Re: Battle of the Nostalgics

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

Jason Whorton replied:

>"Supertimer" <supertimer@aol.com> wrote in message
>20030209163422.04786.00000193@mb-ce.aol.com">news:20030209163422.04786.00000193@mb-ce.aol.com...
>
>> Now that I have had a chance to use several different
>> generations of platforms, it seems clear why some
>> folks are so fascinated with the Apple ][+ and others
>> are so dedicated to the memory of the Apple IIGS.
>>
>> For every great family of hardware, there is always
>> a battle between the most popular of the family and
>> the most advanced.  From a technical point of view,
>> it is self-evident that the Apple IIGS was the better
>> computer than the ][+.  In many ways, it was better
>> than the Macintosh at the time of its release (that
>> would be the Macintosh Plus before the IIGS and
>> the Macintosh SE slightly after for those who don't
>> remember) yet represented the last of a generation
>> and this is the reason there are two camps of
>> Apple II users.
>>
<snip>
>
>Hello.  One point that occurs to me is that the Apple IIgs is not the latest
>and greatest member of the Apple II family.  It is the LAST and greatest
>member of the Apple II family.  Unlike, the Super Socket 7 and Socket 370
>chips and boards, it has not been replaced by something better for just a
>few dollars more.  Using JUST an Apple ][+ would be similar to limiting
>yourself to Windows 95 and JUST the applications and hardware that will run
>on it.  This is excepting nostalgic value - "I had an xyz when I was
>younger, I sure would love to have one again".

The spirit of both of these posts seems to be that one opinion is
*right* and the other is *wrong*.

Let's consider for a moment that we are discussing _preferences_
and they are neither right nor wrong.

Jason, I would compare the ][+ and the IIgs to MSDOS and
Win95.  It is quite understandable, given the radically different
paradigms of use and programming, that different users might
prefer _either_ of these environments, and not the other.

So, to defend the original Apple ][...

The 8-bit Apple II's had in common a very simple hardware
machine, with very simple operating systems, compared to
the IIgs and GSOS.  The IIgs slathers on a radically different
graphics mode, a microcontroller-based keyboard, and an
audio system that is as complex in itself as the entire
8-bit Apple II.  And GSOS looks more like a Mac than an
Apple II, and, like it, requires a bookshelf full of documentation
to develop for.

Speaking of slathering it on, the 65816 is an architecture
that only a mother could love.  With one foot planted in the
8-bit compatibility hole, it stretches as far as it can with an
awkward "extension" to "6502+8 bits".  Pretty it ain't.

Whenever someone tries to make the point that they prefer
the cleanliness of the 8-bit II's to the IIgs, someone else
promptly turns around and points out that the IIgs is a
fine 8-bit "work alike" machine if you just use 8-bit software.

While this is formally true, it certainly does not have the
"flavor" of 8-bit hardware, with its "shadow" RAM, toolboxes,
and abstract keyboard interface.  For many people, running
8-bit programs on a IIgs is like running them on an emulator.

Certainly in a retrocomputing newsgroup especially, you can
see why some think of Woz's machine as the "real" Apple II
and the IIgs as a product of creeping featurism.

Just to calm the IIgs lovers, I happily admit that the IIgs has
more "horsepower" than the 8-bit Apples, breaks the 64KB
barrier quite usefully, has better graphics and sound, and a lot
more of what you might need built-in.  (But that doesn't mean
much to someone who can happily get their work done using,
say, Appleworks, and already has a printer card, AUX RAM,
and a disk controller.)

-michael

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