davidbrierley@LYNX.NORTHEASTERN.EDU (12/09/88)
It is my personal opinion that Apple isn't quite sure of what
the future of the Apple II line should be. On one hand Apple created
the IIc+ in order to compete with Apple clones (i.e. the Laser 128
series); but on the other hand (as many II users would agree) Apple's
support of the II series appears to be dying. Apple will refrain
from assigning Apple II service staff to universities - pushing the
Macintosh line instead. In fact, the only market that Apple targets
the II line is grade school. With this in mind it seems that Apple
risks losing the very market that made the company so successful in
terms of numbers of units sold - the education market.
If Apple intends to let the II line go at some point I feel it
should open the market up to Apple II clones - like IBM did with its
original PC's. Apple may have to make a choice between reviving
Apple II support or letting the II go because there are rumors that
Laser is close to releasing a IIgs clone!
-DRB
davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edurupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (12/10/88)
----- For what it's worth, one of my "sources" tells me that Apple is not about to kill off the II line because of continued profitability. One of the reasons the IIc/IIe remain profitable is that no (or little) money has been put into upgrading them. Next time you pass a Ford dealership, take a look at the Crown Victoria. The Crown Vic is Ford's link with the past, a full-sized car. This year, model 1989 I think, they have finally given the car a modest face-lift (and a pleasing one, too). Otherwise, the car is pretty much the same as it was a decade ago. Why make big changes if your old design sells well as is? Same with the Apple II line. The Apple IIGS is Apple Computer's attempt to have their cake and eat it too. A computer that runs all the old software and in addition moves into the new areas of 16-bit processing and graphical user interface. I know that a lot of die-hard Apple II fans are not crazy about the grahical interface, but that's the way things are going. On the other hand, I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. As it is, the GS offers some nice features that the Plus and SE don't have, such as color and very good sound. If the interface could be speeded up a bit, you would have a very nice machine. Now, given that possibility, and assuming that a really large base of GS software were created, wouldn't a lot of potential Mac buyers save some money by going with the GS instead? I'm sure that's what Apple is worried about. They want the GS to succeed, but if it succeeds too much, they have the problem of competing with themselves. The one thing that Apple users have to accept is that the 8-bit days are over. Well, if not over, at least fading into the background. Even Henry Ford had to face reality eventually when he switched from the Model-T to the Model-A. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please don't confuse this posting with anything other than my own personal opinion. Names and places have been changed to protect the innocent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/10/88)
In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'm afraid it is an argument that many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. If every Apple IIGS magically started operating at 100 MIPS, it still would not displace the Macintosh for at least a few years. (And of course there won't be such a fast 65xxx-based machine any time in the foreseeable future.) The speedy IIGS would not run any of the Mac software, which is what sells Macs. It would take a long time to bring that level of sophistication into the Apple IIGS world.
lm03_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Larry Moss) (12/10/88)
In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. Personally, I'd like to see this happen. The thing I like most about the Mac is its ability to get the computer phobic type of person to actually sit in front of a computer. The Mac happens to be a very powerful machine. It was just not designed with the hacker in mind (like the original Apple). The Mac has introduced a number of new things to the personal computer market. (Most notably the graphical user interface.) I use both Macs and Apple IIs these days. I like playing with my II+, which will let me do anything I want with it. But there are definately times when I feel that it just doesn't have the power that I would like. Why should Apple be concerned about creating competition for the Mac? I think the mistake came when they created competition for the II line. There has been a whole lot of talk about Apple bringing the II up to the level of the Mac so they could dump off the old machine that's just hanging around. I think people are just looking at it the wrong way. If an Apple II can become as powerful as a Mac, than obviously it's the Mac that isn't needed. Let's bring the power of the Mac to the Apple II. Wasn't it Woz that said the Apple II was all anybody needed. With a graphical user interface anybody can use it, and it can remain a hacker's dream.
shankar@src.honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) (12/11/88)
In article <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >>I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >>be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. > >This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'm afraid it is an argument that >many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. > >If every Apple IIGS magically started operating at 100 MIPS, it still >would not displace the Macintosh for at least a few years. (And of >course there won't be such a fast 65xxx-based machine any time in the >foreseeable future.) The speedy IIGS would not run any of the Mac >software, which is what sells Macs. Also, speed isn't an one-dimensional quantity. The GS could conceivably be made faster then the Mac for typical home and small business applications (graphical word processing, databases for example), but be much slower in scientific applications which are floating point intensive. This is just an example, other combinations exist off course. Not that I see Apple making the GS faster in any application.
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (12/13/88)
In article <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >>I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >>be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. > >This is wrong, wrong, wrong,.... No, it is right, right right because, in your very own words... >and I'm afraid it is an argument that >many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. See, that's the point. Neither you nor I make Apple Computer, Inc.'s policy. If the people who make decision in Cupertino are concerned about a possible conflict between a more powerful GS and the Mac, and that does not strike me as a paticularly bizarre hypothesis, then they will make their product plans accordingly. > >If every Apple IIGS magically started operating at 100 MIPS, it still >would not displace the Macintosh for at least a few years. (And of Well, I am sure Sculley and company do not want the IIGS to displace the Mac at *any* time. >course there won't be such a fast 65xxx-based machine any time in the >foreseeable future.) The speedy IIGS would not run any of the Mac >software, which is what sells Macs. It would take a long time to >bring that level of sophistication into the Apple IIGS world. Well, many factors go into the decision to buy brand X instead of brand Y. Software should be the most important, but price is also a very major consideration for most people as well. I think many people would go for a $1500.00 GS+ (or whatever) with its good graphics, color, and sound, instead of a Mac SE. In either case Apple would make a sale, but product development strategies at Apple surely must be based on the primacy of the Macintosh line, and for that reason I could understand a reluctance on the part of Apple to push two lines to the hilt, even if both machines are capable of significant upgrading. The long and the short of it is that if you want better performance AND a wide supply of up-to-date software, you are going to have to go with Mac at some point in the future if the computer you use is to have the Apple name on it. Of course, there is nothing to prevent you from using an Apple //e or IIGS till the year 2100, if that's what you want. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At least that's my opinion. And nothing more than my opinion, at that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
erast1@cisunx.UUCP (Evan Ron Aussenberg) (12/13/88)
In article <1328@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: :In article <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: ::In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: :::I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would :::be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. :: ::This is wrong, wrong, wrong,.... : :No, it is right, right right because, in your very own words... : ::and I'm afraid it is an argument that ::many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. : :See, that's the point. Neither you nor I make Apple Computer, Inc.'s policy. :If the people who make decision in Cupertino are concerned about a possible :conflict between a more powerful GS and the Mac, and that does not strike :me as a paticularly bizarre hypothesis, then they will make their product :plans accordingly. [alot of stuff deleted...] But we do influence Apple Co., and that IS the point... it's called the power of demand and demand. Apple can't ignore it's customers, Apple and Mac alike. Why don't we take a break from this, and resume this conversation, say in about 6 months.... (I'm so optimistic) Evan Ron Aussenberg erast1@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu
mikes@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Michael Steele) (12/16/88)
> In article<1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: > >I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would > >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. > > ...The Mac happens to be a very powerful machine. > It was just not designed with the hacker in mind (like the original Apple). > The Mac has introduced a number of new things to the personal computer > market. (Most notably the graphical user interface.) > I agree! I bought a GS because I wanted a Mac interface SOMEtimes and a Apple II interface others. I think it is part of the reason why the Amiga has done so well in the hacker market: it's ability to have both interfaces (and of course it's "hackability). The reason the Mac is so widely used by Real computer users (as opposed to novices) is due to the wide range of powerful software. Although the GS doesn't have as great a selection of powerful software (Appleworks GS is changeing that) ie Cricketgraph, Excel, Word, Full Write, Pagemaker, Illustrator, etc it has the hacking ability inherent in the II line. It has the easy toolbox programming of the Mac for High level programmer too. The only thing the Gs lacks is speed. There is already a math coprocessor card out, so I'm not worried about that, but 10 Mhz would give the Mac a run for it's money. With the 68881 coprocessor card running on a GS we used programs from Byte? and ran some tests. The Gs was 4 times slower than the Mac II on most of the Math runs. 4 TIMES!!!! and it's considerable cheaper. If Sculley does what he promises, the II line is moving up. Given a Mac emulator card, the II will replace the Mac Plus and maybe even the SE making it the low end Mac with a HACKING ability! Mike Steele (NETOPRMS@NCSUVM.BITNET)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/20/88)
> ...On the other >hand, I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. As it is, the GS offers some >nice features that the Plus and SE don't have, such as color and very >good sound... I thought the idea was to sell computers and make money? Inhibiting the IIgs because it might be viable as an alternative to the Mac is STATEGICALLY UNSOUND!!! (if I were as stockholder -- and I'm not -- I would be annoyed at the very idea). In the first place, the two machines really do appeal to DIFFERENT MARKETS (yes, there's some overlap, but that's inescapable). Also, both machines are firmly ESTABLISHED within their markets. The logic of saying the IIgs *might* threaten the Mac market is the equivalent of saying General Motors ought to quit upgrading Chevrolets because they threaten Cadillac sales, and the folks at Proctor & Gamble would positively crack up over the notion of spurning profits out of fear of product cannibalization. The interaction between the IIgs and Mac lines is something to be MANAGED (making those fat executive salaries the old-fashioned way) not avoided. If the IIgs really IS a viable alternative to the Mac, then either the Mac is over-priced, or the IIgs is undervalued (naturally, as a consumer, I'd prefer lowering the Mac's price to raising the IIgs's, but one of those two decisions would be the logical act). 'Course, I only teach (AND DO) this stuff for a living :-) [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/21/88)
>Please note that GM has been very careful over the years to make >damned sure that Chevrolet *did not* interfere with other makes in their The difference between a Chevrolet Vega and a Cadillac Simeron (aside fromt the "prestige" nameplate) is that about $8,000 worth of Vega options are "standard equipment" on the Simeron (actually I think the accumulated cost of the options that turn a Vega into a Simeron is less than the difference in price between the two "base models," the remaining difference is, I suppose, the value of the Cadillac nameplate). I said product interactions are something to be MANAGED; that's what GM does (P&G too for that matter, although the difference between Tide, Cheer, and Fab really is more image than substance). >line. Some of the suggestions for upgrading the IIGS that I have read >might very well make it so powerful that it could start to eat out of >the Mac's sales. This is speculative, of course, but it's like As long as the operating systems differ, I doubt that the problem would be as great as the possiblity that the PS/2 line will erode the sales of both Apple lines. I haven't heard of a 6502 family chip (in the foreseeable future) with a built in memory management capability. It's possible that a IIgs could be made that would blow the Mac away one application at a time (might be fine for some users) but the Mac should be able to out multitask the IIgs even with the most optimistic of upgrades. >insurance. We have insurance "just in case" something bad happens, not >because we are sure it will happen. The solution IS to upgrade the Mac (already in the works) NOT retard the IIgs. A true multitasking-virtual memory operating system for the Mac should be along end of '90, early '91 while nothing like it is even on the IIgs drawing board. Apple's been fooling around with prototype 68040 chips for more than a year, and the latest rumors have the Mac migrating to the 88000 family. By the time the IIgs has gone 32-bit and has the power of a (1989) 68030 Mac, the Mac should be a 50 MIP/10 Megaflop workstation with 32Mbytes of RAM and 2 gigabytes of (fast) disk storage. In other words, innovation is the only insurance that buys anything in Apple's business. >Yes, the two machines have different markets, which is why Apple is >happy to continue the IIGS. I still think the end may be near for the >//e. If you can buy a IIGS, which is much more powerful than a //e, >for a little more money, why not go for the better machine? I can't see >much reason to continue the //e when the IIGS will do everything the >//e can do and lots more. Apple already HAS discontinued //e production once (forced to restart due to commitments made to school districts). Tight school budgets that need to buy roomfulls of computers are sensitive to even a $100 per CPU, but Apple should be able to switch them to the IIgs or //c+ (with any kind of effective security device) by next Fall. You're right that the //e is a museum piece (so is the Mac Plus, though not all dealers may realize it). By Dec '89 the Mac SE will be ready for the Smithsonian. [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)
mcgurrin@MITRE.ARPA (12/21/88)
I agree with your message, and that crippling or limiting the IIGS to limit competition with the Mac is an unsound business practice, but it is not an uncommon one. Wang severly limited the word processing ability of their PC type machines since they made much more profit on their word processing machines. The result -- Wang's entry into the PC world failed. Another example is the original DEC rainbow, where one had to buy pre-formatted disks at a large markup, since DEC had a monopoly on it. This lasted all of a few months until 3rd party vendors offerred formatting programs. This was certainly not the only reason the Rainbow never took off, but it left a bad taste in many people's mouths, including my own. Finally, not a marketing decision, per se, but the 1st mass-distributed PC to use a 16 bit microprocessor that I can remember was the TI, but it only used it in 8 bit mode. And a marketing decision removed peeks and pokes from the version of BASIC they distributed (they wanted to sell you software, not let you write it). Again, the TI ended up left in the dust. Limiting your own lower end products so as not to compete against your upper end has a long tradition. It can work if you are the only vendor in the field, or if your customers have strong brand loyalty and your goal is more profit from your base, not expanding your base. Personaly, I think Apple has hurt themselves, pushing many old Apple II owners over to IBM and other machines.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/22/88)
>I agree with your message, and that crippling or limiting the IIGS to limit >competition with the Mac is an unsound business practice, but it is not an >uncommon one. Wang severly limited the word processing ability of their >PC type machines since they made much more profit on their word processing >machines. The result -- Wang's entry into the PC world failed. I guess the lower half of the class ('C' and 'D' students) has to work for someone. The key idea here as that all the examples you give result in something other than ringing success. So what you seem to be observing is that Apple will stubbornly refuse to learn from the mistakes of others and INSIST on screwing it up for themselves. It isn't because we don't TRY to teach them better (what do us professors know anyhow? :-) [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)
REWING@TRINCC.BITNET (12/22/88)
Please, let's get the cars right! The Vega hasn't been made in years, although if it was a comment on the current Chevy Cavalier, then I agree. The Cadillac *Cimmarron* was always a dog until maybe the 1988 model year, but by that time it was too late. --Rick Ewing Apple Atlanta Motorsport Geeks
REWING@TRINCC.BITNET (12/22/88)
Hi Murph, I dunno about any decision to delay the introduction of a faster IIgs for marketing reasons (although in many ways it seems blatently obvious), but I question the delay of any 68030 based Macs just because "Sculley says we can't have any in 1988. Poppycock. The 68030 Mac II isn't that far behind other workstations inthe introduction of the new chip in a system. And besides, I seriously doubt if Gassee would delay any development of anything, regardless of what Sculley said, unless it was prohibitively expensive. Gassee isn't the man I'd want to tell something silly like (hold back 68030 mac development because it looks bad for me). Gassee and develpment will do whatever they damn well please because they're product based people, not business types. Whether a development machine makes it to market...is another story. --Rick Ewing Apple Atlanta
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/22/88)
>Please, let's get the cars right! The Vega hasn't been made in years, >although if it was a comment on the current Chevy Cavalier, then I agree. >The Cadillac *Cimmarron* was always a dog until maybe the 1988 model year, >but by that time it was too late. Sorry about that; all GM X-cars look alike (my point really) :-) I haven't bought Detroit iron since 1972. Much as I'd like to redress the balance of payments, our Acura Legend (made in Tokyo) is dollar for dollar MUCH better than anything we've seen made in the U.S. or Europe. Maybe we can get Nipon Inc. to buy up Apple (once rumored to be a take-over target because of that cash hoard) and do the job right? [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)
rdlanctot@instr.okanagan.bc.ca (Ryan Lanctot) (12/24/88)
I, for one, could care less what processor/memory/io the apple has. I was happy with my II+ when I got it and I'm happy with my //e now. What I would like to see is the elimination of the corporate mentality so often found in the industry. The reason the Apple has lasted so long, (mainly I think), is not because of the slots inside of the machine but because every nook and cranny has been explored. Fer instance, The Lam technique (call -144 to input machine language from basic). Another fer instance, all the work that people like Don Lancaster have done to provide neat little circuits, etc. If the boys at Apple don't wake up soon, I fear that that little fruit on the fron of our machines will shrivell up and turn into the ugly IBM logo.
ccw@nvuxr.UUCP (christopher wood) (12/27/88)
In article <8812220012.aa01624@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >>Please, let's get the cars right! The Vega hasn't been made in years, >>although if it was a comment on the current Chevy Cavalier, then I agree. >>The Cadillac *Cimmarron* was always a dog until maybe the 1988 model year, >>but by that time it was too late. > >Sorry about that; all GM X-cars look alike (my point really) :-) > But the Cimmarron and the cavalier are J cars - the chevy X car was the citation; I don't think there was a caddy version of the X cars. Chris Wood
ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (01/04/89)
In article <8812202201.aa08154@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >... I haven't heard of a 6502 family chip (in the foreseeable >future) with a built in memory management capability. It's possible that >a IIgs could be made that would blow the Mac away one application at a time >(might be fine for some users) but the Mac should be able to out multitask >the IIgs even with the most optimistic of upgrades. Nope, 95% of the Mac's out there (68000 or 68020-based) don't even have MMU's, but that's a separate issue from running multiple tasks. A Memory Management Unit is useful for protecting tasks from stepping over each other, but other machines and OSes (Amiga, OS-9, etc, Mac+) seem to multitask quite nicely without them. If you run several tasks, then you have to consider the effects of context switch overhead when switching from one task to another. Basically this is a fcn of the number of registers in the machine, and the 65{02,816} have an advantage here (4-5 regs vs 16 or 32 for the 68k). 65816 also makes it easy to change stack and zero page 'segment' pointers, so you can structure things to get a bit more protection than what your basic 68k box has. (fewer worries about sanity of that stack pointer you're about to start using.) Meanwhile, I hope all you GS developers are writing position independent (or at least easily-relocatable) code out there. This is a case where the Mac may have had an initial advantage, since code segments must be relocatable. Anyway, someday I'll have to write the multitasking OS for the //e and prove everybody wrong:-) -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@{ius{3,2,1}.,}cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA "You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)" --
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (01/10/89)
In article <8812212213.aa00649@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> REWING@TRINCC.BITNET writes: > >I dunno about any decision to delay the introduction of a faster IIgs >for marketing reasons (although in many ways it seems blatently >obvious), but I question the delay of any 68030 based Macs just >because "Sculley says we can't have any in 1988. Poppycock. In fact the Mac IIx came out before the end of 1988, and Sculley apologized for not keeping his word. -- 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
AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (01/29/89)
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 15:32:20 HST >From: Tom Jenkins <tomj@PRO-PAC.CTS.COM> >Subject: Apple VS IBM >Is Apple Computer listening??? Apple is a _lot_ of people, so I'm not even sure what the question means. The people "near the bottom" who actually do the hard work--engineering and developer technical support, for example--are committed to what they do and are definitely listening. >I am slowly deciding to sell my Apple ][gs to purchase a >more up to date and state of the art computer system. Sounds like you have already made up your mind. I'm sorry to hear that. >In response to all the flame on's concerning the supposed >death of the Apple II line, allow me to make some comments >regarding a single user[']s point of view... People have been predicting the death of the Apple II since shortly after it was introduced. They've been wrong. > o Non-chiclit keyboard (this one slipped out - I HATE the > gs's keyboard compared to a full size one) The keys are full-sized; there is just less "frame" around the edges of the keyboard. If you don't like it, buy almost any ADB keyboard and plug it in. > o Mappable Slots I'd like to see GS/OS support both slots and ports in use at the same time, for disk devices at least. This is possible in software, meaning I expect to see it appear in future system disks for FREE. ----- I don't agree with everything Apple does, but I believe the Apple IIgs is moving forward steadily and that there are great things coming in the short-term future. The appearance of the promised Resource Manager will drastically change and speed up the way people develop software for the GS. Apple is no doubt working on a lot of things they haven't admitted to; in the case of the resource manager, they broke their usual policy of not talking about things before they're ready to release and _promised_ it to prevent developers from causing everybody major headaches by using the Resource forks of GS/OS files before Apple defines their format. Please give the GS that year you promised! >UUCP: {nosc, cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM} > ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tomj >ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tomj@nosc.MIL >INET: tomj@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tomj@PSUVAX1 --David A. Lyons bitnet: awcttypa@uiamvs DAL Systems CompuServe: 72177,3233 P.O. Box 287 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2 North Liberty, IA 52317 AppleLinkPE: Dave Lyons
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (02/28/89)
First a response to a previous posting, and then the usual metaphysical ramblings on the Apple II future... In article <8902260256.AA18177@crash.cts.com>, orcus@pro-lep.cts.com (Brian Greenstone) writes: > Can anyone here give me some figures as to just how many GS's have been sold, > ... > Im really interested in the "reality" of it all. I mean we've been ragging on > the GS for a few months now, and Id like to see the real figures. > > -Brian Greenstone Well, I don't have any numeric figures, but this EMail has made the rounds locally: ####################################################### 41 | Subject: Some surprising statistics on fruit growth | Date: Sun Feb 26 04:40:31 1989 | | | >From Computer Reseller (Monday Feb 13, 1989) | | ...audits show Apple microcomputer unit sales of all models | were up 28 percent over october of last year, but IBM's sales | slipped... | | ...and for the first time ever, IBM's market share overall | fell below Apple's.... | | ...numbers show Apple leading IBM by a full 5 percent in | unit market... | | ...The Macintosh SE now outsells the PS/2 model 50 in both | dollar and unit terms... | | ...Macintosh IIx sold a third as many units as IBM's PS/2 | Model 80 in October, despite the IIx's midmonth introduction. | | And on another page, a chart shows that the Apple IIgs holds | the same market share as the Compaq Deskpro 386! Truth is indeed | stranger than fiction. | { /* begin rambling */ Lately I've been riding the roller-coaster of extreme praise followed by heated grumbling complaints concerning Apple and it's treatment of the II line. As a recent purchaser of the Applied Engineering TransWarp (II+), I certainly would like to see speedier CPU's right out of the Apple box. But let's be fair to Apple, folks. They are but _one_ company trying each year to provide products that will keep _all_ their customers happy. We can't expect them to base a CPU on the absolutely fastest processor available. There would be too many bugs for the average user to have too put up with. You should to consider that there are over ten popular IBM PC clones makers who each have products ranging from 'slow but reliable' to fast and on the edge of technology. If clone manufacturer 'A' makes a 25 MHz AT type machine, you still have the choice of not buying it if it doesn't have all the bugs worked out. It usually takes a few revisions before the higher speed machines reach a reliable state. Meanwhile, clone manufacturer 'B' has yet another variation available with it's peculiar bugs. A single company simply doesn't have the time to produce multiple variations on their machine for simultaneous release. Apple instead provides a well-tested product which hopfully meets most of their customers' needs. I, for one, think that the Apple II line is better because each CPU is well tested. The IIGS wouldn't be neck-to-neck with the Compaq DeskPro 386 if it weren't a well built machine. Apple doesn't just throw raw speed at their products (although they do charge a little too much, and they seem to be behind in adding features like speed to their current line of products). I think third-party speed-up options are an acceptable quick upgrade for those users willing to take the risk on the edge of technology. It takes AE far less time to design a single board than Apple spends on an entire CPU. Then, when Apple has put their proven expertise into the next generation of CPU's, these features (which were once options) will be available to everyone (providing that Apple does a good job of keeping up with technological advances). I don't think Apple is unaware of the Apple II's potential. Take a glance at page 104 of the March 1989 A+ magazine. Apple has paid for an entire page of advertising geared toward recruiting new Apple II-specific employees. Apple is a growing company, and if you are a talented designer with a passion for the II series, then apply to join the team responsible for designing the *new* Apple II! Brian Willoughby microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET #include <std.disclaimer> /* MicroSoft has forgotten the Apple II, therefore any of my opinions here have no relation to my work for MicroSoft */
daveharv@pro-novapple.UUCP (Dave Harvey) (03/28/89)
Writes: REWING%TRINCC.BITNET >Look folks, I don't know where some of this BS is coming from regarding >the fictional death of the Apple II family, but its obvious to me that >many people in this industry, usually writing for trade rags just don't >know what the hell they are talking about. Either that, or they would >like to see the Apple II killed for some other diabolical reason. >--Rick Ewing >Apple Atlanta tech Support >...and generally pissed off by all of this>... -------------- Maybe they've been listening to John Sculley--- Read on--- One recent event illustrates why many Apple II users don't have too much hope for the future of the Apple II. Recently, the Apple User Group Connection sent out to all user groups a paperback entitled "Direction for the Nineties". The book is a compilation of 7 speeches made by John Sculley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Apple Computer, Inc. over a seven month period to a variety of groups accross the country. From the introduction-- "Spanning such issues as introoperability, industry alliances, and global economic developents, these presentations provide a compelling outline of Apple's technology and market direction for the decade to come." There are probably over 1000 user groups on the Connection's mailing list, so it received wide distribution. When we got this book, I thought to myself, ah, at last I can get some idea what direction Apple Computer is going and what the future holds for us Apple II people across the country. Alas, it looks like Sculley is predicting there'll be no Apple II computer in the 90's. In fact, Apple II is conspicious by it's absense in all of his speeches. Lots of talk about how the Macintosh fits in but no mention at all of the Apple II computer in the almost 100 page document. As I was reading the book, I kept seeing paragraph headings (i.e. education in the 90's) that would indicate that some aspect of Apple II computing would be mentioned, but sadly, there was no reference at all. This kind of material coming out of Apple doesn't inspire confidence in the thousands of Apple II users across the country. Now if the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Apple Computer doesn't see the Apple II in his world in the 90's, what chance do the employees of Apple have to convince him to change his mind. Let's hope that those forces within Apple Computer that have Sculley's ear can make a good enough case to keep the Apple II around for the 90's. proline: pro-novapple!daveharv uucp: crash!pro-novapple!daveharv arpa: crash!pro-novapple!daveharv@nosc.mil Internet: daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com Northern Virginia Apple Users Group >pro-novapple< 703-671-0416/300-2400 baud