lipo@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Patrick Lipo) (02/25/90)
Ever since my dad bought an Apple II+ in 1979, I was hooked. He has
long since gone to Macs, but I have been faithfully attempting to keep
my Apple up to date. My IIgs has kept me somewhat happy, and I live in
anticipation of upgrades that will make it a COMPETITIVE machine that
I won't be embarassed to admit I own. (I am a Comp Sci major, after
all.) However, I just read something that really hurt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Computer Gaming World, March 1990:
"Inside the Industry," p. 18
The publishing venture which brought new meaning to multi-player
computer gaming with 'Star Saga One: Beyond the Boundary' and 'Star Saga
Two: The Clathran Menace' is up for sale. According to Andrew
Greenberg, President and CEO of Masterplay, "faced with holding our
breath and taking a chance a little while longer (and maybe, facing
bankruptcy), the board of directors made the decision to sell. The
deepest cut of all and perhaps, most unwise decision we made was the
decision to support the Apple II." Greenberg stated that the inability
of the Apple II to handle both the huge storyline and support the kind
of "visual heat" the current market demands turned out to be a more
devastating that anyone could have expected. "We followed the 'Apple II
Forever' hype into oblivion," eulogized the personable game designer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not just talking about games. I'm sick of hearing my friends, proud
owners of IBM's and Amigas, brag about this and that and what their
machine can do. But deep down I know they're right. One immense
advantage that IBM's have over us (other than a better clock speed) is
SUPPORT FROM HELL! I mean, for every Apple product that exists there
are probably ten IBM products. If you read a magazine about, say,
programming, they ASSUME you are working on an IBM. That's the power
they have...they're EVERYWHERE! THERY'RE BLOCKING OUT THE SUN!
Amigas, however, aren't nearly as well supported (although they're
on a rise.) They, however, have the technology that many computers
lack: Multitasking, good sound, good graphics, Blitter, etc. That's
what attracts the new buyers, and the increasing number of buyers is
what attracts more support. It seems like a year ago, the Amiga program
lists in mail-order houses were about a quarter of the size of the
corresponding Apple list. Now they are approaching the same size. I
dread that in the future, the Apple section will disappear (it already
has in some.)
The II has neither the support (Apple flubbed that when they let the
II slide in lieu of the Mac) nor the technology (I know, there's some
nice bits in there, but there's nothing that has been noted outside of
regular II users). The support for the II is the only thing that will
save it, and its not going to just come back. It is necessary to create
a machine that will be noticed by the rest of the computing world, not
just in a sidebar. That is not going to be easy. If they even want to
think about saving the II, Apple needs to create a machine that deserves
note. So far, they have been just doing the bare minimum in development
to keep up with the rest of the community. I just wish they would come
up with a II (hopefully upgrade) that does something that most other
comparable machines don't. I don't care what it is--speed, capability,
cost--but it should be something to cause others to take notice. Sorry,
I heard rumors about ROM 4 and thought "great!" It sounds great to me,
and the new developments may keep me around a little longer, but
there's really nothing there to attract a larger percentage of NEW
users: NOTHING'S NEW, GUYS!
This "Apple IIf" proposal may be something to put the zing back in
the II, but remember that COST will probably be the crucial factor in
the future of the computer. If it has good capabilities at an
affordable price, it may be worth a look. But if the Apple tries to
increase its power only (without keeping the price the same), Apple WILL
LOSE. There are too many powerful machines out there who will
overshadow it into infinity.
Sorry. This has probably all been said before. I have owned a II
for a long time, and when I mention that I own one I usually have to
follow the statement with some explanation as to WHY I own it, or with
some defense of it. However, I still have a secret sense of pride that
I have stuck with it, and programming a II also has its perks.
Unfortunately, when I read that the lack of capability in the Apple
II had almost caused a company to go bankrupt...and in a general
computing magazine (not an Apple-only) it just hurt. Think of all the
young (or old) impressionable non-II users out there reading that
information...it could very well sign the Apple II's death warrant! And
I don't want to have to start trying to program an Amiga. :-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+-. "Don't worry, I'm used to shrapnel."
! ! --Deunan Knute, _Appleseed_
+-'
! at (Spam?) lipo@vms.macc.wisc.edu or lipo@wiscmac3.BitNet
------------------------------------------------------------------------rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (02/27/90)
In article <3243@dogie.macc.wisc.edu> lipo@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Patrick Lipo) writes: > [ ... ] for every Apple product that exists there are probably ten >IBM products. Commercial products, could well be. In terms of free software, though, the Apple still seems to be ahead--at least, looking through my user group catalogs etc. Of course, it's getting harder and harder to find some of that stuff, especially now that TechAlliance seems to be slowly phasing out all of their Apple ][ stuff. :-( >The support for the II is the only thing that will save it, and its >not going to just come back. It is necessary to create a machine >that will be noticed by the rest of the computing world, not just in >a sidebar. The computing world has really changed a lot since the Apple ][ was introduced. It wasn't originally intended to be a machine for the "computing world"; the computing world back then was huge mainframes, and university PDPs. It was intended as a machine for hobbyists, and (later) as something the average person could use. I think that the real problem is that computers are no longer seen in the same terms. When I picked up an Apple ][+, I had no idea what computer science was; I just thought that it was fun to play with, and that it could do some useful things (keep track of my magazine collection, things like that). Nowadays, computers have been reabsorbed into corporate society, and the PC--as a computer for the ordinary person--is pretty much gone. Maybe the Amiga will take over the Apple ]['s old spot; at least it's affordable. But judging from my personal experiences, there just aren't people around who are *interested* in computers as a hobby any more. And companies like IBM and even Apple aren't interested in selling computers to people any more...just check out their prices. >I just wish they would come up with a II (hopefully upgrade) that >does something that most other comparable machines don't. I don't >care what it is--speed, capability, cost--but it should be something >to cause others to take notice. Well, for a PC, you really don't *need* too much. Speed? OK, it's nice to play with a 25MHz 68030, and there are occasionally things which I suppose the speed would be handy for. But for the sorts of things that my mom or sister do, say--word processing, some music stuff, and cataloging--our Apple ][+ does just fine. I'd rather see a //e-class machine around $500, say with two 3.5-inch drives, than a fancier one at $1500. But I'm an idealist, and still think that computers could be used to help the average person's life. >NOTHING'S NEW, GUYS! The last new thing in computers was probably Visicalc.... (1/2 :-) I don't know. I've pretty much given up on the whole concept of personal computers by now. Maybe bulletin boards will revive them (FidoNet is a step in the right direction), but I'm not convinced. I think the world's missed a beautiful opportunity here. Oh well. Enough nostalgia for the day. Maybe I should start trying to convince myself to stay in computer science again.... :-) Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/27/90)
On America Online, the company was immediately flamed because: The game only used 40 column text. It cost no less than $60 MAIL ORDER If they call that necessary to support the Apple ][ then they deserve it. 80 column text is standard in the Apple ][ world now. So is 128K. If they call supporting the Apple ][ making a program so stripped down it will run on a bare ][+ motherboard then they ought to have written it back when 48K ][+'s were still the number one computer in the nation. They have no place to complain in today's market. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (03/01/90)
In-Reply-To: message from lipo@vms.macc.wisc.edu
I will be writing my views, once they're fully thought out, on why I think
Apple is seriously considering axing the Apple II line. Look, I do believe in
Apple DTS... those guys believe in "Apple II Forever", but I don't believe
that the decision makers at Apple, share their views.
Whether or not you believe that Apple has let the II slide into oblivion, so
that they can justify axing it, and then do what they really wanted to do in
the first place, make Mac's, it is clear that Apple is sending out some very
disturbing signals to the Industry, to Developers, and to users.
What I DO BELIEVE APPLE NEEDS is a flood of letters---
state: (a) You use the Apple IIGS or whatever
(b) If the II goes, then your next computer will NOT be an Apple
(c) You are not impressed by the support you've been getting
and that they should bloody well do something now
and (d) You don't buy the line that "Apple II Technology" is obsolete,
rather that you see this as a cheaply veiled way of increasing
Macintosh sales.
Such a flood should be coordinated. Any takers (I will...)
BTW: I have spoke, in person, to the guy who has designed a 20 Mhz 65816...
and if you don't believe it (as I didn't), wait a couple of weeks, and put in
your order. You'll get your product! There is now no such thing as "obsolete
Apple II Technology".
UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil
INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.comtoddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/03/90)
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: > and (d) You don't buy the line that "Apple II Technology" is obsolete, > rather that you see this as a cheaply veiled way of increasing > Macintosh sales. I keep telling people this, but the Mac people who think they are techies (only a few really are and they are much better informed) pooh-pooh it even though the Macintosh is the BEST example of it to date: Technology is how the machine is manufactured. That becomes obsolete quickly as the industry progresses. It is only partially related to: Architecture, which is how the machine operates from the software's point of view. Software doing what it is supposed to do is what determines compatibility, and as long as that is maintained then you can take any liberties you want with the hardware, such as: Implementing the motherboard with newer logic technologies and higher density chips that are cheaper to manufacture Speeding things up while providing for 'slow modes' Making the logic itself more efficient (Mensch wants to shave off gobs of cycles by piplining in the native mode of the 65832) 'Obsolete technology' does not invalidate a product line, it only places age on a given implementation of that product. >BTW: I have spoke, in person, to the guy who has designed a 20 Mhz 65816... >and if you don't believe it (as I didn't), wait a couple of weeks, and put in >your order. You'll get your product! There is now no such thing as "obsolete >Apple II Technology". Yes there is; no one implemements a complete microcomputer with just TTL anymore. But you cannot infer from that statement as many have done that it makes the Apple II obsolete, any more than the original Mac motherboard makes the entire Mac line obsolete.. You _can_ infer that making a motherboard of TTL is an obsolete manufacturing technique (which it is). As for letters, maybe I should archive the complete //f effort (Rewrite! All I'd have to do is cut & paste the techno ramble section from #1, it's got some fun stuff that is mising from the final.) and "reality vs. Apple" and binscii the AWP files? Or as text. And send it to comp.sys.apple and APPLE2-L, with requests for free distribution, and a letter asking everyone to write you because I haven't got the time! My grades are in jeopardy because of the //f thing already, but I think I can pull off an archive effort without it hurting me. Util then, I'm keeping track of all the letters I've gotten (over 30). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu