pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) (02/24/90)
More Rumor's from 2/20/89 MacWee Mac th Knife Rumor Column: ... sources also tell the Knife that the Apple IIc Plus will be discontinued next month, although no announcement will be made for some time. ARRRRGGGGHHH.. -Paul Nakada pnakada@oracle.com
cs225ax@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (02/25/90)
Something that just struck me, sorry if MHO is a bit morbid:
If Apple discontinued the IIe and IIc, the IIgs would be their only
II. The GS could lose all it's compatability and gain performance (fast
slots, etc..) I don't think Apple wants to give up the IIes and IIcs
just yet, but the "demise" of the II line may be the pre-gs II line, while
the GS could expand without the problem of staying compatible.
Just a thought. If anyone thinks I'm a harbinger of doom, I don't
want to be. I don't think Apple should drop any part of the current II
line, but the above seems to make sense, especially with the compatibility
tweaks with the gs and the performance questions.
Ick, I hate rumors.
Ken.
_____________________________________________________________________________
{= InterNet =} ken-b@uiuc.edu {= Kenneth R. Brownfield =}
{= BITNET =} free0361@uiucvmd.bitnet {= University of Illinois, UC =}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/26/90)
In article <15800087@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs225ax@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > If Apple discontinued the IIe and IIc, the IIgs would be their only >II. The GS could lose all it's compatability and gain performance (fast >slots, etc..) I don't think Apple wants to give up the IIes and IIcs >just yet, but the "demise" of the II line may be the pre-gs II line, while >the GS could expand without the problem of staying compatible. This subject has been covered many times before, but I'll say it again anyway: if you drop the Apple II compatibility, it won't be an Apple II! Personally, I think MacWeek is just trying to drum up trouble. False rumors can be very damaging. Let's see Apple come out and say the II is alive and well, and let's see Apple get on MacWeek's case for such a dangerous case of rumor-mongering. Finally, someone tell me I'm only having nightmares. :-) Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple II: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
lius@topaz.rutgers.edu ([Steve Liu]) (02/26/90)
It's been fairly obvious to me over the past few months that MacWeek is NOT the most objective of folks concerning the Apple //. In just about every editorial, and even in many articles, MacWeek tends to put down just about everything there is about the Apple //. It's no wonder that they jump at a rumor of the Apple // being discontinued. No doubt most people here have heard rumors from a new Apple IIGS to Apple branching off the Apple // division (ala "Claris") to Apple stopping the // altogether. It's fairly obvious that, given the lack of Apple // marketing since the introduction of the Mac, and given the fact that Apple is starting to push Mac towards K-12 markets, and given the fact that Apple is introducing new low-cost Macs, that Apple is trying to squeeze the life out of the // line. MacWeek, among others, place a large chunk of the blame for Apple's low profits to the Apple // before citing such obvious flaws as a laughable 90-day warranty, ridiculous pricing, and questionable support. If Apple decides to dump the two, they'll have washed themselves totally clean of the "two Steves in a garage" stigma, but they'll have also have transformed the company once and for all into the "Big Blue Big Brother" they were fighting against in a certain commercial in 1984...
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (03/01/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cs225ax@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu >Something that just struck me, sorry if MHO is a bit morbid: >If Apple discontinued the IIe and IIc, the IIgs would be their >only II. The GS could lose all it's compatability and gain >performance (fast slots, etc..) I Funny, it sounds like you've just described Apple's version of a Low-Cost Macintosh..
cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (03/07/90)
With all of this flack about dropping the // line it seems like there
would be one heck of a ruckus if that indeed did happen. I can't see the
millions of people out there who already own a // just saying, "Oh well,
they don't make them anymore, guess we'll just have to buy a Mac!" :-)
(Atleast, I don't plan on doing it...)
After all, I haven't seen a darn thing in any Apple ][ magazine (of the
few that are there) mentioning the demise of the //. Look at it from a MacLeak
(I like that...!) point of view-- if all of those millions of Apple // users
get Macs, and decide to get a Mac-based magazine, wouldn't that make a hell of
a subscription drive? Just a thought...
At any rate-- it seems the only people who really know what is going to happen
are the only people we aren't hearing from-- Apple. And if someone from
Apple is out there-- let's hear about it. As for me-- I stand by my //e
because my //e stands for something.
/////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\
// Randy Vose \\
// cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu \\
\\ University of Illinois //
\\ Champaign/Urbana //
\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (03/07/90)
cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >At any rate-- it seems the only people who really know what is going to happen >are the only people we aren't hearing from-- Apple. I hate to say this, but "Don't you think Apple would have contradicted the romours of the demise of the // ifthey were not true? After all, the rumours cannot be helping sales..." --Uh, I don't know if I want to sign this. I can feel the heat already!
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/08/90)
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes: >cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>At any rate-- it seems the only people who really know what is going to happen >>are the only people we aren't hearing from-- Apple. >I hate to say this, but "Don't you think Apple would have contradicted the >romours of the demise of the // ifthey were not true? After all, the rumours >cannot be helping sales..." >--Uh, I don't know if I want to sign this. I can feel the heat already! No heat from me or anyone else; this is what's always in the back of our minds and it's what prompts me to write everything. Apple seems to have things in mind but they've got to realize that their unequal treatment of the II and the Mac in the past has been conditioned into the public by now, and that they need to actively stir interest in the II because it is still their best low end contender, and an excellent machine in its own right, but has lacked certain resources that the 'trendy industry' sees as necessary. Most of these are now available or will be shortly, and Apple can't be soo short-sighted to not realize that they can make a IIGS compatible Amiga killer. I am sick of people who think that the II is a liability to the Mac. When the Mac was first getting started, Apple would have gone under if not for the steady //e and (later) IIGS sales that Apple enjoyed. Problem is, the rest of the industry has moved on, and Apple hasn't done enough to keep the II current; a major problem has been the loack of coordination with Bill Mensch. I claim that Apple has long since had the clout necessary to get the 65816 mask made to run faster reliably. Now that the ASIC guys are going to make their job easy then there will be no excuse if Apple allows the Amiga to continue to draw hackers away from Apple's machines. I do see a coordinated strategy developing in the low end and mid range PC markets which uses and (matter of fact) _requires_ both the inherent strengths of the II and the Mac, and pretty much satisfies everyone (except the fanatics who should be run out of town anyway). I'm just sick of Apple not telling us anything when what we need is real reassurance and not hollow-sounding promises. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/08/90)
Todd Whitesel writes...... > I'm just sick of Apple not telling us anything when what we need is real > reassurance and not hollow-sounding promises. I agree Todd, but little tid-bits of news (rumors) that we get keep us hanging on. Examples??? Hyper-card GS, ROM04, New SCSI card, System 6.0, I think it was Linda?? that posted the news about hiring a new tech man for the II. Things are not good and we are losing possible // users everyday. Now if these rumored products would show up soon, like within the next three months, we might get back on track as far as support from vendors, but as you said we need support from Apple. If that does not come with these rumored new products then things well continue to be the way they are. All of that was sort of misc. rambling, but my main point is that we keep getting signs that Apple is at least trying to give a little support even- though its not enough. I also think that the re-structuring going on might be good for the // line. Why? I am not exactly sure, but the things I hear from news and rumors is that they were blamed for poor sales, and I don't think that was just the Mac. I also think that if Apple dropped the // they would also die. From everything I have heard the // is still their main source of revenue. One last ramble. Trying to push // users into a Mac anything after all thats been happening looks like it would take an act of God. I had an argument/ discussion with a Mac user the other day, and he honestly could not see why somebody would not like a Mac. We should not have had that discussion, but we should have been talking about how to share information between our machines better. Instead I had to explain to him why I could do everything on my GS that he could do on his Mac. Maybe not as easy, but the main point was that I could do it. I also had to tell him that I like the Mac, but I Apple drops the // I doubt that I will buy a Mac. IBM is getting their PCs up to speed as far a graphics. I would miss my S in my GS, which is the best sounding computer off the market without enhancment, besides the NeXT. (And from what I hear unitl the Amiga 2500) comes out. We have better sound than the Amiga 2000 eventhough we don't have sterio. With a pair of self emplified speakers we come out on top. This is not a guess, I am stuck here with a bunch of Amiga users, and it sucks (Good thing I have GS friends close to where I live.). Well this got longer than I wanted too, but I suppect that I have wanted to say a lot of this for a long time, but have not. I wish Big Apple people would get on hear just to read what we say. A little light bulb might come on in their heads. For us who are here right now, I guess we have to hang on and support each other. I have six more payments left on my GS, that gives Apple six months (September), and we will see whats happening then. Apple //GS the power to be your best! Apple // 4 ever, or at least till the beer runs out! :) Robert Brown BITNET: RXBROWN@UALR America Online: ROBPHD Amiga? Just say no! I.B.M = I've been mugged! > These comments are subject to change if Apple does not get their SHIT stright!
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (03/09/90)
A front page article in the March 6 MacWeek says that HyperCard 2.0 for the Mac will have a new file format 'compatible with the rumored IIGS version of HyperCard'. Good news! It sounds like they have also made a lot of neat improvements in Hypercard. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
c60c-3cw@web-3a.berkeley.edu (03/09/90)
In article <1990Mar9.012908.23319@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >A front page article in the March 6 MacWeek says that HyperCard 2.0 for the >Mac will have a new file format 'compatible with the rumored IIGS version of >HyperCard'. Good news! It sounds like they have also made a lot of neat >improvements in Hypercard. > >Rick Fincher >rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu MacWeek is contradicting itself. If they report that the II line is dead, why would Apple be creating products for a machine it is no longer making? If Hypercard isn't going to help them sell more II's, why make a II version? It just doesn't make sense. They are mutually exclusive ideas, either dead II or Hypercard GS. I think nay-sayers are wrong, and the II line will continue. Financial analysts have pointed out that part of Apple's problem stems from not giving enough attention to the low end products. They're not losing money on the II's yet, so there's no reason to kill it now. I think they will try to build up their weak spot, instead of cutting it off. ******************************************************************************* c60c-3cw@web-3a.berkeley.edu (Allen Kelton)
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/10/90)
Apple is a big corporation, and it's likely to have a case of doublespeak. On one hand, Apple is actively pushing to push the Mac in place of the Apple II, and on the other hand, the Apple II base is large enough that they don't want to lost it. I suspect a sense of confusion here on what to do. Yes, I like a low cost Mac, since I am a Mac owner myself, but I question Apple's ability to do so. Who wants a black and white machine for under $1000 when you already have PC, ST, and Amiga with color for the same price? If they add color to the Mac, then it would threaten the pricing of their higher machines. This problem is also the same when it comes to the Apple IIGS. What should Apple do? I don't know. May be some sort of bridge product between the two lines.
nagendra@bucsf.bu.edu (nagendra mishr) (03/13/90)
As far as I can see, the gs is no competition for the Mac II. I don't see why anyone would think so. There are programs available for the MII that you wouldn't think of running on a GS. I think the best strategy for Apple would be to promote both the II lines (MII and apple II) there is no contest between them. Educators would rather pay $1500 per system rather then $5000 and business want the high quality programs on the MII. nagendra
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar9.102100.3215@agate.berkeley.edu> c60c-3cw@web-3a.berkeley.edu writes: > MacWeek is contradicting itself. So? Rumors don't have to be self-consistent. Rumors are good for entertainment, but not much else. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (03/14/90)
In article <1990Mar7.103520.22977@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes: >cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >>At any rate-- it seems the only people who really know what is going to happen >>are the only people we aren't hearing from-- Apple. > >I hate to say this, but "Don't you think Apple would have contradicted the >romours of the demise of the // ifthey were not true? After all, the rumours >cannot be helping sales..." > >--Uh, I don't know if I want to sign this. I can feel the heat already! Public relations is not my job, and I try to stay out of nontechnical discussions. I just want to obvserve that if Apple *did* get in the habit of contradicting every false rumor, then every interesting rumor that they *didn't* contradict would be assumed true. I don't particularly *like* secrets, but if I were running a company I don't think I would go around commenting on rumors. -- David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (03/16/90)
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: >>I hate to say this, but "Don't you think Apple would have contradicted the >>rumors of the demise of the // if they were not true? After all, the rumours >>cannot be helping sales..." >> >>--Uh, I don't know if I want to sign this. I can feel the heat already! >Public relations is not my job, and I try to stay out of nontechnical >discussions. >I just want to obvserve that if Apple *did* get in the habit of contradicting >every false rumor, then every interesting rumor that they *didn't* contradict >would be assumed true. I don't particularly *like* secrets, but if I were >running a company I don't think I would go around commenting on rumors. >David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems >Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 Well, I believe that if Apple were wise, It would step up some product announcements, or do something to INDIRECTLY contradict the rumors: This way Apple could keep up their image, and not fall into the trap of having to deny every rumor that pops up. Then again, It would be nice of Apple to let people's confidence in Apple slide just before a new product is released: For example, when I got my first Apple (a //+) the //e came out exactly one month later! If Apple wants satisfied customers in the long run, maybe they SHOULD indirectly discourage sales, so people will delay buying and end up with the //e rather than the plus... Hmmm... And it is reassuring that a Apple // DTS fellow would try to be reassuring about this situation... --Glenn
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (03/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from nagendra@bucsf.bu.edu
> As far as I can see, the gs is no competition for the Mac II.
But of course you have no idea what you're talking about.
The Macintosh -- anything less than the $10,000 Mac, to be accurate -- is a
kinda sort of desktop publishing machine. It's useless for numerics, it's
useless for graphics, it's crippled with sound ... and it's handicapped by an
amateurish user base that's incapable of minimizing its inefficiencies.
If you'll take a moment to remember, the Macintosh was designed by a man whose
genius was marketing. He had a great idea in desktop publishing, and for that
he is to be commended. But don't try to pretend you can do quality desktop
publishing with an average Macintosh, and don't even try to suggest that it is
the proper solution for anything more strenuous.
I don't give a rat's ass about the computer label wars, but those owners of
any brand of computer who spread misinformation based on the latest press
releases give me a case of chapped lips. You guess which lips.
Why don't y'all go find a nice Red Ryder host and trade some rad wareZ. Take a
load off your overstrained mental capacities.
UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy | AOL: JOEA17
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil | Clever comment
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com | goes here.cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (03/17/90)
>> As far as I can see, the gs is no competition for the Mac II. > But of course you have no idea what you're talking about. > [much ranting about how worthless a Mac really is deleted] If you carefully re-read the initial post, you'll probably see that the line above is taken totally out of context. The author's intention (I assume) was not to say the GS is to the Mac as a Timex is to a Cray. Rather, I believe they were trying to say that the GS represents no competition to the Mac market, as they are two very different machines with different purposes and features. The Macs are used for desktop publishing (you CAN do some reasonably decent stuff with even an SE), not for the numerics, graphics and sound that it is "useless" for. Its users don't need these features, so the "amateurish user base" that uses the Macintosh is totally removed from the average IIgs user. The IIgs therefore really IS no competition for the Mac. Their uses and users are so different that the competition between the two groups should be, and is, minimal. > UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy | AOL: JOEA17 > ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil | Clever comment > INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com | goes here. --rubio (rubio-1@uiuc.edu)
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/17/90)
You'd better batten down your hatches, Joe, because you don't understand the Mac any more than most of them understand the Apple II. jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from nagendra@bucsf.bu.edu >> As far as I can see, the gs is no competition for the Mac II. >But of course you have no idea what you're talking about. No, it's you who don't know what you're talking about. Have you ever used one for what it was DESIGNED to do, and not for what your GS was designed to do? >The Macintosh -- anything less than the $10,000 Mac, to be accurate -- is a >kinda sort of desktop publishing machine. It's useless for numerics, it's >useless for graphics, it's crippled with sound ... and it's handicapped by an >amateurish user base that's incapable of minimizing its inefficiencies. Desktop publishing packages on the Macintosh kick anything on the GS into the ground, and the Mac's square pixels are one of the secrets of it. If you don't know how easy it is to publish on the Mac I suggest you keep your mouth shut until you find out for yourself. The Mac II and up all have math coprocessors of the kind we get when we buy the Floating Point Engine. Nothing beats a dedicated FPU for numerics, so I suggest you shut up about this too. Useless for graphics? The Mac was designed around graphics! That may have some drawbacks but in many more areas it's a strength. There are awesome Paint, CAD, and Page Layout programs for the Mac that the GS will never touch for simple economic reasons -- nobody who wants a GS will want the extra power these programs have or be able to handle their cost. Crippled for sound? I don't think 8 bit stereo at 22 khz is crippled. It's more than adequate for what most macintosh users do. The rest buy MIDI interfaces. Besides, the GS's motherboard doesn't support it's own sound chip enough, but at least we can get around it with stereo decoder cards like the Sonic Blaster. The Mac user base was supposed to be fairly ignorant! The whole point of the mac was that an computer illiterate could use it without having to know little technical details! If you can't tolerate people who couldn't care less how their machine actually works then I suggest you shut up and let them at least get their questions answered. We're here to make computers more useful, not spite at each other, and you ought to lighten up about machines that suit other people's needs better than they suit yours. >If you'll take a moment to remember, the Macintosh was designed by a man whose >genius was marketing. He had a great idea in desktop publishing, and for that >he is to be commended. But don't try to pretend you can do quality desktop >publishing with an average Macintosh, and don't even try to suggest that it is >the proper solution for anything more strenuous. You simply don't know what you're talking about. The orginal idea behind the Mac was to build a machine that was friendly enough and simple enough to use that anybody could do the normal types of work (word processing, paint, draw) on it with almost no training. The desktop interface is what made that possible and I wouldn't bite the hand that fed your GS. As for desktop publishing, we have two Mac labs here at Caltech and the #1 use of them is desktop publishing. I use them to add fonts and run my papers off the laserwriter because I don't have enough memory to use Appleworks GS. The Mac has managed to handle some pretty powerful desktop publishing programs all across its product line, and they have done a damn good job getting things to run on any mac from the Plus to the ci. The speed and screen size are the only real differences and for many 'more strenuous' things the Mac is currently a much better solution than the GS. >I don't give a rat's ass about the computer label wars, but those owners of >any brand of computer who spread misinformation based on the latest press >releases give me a case of chapped lips. You guess which lips. Your misinformation is a hell of a lot worse. You obviously think that a Mac II only has more memory and a color screen. Well it's got a hell of a lot more and the last thing I want to see coming from an Apple II user is machine slandering like the Amigeeks love to engage in. Every machine on the market today has its own best uses and NONE OF THEM are perfect for everything. The mac is perfect for desktop publishing, the GS is perfect for hacking and sound, the Amiga is perfect for animation, the PC is perfect for cheap number crunching... Don't base your opinion of a machine on what it wasn't designed to do, base your buying decision on what YOU want it to do. Don't tell me somthing sucks because you can't use it, it might be perfect for someone else. I may love my GS but no way in hell am I going to feist one on somebody who wants do something that another machine can do better. It's about time we ran the fanatics out of town, and especially the ones at Apple who want to nuke the Apple II for most of the reasons you've tried to heap on the Mac. >Why don't y'all go find a nice Red Ryder host and trade some rad wareZ. Take a >load off your overstrained mental capacities. Don't treat us like BBS junkies. We grew out of that a long time ago. You, however, don't sound like you have. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/17/90)
cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >The IIgs therefore really IS no competition for the Mac. Their uses and >users are so different that the competition between the two groups should >be, and is, minimal. I suggest we take this to Apple Marketing and hang it over every door in the building. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (03/18/90)
the mac may have been designed around graphics, but not putting a graphics coprocessor in it was AWFULLY stupid. i agree that one of the strong points of a mac is that it requires alomst no training to begin to be productive. I have personally introduced secretaries and other types of usually-noncomputer jobs to word-processing and office work on the macintosh. in less than an hour most of them were able to create, print and save documents, and do simple tasks that are much of getting something done. later we worked on literacy in the true sense. Anthony J. Stuckey, stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu