious, and the information seems scarce.

Matt