Re: Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) wrote:

>Evolutionary solutions to problems seem better until
>you consider the cumulative effect of many layers of
>"evolution" versus designing a new solution which is
>more nearly optimal for near-future technology.

My bet is still on evolution.  Jobs thought the
same thing when he drew the line between
the Apple II and the Mac and the result was
Apple losing much of its existing user base
(we went to the PC).

In contrast, the PC has evolved rather than
breaking from the past and its user base
has grown tremendously.  No doubt this has
to do with many reasons, one of them being
the competitive effect of the clones (which
were what really made the PC successful
with IBM all but bowing out).  But the fact
that the platform was an unbroken line of
evolution from the first IBM PC no doubt
has contributed to its success.

Evolution does not mean hanging on to all
aspects of the architecture forever.  It is
possible to hang on to the last two or three
layers and shed the older ones.  This gives
time for users to adjust.  This was what
happened with the ISA bus in the transition
to PCI.  First there was ISA.  Then there
was ISA and PCI on the same boards.  Now
there is only PCI or PCI and PCI-X.