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chips and boards, it has not been replaced by something better for just a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,
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/