Re: Apple III question (couldn't find a 3 group to ask)

[exegete@nunya.biz]

Roger Johnstone wrote:

> In <40fefc6d_5@corp.newsgroups.com> exegete@nunya.biz wrote:
>
> > Tadapope wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The Apple III was among other things
> > > what killed the Apple II - Woz
> >
> > That's hardly likely, given that the /// was killed less than a year 
> > after the IIe was released, and at about the same time that the //c 
> > was  released.
> >
> > Roy
>
>
> The Apple II History has a Byte interview with Steve Wozniak from 1984, 
> where he says:
>
> "When we came out with the Apple III, the engineering staff canceled 
> every Apple II engineering program that was ongoing, in expectation of 
> the Apple III's success. Every single one was canceled. We really 
> perceived that the Apple II would not last six months. So the company 
> was almost all Apple III people, and we worked for years after that to 
> try and tell the world how good the Apple III was, because we knew."
>
> http://apple2history.org/museum/articles/byte8412/byte8412.html

I didn't see that quote in the above link. Perhaps I scanned the article 
too quickly, but again. I didn't see that quote there.
> My take on this is that because Apple was concentrating on the Apple III 
> they basically stopped ALL Apple II development for a couple of years. 

Agreed. But WHEN? And what of the Super II? It was basically a IIe, and 
someone developed it. As I recall, it could have been released in `81. 
So, SOME developement was being done.

> Eventually they came out with the IIe, but it was still deliberately 
> hobbled so that it wouldn't compete with the III, 

How so? The memory? But we've seen that both Apple and third parties 
were able to extend the II's memory range. I've been assured that the II 
could never had had a memory mangagement as the /// did because of the 
original design of the II. I suspect the same is true of the video.

and was kept that way
> for another year, by which time the Macintosh was the new computer that 
> the II wasn't supposed to compete with.

The Mac was announced less than six months after the IIe's release.

My point is, that many have telescoped those years, and ignored that 
there was development for the II. Did Apple focus on other machines? 
Yes. Did Apple largely (but not totally) ignore extending and enhancing 
the II? Yes. Did the /// kill the II? No. The Mac did. And it took the 
Mac 2-3 years to do so! The Mac only began to be successful with the 
Plus model, and that was 1.5 - 2 years after January 1984!

When the IIgs was released (Consider this!) It was the first color GUI 
that Apple had. It was the first ADB machine. It was the first machine 
designed by Apple that could use more than 4 megs of RAM. It was the 
most advanced sound that Apple had ever released.

More than 3 years after the /// died!!

So, again, did the /// hurt the II? Yes. Did it kill it? The facts 
doen't support that claim.

Roy

>



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----