Re: trading policy for IIe

[CUTjblakeney@sympatico.ca (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:56:51 -0700, "Paul Grammens" <grammens@svn.net>
wrote:

>Jeff, you just don't get it. I can get Apple II software by the
>wheelbarrow-load from the Salvation Army, for a song. More games than I
>could play in a lifetime.  Utils and apps that major companies produced.

I'm glad you have such a treasure trove of software available to you.
I hope you keep picking these up and making those legal copies
available for others as I know I'm not the only one still using Apple
IIs that can't find anything locally.  In the past 5 years I have
found less that 10 pieces of Apple II related hardware and even less
Apple II software locally.

>This is great. I'm a collector, I don't want new stuff, I want classic
>stuff. The hardware is moribund. It's never going to play MP3's, let alone
>rip them. It's never going to run a CD burner. I'm never going to hook up a
>digital camera and download, edit, and print color pictures.  But hey, I've
>got an old 700 mhz Athlon to do that.  I don't care about new apps any more
>than I care about 32 bit Apple II's.

That's fine.  You are a collector so that means you only want
originals and don't want illegal copies of software so you shouldn't
be part of the piracy problem.

>There is very little money to be made selling anything for the Apple II. Get
>over it. That phase is gone forever.

Yes, there is little money to be made but why should developers get
even less than they currently can because there are people illegally
distributing other software?

>It's ridiculous to make Tom a scapegoat for that.

I didn't even mention Tom in my post.

>The basic hardware hasn't changed in 10 years. Very few people, and surely
>zero new users, are using Apple II's for word processing.  I have AppleWorks
>GS, which came on a IIgs I bought. I looked at it, fooled around with it a
>bit. Am I going to type up my resume and print it on an Imagewriter II?
>Um... no.  I'm sure some people are going to say they would. But they
>already have AppleWorks, and I doubt they are in the market for a new word
>processor. That's the reality, and it makes perfect sense (heh heh... can
>you imagine submitting a resume online... in AppleWorks format?).

Not everyone owns AppleWorks.  I personally did not own any version of
it until a couple years ago when I got AWGS with a bunch of stuff I
got from a guy in California and AppleWorks v2.x at KFest 2000.  I do
believe that I have better applications on my IIgs than I do for my
PC.  Why, you may ask?  Because I'm not going to spend the insane
prices that companies want for these types of applications for my PC
when I have perfectly good programs to do these tasks on my IIgs.

Personally, if I'm going to continue using my IIgs (which is my
intention) then I see no reason why I shouldn't try to get myself
better software to use on it today than what was available 10 years
ago.  There are lots of improvements that can still be made.

>Without hardware improvements, there is little need for new software. That's
>the reality.

Without hardware improvements, the only thing you can do is software
improvements but those improvements can have just as much impact as a
hardware improvement.

>It has nothing to do with Tom.

Again, this has nothing to do with Tom.

-- 
 Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in the
                 Apple II Community on Syndicomm.com
 CUT the obvious from my address if you want to e-mail me