PECHEN@PISCES.RUTGERS.EDU (Peter Chen) (12/09/88)
From Seth Kadesh's recent article: >- since production of the 65832 is still off by about a year, < > I think its highly feasible that if the GS is not abandoned, < > we can only expect a faster GS (already feasible, according < > to Mensch). kinda like the IIC+ < >- remember how Apple helped people jump from the LISA boat to < > the Macintosh boat? if the Golden Gate rumor is true (a Mac/II< > hybrid), this could be Apple's way of dumping the II series. < I couldn't agree more. It's good to hear some fellow Apple users speaking up instead of tacitly waiting for what's coming to them as a bunch of death-sentenced prisoners stretching their necks waiting to be hanged. It is encouraging to see that more powerful chips are coming to Apple, but, still, technology doesn't dictate Apple's policy. The way Apple IIgs resembles Mac in its so called human user interface, or rather, the Mac user interface, dreadfully sounds like the shaping and gradual desensitization method used to treat mental patients. First Apple introduced the mouse for IIe's and IIc's, then 3 1/2" disk drives(I am not sure which one comes first, the 3 1/2" disk drive or the mouse for Apple II's, but that's beside the point), now the IIgs with Mac user interface(we all know they have other terms for it, but a fact is a fact). The mouse is great and so are the 3 1/2" disks. I am not against improvements for Apple II's, in fact, I strongly support it, but why does it have to imitate Macs? Why can't Apple II's have a path of its own? Because Apple II and Mac both belongs to the same company? Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. As Mr. Kadesh pointed out before, there is no company except Apple that is investing on two different types of products simultaneously. Apparently, Apple is attempting to amend the situation by gradually changing the identity of Apple II's. Many people now regard IIgs as a low-power color Mac and that's exactly what Apple wants us to do. They want us to accept that image, so eventually they can merge Apple II and Mac together. In this light, we can well predict that the new Apple II's will be more and more Mac-compatible and the IIgs is only the first step. In other words, Apple II's are getting "dumped!" From Apple's perspective, this is probably the most elegant solution for both problems of discord between Apple II and Mac, and "improving" Apple II's. But who asked for this? I have never heard of any market research that indicates that Apple II users want Apple II's to become Macs(sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well, that's exactly what Apple is leading us to). But then again, business is business. It is ironic that all these are happening while Apple is shouting the slogan of "Apple II forever!" P.S. Just one small problem: Where does IIc+ fit in to the picture?
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/10/88)
In <8812081209.aa21799@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> PECHEN@PISCES.RUTGERS.EDU (Peter Chen) writes: > As Mr. Kadesh pointed out before, there is no company except Apple >that is investing on two different types of products simultaneously. >Apparently, Apple is attempting to amend the situation by gradually changing >the identity of Apple II's. Many people now regard IIgs as a low-power >color Mac and that's exactly what Apple wants us to do. They want us to >accept that image, so eventually they can merge Apple II and Mac together. >In this light, we can well predict that the new Apple II's will be more and >more Mac-compatible and the IIgs is only the first step. In other words, >Apple II's are getting "dumped!" I don't know how soon you think the Apple II is being "dumped," but it was well publicized [at least I think it was] that Apple was looking for "Engineers to work on the next generation of the Apple //"...It was something like that...It was less than a year ago I believe when it was advertized. It was just very clear that they have no intention of dumping it too soon. I'm not trying to imply that I don't agree that they are putting less money/resources into it as they should though. > > It is ironic that all these are happening while Apple is shouting >the slogan of "Apple II forever!" Or is it? Also someone else mentioned something derogatory about Apple only focusing the Apple // on the education market...Sure, if that is the only place they are focusing it, that's bad...But there's nothing wrong with them putting Apple //s into schools, either business-wise or for their usefulness. That's how I got into Apples...After using a Commodore PET computer a little bit in the 6th grade (I'm a college sophmore now), I took computer classes in junior high and it was all on Apples...I learned all about Apples and such BECAUSE APPLE WAS SO INTELLIGENT by giving massive discounts to schools... That is, little Joey uses an Apple at school and when he wants a computer at home, he wants an Apple! -tuu
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (12/11/88)
In an article PECHEN@PISCES.RUTGERS.EDU (Peter Chen) writes: >From Seth Kadesh's recent article: > > >- remember how Apple helped people jump from the LISA boat to < > > the Macintosh boat? if the Golden Gate rumor is true (a Mac/II< > > hybrid), this could be Apple's way of dumping the II series. < > >[...], dreadfully sounds like the shaping and gradual desensitization >method used to treat mental patients. > >[introduction of mouse and 3.5 inch drive] >[intro of mac-like HI, and] why does >it have to imitate Macs? Why can't Apple II's have a path of its own? >Because Apple II and Mac both belongs to the same company? Now we are >getting to the heart of the matter. > >[...] >Apparently, Apple is attempting to amend the situation by gradually changing >the identity of Apple II's. Many people now regard IIgs as a low-power >color Mac and that's exactly what Apple wants us to do. [more on merge] > > It is ironic that all these are happening while Apple is shouting >the slogan of "Apple II forever!" I don't find it ironic at all. Think how things would have gone if the coca-cola company had just changed the formula and not told anyone? In a sense, I feel Apple is in the same position as the CC company. They tried a bold new move, and wanted to dump the old. When that didn't work, well. . . BTW, the cola companies are going to stop manufacturing bottles. Rather, the bottlers are going to become canners. Within the new year. My objections to prodos, now mostly gone, were it's absolutely brain-dead HI. Now that somewhat real shells (snideness aside, they are not the Korne Shell) are around, it get's better. I plan to make the main part of my homebrew harddrive prodos, with a little (maybe 2-400K) dos 3.3 partition. After using the Mac ][ a great deal of late, I've found that the Mac IF is not *so* bad. Still slow, and a real *B*TCH* to program for. So a mouse is handy, I admit it. But not for everything. I know folks (hi dave) who rather look forward to getting resource forks for the GS operating system. Such is life. And the world is moving farther away from monolithic systems, into integration, away from command line stuff. . . So why don't they do it right? Why not look (just *LOOK*, fer crying out load) at things like X windows, or Sun's SunView, and see some potential for windowed operating systems. Device drivers are a great idea. Toolbox calls are wonderful.When the system is large enough to handle things right. I don't recall how wide and deep the GS SHR screen is. say it's 400x200 (sound about right), with 8? bits 'o colour (maybe extravagant!). That's 80K for a screen. Let's say you have a window half as big (not unusual for a folder, eh?) Move it. How long does it take to move 40K, at 2 MHz? Maybe 10 cycles a pop? So, say 10 ms per byte, times 40K = .4 seconds. OK, I done something really wrong! :-) But the point being, how long does it take to move 80x24 = 1.9k ~ 2K, or .02 seconds. It's trivial. If you want maciness, use the mousetext. It's faster. Now for the bad news, GS/OS. . . OK, so I have the death knell ringing. . . I guess it's not that bad, but we're headed that way, folks. Resource forks, non-portability, etc. I mean, have you ever tried to transfer a Mac file quick & dirty like? Can't use FTP. Doesn't support forks. can't really use straight xmodem. . . OK, so I should stop complaining. No, I wouldn't have us move back to dos 3.3. Yes, It's too much to ask for NFS or anything non-trivial. Ok, So AppleShare is there. . . not a lot of good for peopel without a Mac. The original point for responding is that Apple is going to make changes, and they are doing it the best way they know how, with smiles and assurence that they won't change. They need to change. But they can't take my //e away from me, so I will always use it. Now I have to go get some chips for my homebrew memory card. . . Sorry this is so long. -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: kamath@reed.BITNET ARPA: kamath%reed.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (01/10/89)
In article <5708@saturn.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >it was well publicized [at least I think it was] that Apple was looking for >"Engineers to work on the next generation of the Apple //"...It was something >like that...It was less than a year ago I believe when it was advertized. >It was just very clear that they have no intention of dumping it too soon. Apple placed an ad in yesterday's and today's San Jose Mercury News advertising for Apple II people (engineers, Tech Support, product managers, etc.). -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (03/09/90)
It's not easy posting this message, as I hate to be cast as a 'gossip' or rumour spreader, yet I think this information is important enough to be flamed over. I have strong reason to believe (sorry, can't specify sources) that the Apple II's days are extremely numbered. Support (if you can call it that) will continue with occasional software upgrades and occasional new peripherals... very much like its been over the last few years -- WITH ONE important exception: The machines will be out of production. Why? Sales have dropped a lot. Why? Because the current Apple II computers are too expensive for the 'horsepower' they offer, they are not advertised, and finally, they are pushed towards one market: Primary/Junior school. And to add insult to injury, Apple is now eroding even this market with Macintosh. In a nutshell, they have created a situation in which Apple II's have no market, so they have justification to discontinue the machine. It isn't happening... it's happened. What does this mean to you, a user of an Apple II? It means that the new software, hardware, and interest in your machine will dwindle and vanish over the next few years. You think there's no new software? You think there are too few magazines? You ain't seen nothin' yet... What can you do? I'm afraid to say the nails may already be in the coffin. However, I DO suggest that you write to Apple USA (not Canada, of course) and tell them what you think. Do you resent being "used" to finance Apple's future, if you are not intended to have a part? Do you like being told "Apple II Forever" is Apple's commitment, when it's barely lip service? Do you like being part of the enormous 'cash cow' project? I don't. May I suggest that you write to Apple NOW. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Now. If you wait, you will have missed your opportunity. I'll tell you what I'm going to tell them: I don't appreciate the lack of support, and I don't like their disdainful attitude towards the Apple II. And if this is their attitude, then hell will freeze over before I buy another product from this company. Once you have written your letter(s) to Apple, write to ALL the software and hardware suppliers that supply stuff for the Apple II, and tell them to get on Apple's back. Better: tell them to use their databases of registered users to start a letter writing campaign. Once you have done this, tell (not ask) everyone you know who uses an Apple II to do the same. And when you (and they) write, don't bother mincing words. Lay it on the line... or flowery tactfulness will prevent penetration through some awefully thick skulls. Stephen Brown P.S. My letters are already written, and by the time you read this, they'll be sent. P.P.S. Go ahead and flame me (or acid me). It will all be academic once Apple's statement about the Apple II line is public. The gist: Think Macintosh. And if you have an Apple II, support will be occasional software upgrades, and the odd new peripheral. No new CPU's, and existing CPU's out of production. I'm so sorry to say Murph's ROM 04 rumour was just someone's wishful thinking. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/12/90)
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >It's not easy posting this message, as I hate to be cast as a 'gossip' or >rumour spreader, yet I think this information is important enough to be >flamed over. It's never easy. But nobody on here is about to disagree with you and if they do they either know something we don't or they don't know what they're talking about. >I have strong reason to believe (sorry, can't specify sources) that the >Apple II's days are extremely numbered. Support (if you can call it that) >will continue with occasional software upgrades and occasional new >peripherals... very much like its been over the last few years -- WITH ONE >important exception: The machines will be out of production. We've seen this coming for a l-o-n-g time.... But Apple has set itself up in a nice little ivory tower so they don't even know what their own reps are doing anymore. Non 68030 mac owners have been experiencing similar problems but not half as bad or degrading as we have. >Why? Sales have dropped a lot. Why? Because the current Apple II >computers are too expensive for the 'horsepower' they offer, they are not The //c+ is darn good deal at $450. The GS badly needs an update and they could do it if they got the OK from upstairs. In fact, it is so easy to make a REAL IIGS that Apple is practically admitting to conspiracy (or extreme market ineptness) by not allowing its engineers to do so. >advertised, and finally, they are pushed towards one market: >Primary/Junior school. And to add insult to injury, Apple is now eroding >even this market with Macintosh. In a nutshell, they have created a When are they going to realize that both the II and the Mac have a place in the schools? A supercheap //c or similar machine (don't tell me it can't be done) which used the lab's localtalk for everything would be a perfect solution for many educators because they want lots of cheap machines in the lab and a few powerful machines for hypermedia and industrial stuff like CAD. My high school bought IBM's for their CAD classes, so I learned AutoCAD on a Leading Edge PC compatible. They couldn't afford Macs and they couldn't find any CAD packages for the GS. This is not the II's fault, it's Apple's. >situation in which Apple II's have no market, so they have justification >to discontinue the machine. It isn't happening... it's happened. Does Apple really think they can have their cake and eat it too? Or are they going to realize that they haven't really tapped the full potential of their first machine yet? I am sick of people who are so progress minded that they neglect the realities of engineering and computer development. There will be markets for the II that the Mac CANNOT touch, and Apple is going to lose out on them OR PISS OFF A LOT OF PEOPLE in the process of forcing them to buy what Apple decides to produce and not the better machine for the job. >What does this mean to you, a user of an Apple II? It means that the new >software, hardware, and interest in your machine will dwindle and vanish >over the next few years. You think there's no new software? You think >there are too few magazines? You ain't seen nothin' yet... Yep. And if Apple really cared they'd be asking us for ideas and not choking Barney Stone with non-disclosure agreements. >What can you do? I'm afraid to say the nails may already be in the coffin. >However, I DO suggest that you write to Apple USA (not Canada, of course) >and tell them what you think. Do you resent being "used" to finance >Apple's future, if you are not intended to have a part? Do you like being >told "Apple II Forever" is Apple's commitment, when it's barely lip >service? Do you like being part of the enormous 'cash cow' project? I >don't. I used to agree with the idea... but that was on the understanding that when the Mac was standing on its own it would help rebuild the II in return... NOT STAB IT IN THE BACK! >May I suggest that you write to Apple NOW. Not tomorrow. Not next week. >Now. If you wait, you will have missed your opportunity. I'll tell you >what I'm going to tell them: I don't appreciate the lack of support, and >I don't like their disdainful attitude towards the Apple II. And if this >is their attitude, then hell will freeze over before I buy another product >from this company. I'm waiting for the summit reports to come out. Over break (we have finals this week) I will be up in San Jose and maybe I can think of something that will help the situation. I'm taking suggestions, but throwing a brick through Sculley's window won't do. (I can't throw that high.) >Once you have written your letter(s) to Apple, write to ALL the software and >hardware suppliers that supply stuff for the Apple II, and tell them to get on >Apple's back. Better: tell them to use their databases of registered users to >start a letter writing campaign. I agree. I was considering revamps of the //f writing effort (including a much more acidic and therefore more accurate "reality vs. Apple") and distributing the whole thing as a package to get people to write letters. >Once you have done this, tell (not ask) everyone you know who uses an Apple II >to do the same. And when you (and they) write, don't bother mincing words. Lay >it on the line... or flowery tactfulness will prevent penetration through some >awefully thick skulls. And what bothers me is, we shouldn't have to do this. I'm beginning to think that Apple should give the Apple II its own division with its own evangelism, and people who will give it the respect it deserves. >Stephen Brown >P.S. My letters are already written, and by the time you read this, they'll be >sent. Most of us are cheering you. >P.P.S. Go ahead and flame me (or acid me). It will all be academic once >Apple's statement about the Apple II line is public. The gist: Think >Macintosh. And if you have an Apple II, support will be occasional software >upgrades, and the odd new peripheral. No new CPU's, and existing CPU's out of >production. No flames. You've crystallized our fears in more urgent terms than I've been willing to use so far. But you're right... Things had better happen NOW. >I'm so sorry to say Murph's ROM 04 rumour was just someone's wishful thinking. If it stays a rumor than it is proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about its own product. I can't wait to see what happens when they think of something that will replace the Macintosh. Maybe we should start a direct mail campaign... Politicians use them and they are very powerful for situations like this. Maybe we should archive these discussions from now on and start dumping them on Apple's FTP site. Or mail hefty packages to Sculley every week or so. Apple management has built one hell of an ivory tower for itself and we've got to figure out how to get to the top of it. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
UN106335@WVNVAXA.WVNET.EDU (03/13/90)
>Apple management has built one hell of an ivory tower for itself and we've >got to figure out how to get to the top of it. I think that might be a problem. Maybe destroying the foundation will help. Bring them to us on our terms. B-O-Y-C-O-T Macs. I am new to this network. And I do not know much of what is happining. But I have been reading my mail. Let me know if this is a good idea. If we can't get to the top, why not try bringing them to us? Or maybe we should go both ways???? A new IIgs user.... Chaz
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar12.004717.3848@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: [Much snipped] >If it stays a rumor than it is proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about its >own product. I can't wait to see what happens when they think of something >that will replace the Macintosh. > >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu You're forgetting something: The mac was designed from day one to be easily updated. You'll notice that software just ain't supposed to talk to the hardware. It's been shown time and again that any program that deos doesn't survive the next update. This gives Apple incredible freedom for future hardware. You may have heard that they're buying a whole lot of 88000s these days. How hard do you think it is to write a 68030 emulator on the 88000? Not hard, I'd guess. Old software will still work, and new software will chug that much faster. Nobody will have anything to complain about. The original // was a hack. It lived this long because so many people could put it to use. Updating the hardware and software was no easy trick, and it just may be getting too hard for Apple to insure that every nook and cranny remains supported. Look at the //c and up. They don't do cassette interface anymore. The registers are still there, but the hardware is gone. That was a cheap A/D D/A converter that people used to use for simple sound recording (low quality). It's use was NOT restricted to saving programs to tape - but it's gone now because dealing with it was a pain. Apple's ability to update the Mac is not nearly as constrained. They can come out with totally new hardware that will still run the original Mac stuff as long as that stuff complied to Apple's interface spec. It's far easier for Apple to pursue the Mac. Cheap too. Don't get me wrong - I'm an avid //gs user. I program it whenever I can. I'm just not succumbing to the desire that this machine lives FOREVER. Nothing does. Also, everyone, please remember that if Apple says "So long!" that doesn't mean that your machine suddenly stops working. It's really time to get upset when your Apple repair man says, "Apple //? What's that?" -- Dave Whitney dcw@sun-bear.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!sun-bear!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/14/90)
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >>[ What I wrote ] >>If it stays a rumor than it is proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about its >>own product. I can't wait to see what happens when they think of something >>that will replace the Macintosh. >You're forgetting something: The mac was designed from day one to be >easily updated. You'll notice that software just ain't supposed to >talk to the hardware. It's been shown time and again that any program >that deos doesn't survive the next update. Guess what? All the GS-specific hardware and the tools have the same design and the same problem! >This gives Apple incredible freedom for future hardware. You may have >heard that they're buying a whole lot of 88000s these days. How hard >do you think it is to write a 68030 emulator on the 88000? Not hard, >I'd guess. Old software will still work, and new software will chug >that much faster. Nobody will have anything to complain about. Except the price. >The original // was a hack. It lived this long because so many people >could put it to use. It lived this long because it was simple, cheap, and easy to program. I didn't say 'use', I said 'program'. BASIC, for all its faults, was vital to the success of the II. I want to see a toolbox aware BASIC because it might make desktop programming reasonable for casual programmers. Lots of 'normal' people programmed in BASIC on the Apple and they can't do that on the Mac... they have to buy expensive software packages which may or may not suit their needs half as well as a cheap BASIC hack that they work up to do their checkbook or whatever. My father is a living example of this. He wouldn't give up his ][+ for anything because it suits his needs and hasn't cost him any more money yet. When it breaks, he'll probably buy a used //e or something because it's the cheapest thing that does what he wants it to do. >Updating the hardware and software was no easy >trick, and it just may be getting too hard for Apple to insure that >every nook and cranny remains supported. That ain't as hard as it looks. The //e features are still damned simple to implement, you just have to make sure that they work as advertised and that the O/S doesn't break if someone messes with them. The GS does an admirable job of handling this. >Look at the //c and up. They >don't do cassette interface anymore. The registers are still there, >but the hardware is gone. That was a cheap A/D D/A converter that >people used to use for simple sound recording (low quality). It's use >was NOT restricted to saving programs to tape - but it's gone now >because dealing with it was a pain. WRONG. It's gone because NOBODY USED IT after the Disk ][ came out. Same goes for the Game I/O Strobe ($C040)... not enough people used it and on the GS they needed more locations to put the mouse registers in, so they used 5 or so $C04x locations and pulled the strobe output high so that the Game port would think it was inactive all the time. >Apple's ability to update the Mac is not nearly as constrained. They >can come out with totally new hardware that will still run the >original Mac stuff as long as that stuff complied to Apple's interface >spec. It's far easier for Apple to pursue the Mac. Cheap too. Maybe, maybe not. The // hardware is still damn cheap because it is 8 bit based and there is an inherent cost differential between the two. Board wiring, chip count, chip sizes, all contribute to the cost. Besides, you can re-implent the //c or whatever using state-of-the-art technology -- you'd get a machine so cheap that it would sell to people who want to buy a computer without investing in one. >Don't get me wrong - I'm an avid //gs user. I program it whenever I >can. I'm just not succumbing to the desire that this machine lives >FOREVER. Nothing does. Computers are somewhat different... the hardware can take infinitely many forms regardless of whether the memory addresses are hardwired. What the software sees is what really matters, and you could re-implement the hardware to save money and add features and all you care about is if STA $C029 does the same things it used to. //'s are still too expensive because they haven't had any real cost-of-manufacturing technology applied to them, which the Mac II's need or they'd be even more prohibitively expensive. Add to that Apple's sacred cow of a profit margin... >Also, everyone, please remember that if Apple >says "So long!" that doesn't mean that your machine suddenly stops >working. It's really time to get upset when your Apple repair man >says, "Apple //? What's that?" Agreed. But I still see potential for improving the GS, especially with the technology Apple has access to. After investigating 'trouble spots' in the GS hardware I am convinced that they could have done a much better job in 1985, but that was then and this is 1990; Apple has the technology now to make a new GS which could take on the Amiga and blow it away. It would require some extra features, but the hardware has festered for so long we haven't had a chance to quirk up the system half as badly as they have on the Mac. The Mac may look nice, but they have had to do some totally abominable things to get the software compatibility to work, especially multifinder. So far they've been able to hide it with bigger ROMs and a lot more memory, but the problem is there and the bomb box is the symptom. I use enough different macs here on campus (pluses, SE's, II's, IIci's) to find out about it (not to mention a friend or two who do deep Mac programming) so I just use the stuff I have and if it crashes I reboot. Rebooting is a fact of life on any machine that doesn't have full hardware memory protection because it is darn hard to prove an entire application so you won't have to worry about it. Dave, the realities of system software evolution are a lot worse than those of us who just do applications realize. Nobody has had an easy time of it -- Macs, PCs, nobody. If anything the Amiga and the GS have the best chances because both had decent system software fairly late in coming, and have had the benefit of learning from others' mistakes. What I'm saying is, don't give up yet. When our best programmers get sick of the realities of programming any machine, we are really in trouble. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu