Re: How will the Apple II survive?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Jeff Blakeney replied:

>On 22 Apr 2004 17:10:02 GMT, mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) wrote:
>
>>Everyone (and, boy, there always seem to be a bunch ;-) who
>>wants to fantasize about a "new Apple II" always wants to
>>"improve" on it by adding VGA graphics, 24-bit addressing,
>>etc., etc.
>
>Well, first off, the IIgs already has 24 bit addressing but you
>probably meant 32 bit or more and might have also been referring to
>the data bus instead of the address bus.  I understand what you were
>going for, though.

I was thinking of the "original" Apple II series--like another poster,
I consider the IIgs to be an example of "random" as opposed to
"organic" extensions of the line.  Put another way, simply building
a Cape Cod cottage in the back yard of a McMansion does not
make the McMansion a classic architecture.  ;-)

>However, PC and Mac users today want the same thing.  They want to
>continue to get newer and improved machines.  They want faster
>machines with better graphics and sound and more computing power.
>Personally, I have a Pentium III with an ATI All-In-Wonder-128 video
>card, a Creative Labs sound card (can never remember which one) and a
>40 GB hard drive and I want a Pentium 4 with a Radeon based ATI
>All-In-Wonder, an Audigy sound card and at least a 120 GB hard drive.
>
>Why should that desire be any different for Apple II users.  I would
>love to have an Apple II with a faster (and possibly more powerful)
>processor, better graphics, better sound. and more storage space.

Of course technologically current users want technologically
current machines--and technology marches on!

But the _charm_ of the Apple II _now_ has nothing to do with
technological currency.  In fact, quite the opposite--Apple II
enthusiasts enjoy the machine _because_ it is retro, and has
been retro for over a decade.

There will always be people who want to take a Model T and
trick it out with a 400-cubic inch turbocharged engine, monster
wheels, chrome, and a flame paint job.

However, this is not a tribute to the Model T, but a monument
to the imagination of the person who "desecrated" a Model T
to construct the monstrosity.

>>Do you really think that this 1) captures the essence of the
>>constrained environment of the Apple II,
>
>The Apple IIe and IIc have a double hi-res graphics mode that doesn't
>exist on the Apple II or II+ and the IIgs has even more graphics modes
>and better sound than all the models before it.  Do any of them no
>longer capture the essence of the Apple II?  I think the big problem
>with this question is that one word you used: "constrained".
>Personally I would never put use that word to describe the Apple II
>environment as the machine is so open you can add anything you want to
>it so it is far from constrained.  If it were, there would be no
>memory,  accelerator, graphic, sound, storage, communications or other
>cards available for it to expand it beyond its initial design.

Woz's Apple II design is _open_, but _constrained_.  This is,
in fact, the essence of good engineering.  Within the addressing,
I/O decoding, and timing constraints of the Apple II, all kinds of
wonderful things can be done--and they are more wonderful because
they are accomplished _within_ the constraints of the design.

Some extensions, particularly address-width extensions, destroy
the integrity of the tradeoffs of the original Apple II.  For example,
the ROM and I/O layout of the Apple II exist because of the 6502's
16-bit addressing.  When the IIgs extends the address space to
24 bits, it can do so only by embedding the old 16-bit address
map in what can only be called a "wierd" way.  The result is a
hack, not a beautiful design.

>>or 2) will cause lots of new software development to
>>exploit the new features to bloom?
>
>It would be nice if it would but it probably wouldn't cause "lots" of
>new development to occur.  There would be some, though, and that's all
>we've been living on for the past decade or more as it is.  The big
>benefit would be the ability to use our existing programs faster, with
>larger windows on the screen of nicer, newer monitors, with cleaner
>sound all from a faster and larger storage device.

No, we haven't.

We've (whoever "we" is) been living on the tens of thousands of
pre-existing Apple II programs.  Only a tiny fraction of current
Apple II users have the slightest interest in what you describe,
as measured by their willingness to spend their money on it.
Look at the tiny market for even universally useful extensions,
like the CFFA card.

All these "new Apple II" ideas are simply "wet dreams" of
their creators--not that there's anything wrong with that.  ;-)
(But it should never be confused with anything approaching
reality.)

>>In my opinion, the answer to both questions is a resounding
>>"No!".
>
>My answers would be 1) it could and 2) it might.

And I'm guessing that you might be in the market for a
bridge that I could sell you.  ;-)

>>Try to enjoy the Apple II line for the glorious thing that it is,
>>not for what you think/wish/hope it could have been.
>
>I enjoy it for what it is but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't
>wish for better.  Perhaps the difference is that I still use my IIgs
>for more than just playing games and tinkering with.  I still do word
>processing, databasing, spreadsheeting, telecommunicating and other
>things with it.  Until just recently, the only word processor I had
>for my PC was Wordpad so you might understand why I still do most of
>my word processing and page layout on my IIgs with the help of
>programs like GraphicWriter III and NiftySpell.

It is remarkable that you, a long-time computer user, have so
isolated yourself from the advances of computer technology.

I use my Apple //e machines a fair amount, too, to edit source
code for programs I develop for them as creative recreation.

I loved the Apple II in many ways.  At one time, in the 80s, I
loved it as an application engine that provided me with tools to
enhance my productivity and creativity in general purpose jobs.
As the 90s bloomed, I moved with the technological tide to
larger, cheaper, more capable machines for productivity software,
while still enjoying seeing how much of that capability I could
still stretch the Apple II to encompass.  As the mid-90s rolled
around, it was clear that no amount of add-on memory, processor
accelerators, or mass storage could ever allow the Apple II to
continue to be capable, even marginally, of providing competitive
support for me as a designer and manager in a large company.

Since then, I have continued to love my Apple II systems in,
ironically, the way that I did at the very beginning--as a beautiful
design that provided, within its beautifully crafted constraints, an
incredibly open platform that invited tens of thousands of people
to create clever hardware and software add-ons--almost all of
which seemed to have internalized the "Woz" in the machine.
(Exceptions were add-ons that essentially "hijacked" the Apple II
as an I/O engine, power supply, and cabinet, and provided an
entirely different computer--though even a few of those (like the
Softcard) were interesting in their degree of integration with the
Apple II design.)

"Wishing for better" is standard equipment for humans.  But it
is not usefully directed by attempting to improve the Mona Lisa.
Rather, it would be more appropriately directed toward creating
your _own_ integrated, organic design, as Woz did.

For my part, I'd rather continue appreciating the Mona Lisa.  ;-)

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/