Re: Woz's comments on Apple's handling of the II line etc.

["John Van Winkle" <appleiieman@charter.net>]

"Rubywand" <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
4158ABC6.BB0A419@swbell.net">news:4158ABC6.BB0A419@swbell.net...
>
>      Pretty interesting. All the talk about the Apple III is a bit weird.
> Back in early 80's, Apple II users were only vaguely aware it existed. We
> viewed it as Apple's somewhat inept stab at the business market. For sure,
it
> had zero appeal to home users.
>
>      That the III was Apple's -Big Project- for 3-4 years is a real
surprise.
> How do you spend that much time and effort on a product and come up with
such
> a turkey?
>
>      You'd figure they would have immediately contracted for a 16-bit
65xxx
> uP and designed for stuff like good color graphics, sound, and hard disk.
Of
> course, then, they would have had the IIx. Bad news because a II couldn't
be
> a 'business machine'.
>
>      Apple always messed up on Vision; the company didn't have one. Funny
> that the committed Apple II, Atari, and C64 home users had it right about
> what mattered-- i.e. user base. You win in the home market and everything
> else falls in your lap.
>
>      From 1979-1982, II users did not especially notice the absence of
> company support. There was so much 3rd-party hardware and software plus
> support via magazines that Apple's non-support wasn't a big concern. For
> instance, Beagle, not Apple, solved the DOS 3.3 speed problem-- the
speeded
> DOS 3.3 worked so well that it took years for ProDOS to make much headway.
>
>      The IIgs definitely lacked developer support; small wonder! Building
in
> 8-bit compatibility resulted in complex hardware and complex software. Had
it
> been a pure new '816 design with hard disk and a Slot for adding an 8-bit
II
> board, everything could have been vastly simpler. A good IIgs BASIC would
> have been easy. There would have been flocks of developers writing
> applications; and, System would have been much easier to develop and
> maintain.
>
>      It's too bad Woz did not emerge as more of a II activist-- someone
who
> publicly criticized the company, lobbied stock holders, published IIx
plans
> in magazines, attended user rallies, ... . We could have gotten a Super II
in
> 1985.
>
>
> Rubywand

In my opinion, I think Woz was pushed out by "big business" thinking they
could do things better than a lone "hobbyist".  Woz had vision and great
ideas, just didn't want to run a business.  That's what Jobs did.  And when
the business began to run him (off), that's when Apple began to have
problems with new machine designs and thinking the A2 was dead when it was
selling well.  I wonder what Apple would be like today if Woz had stayed
with them and used his ideas.