krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) (03/07/89)
From an article by Collin Broadrick Douglas: > It sure is nice to know that someone from Claris has such support > for the II line. As I said before, my opinions are not Claris's opinions. Claris is VERY SOLIDLY behind the future of the Apple IIgs and AppleWorks GS. Once we shipped, I got off that project, but there are still plenty of very capable people -- INCREDIBLY capable people -- working on it. > I have a GS and I am proud of it. I love it very much. Yes, there are > days that I wish I had more speed etc. but overall I am perfectly happy > with my GS. I knew when I bought my computer that I wasn't getting a real > powerhouse, I accepted that. If people wanted a really powerful computer, > they probably should have gotten a Mac Se/30 or a mac II. I am going > to get the Transwarp GS AND the Floating Point Engine (if they will work > together) and that will make the GS much quicker than it currently is. > In fact, with those two add ons, I think that my GS will be fast enough > to compete with most computers on the market. Especially since most of the > programs I use are 8bit (Appleworks, Proterm) but I use enough 16 bit to > fully justify buying a GS (Diversi Tune, Graphicwriter etc.) I have to agree with you here. With a TransWarp and an FPE, your GS ought to be about as fast as an SE. That's plenty fast enough to make the machine actually useful for 16-bit programs that use the new toolbox routines. But Apple could have made the 7MHz 65816 standard, rather than requiring an add-on board. I have no complaints at all about the Apple II line before the GS. I learned to program on a ][+. My biggest problem with the GS is that I expected so much MORE from Apple. There was (and still is, as Scott points out) a lot of potential for this machine. When I first got to play with one of these things, it was GREAT! I thought "Wow! Just think what this machine is going to be like when it's released!" And I was (obviously) disappointed. Forgive me if I lose sight of what Apple HAS done, but it really hurts to see what they haven't. > Another thing, My GS has color, does a Mac SE? no > MY GS has nice sound (a full 16 voices using Diversi Tune, yes, that's right > Diversi Tune gives you ALL 16 voices) a mac has four voices. > My GS can run almost ALL apple II software. I have seen the reviews for > II-in-a-Mac and I am not impressed. You have good point, but it all depends on what you want. Color and sound are important, but not as important as speed and power. I want WYSIWYG, and I want it fast. No Apple II can give that to me. I want to be able to program in a high-level language. The languages available for the II aren't as fast or powerful as the ones available for the Mac. If you aren't on the same speed-and-power trip I am, and you want what the II has to offer, more power to you. I've seen II-in-a-Mac. It's pretty hokey. > I still believe that the Apple II line is the most versitale computer > in the world. And you, Jeff Erickson, maybe you should go work for > NeXT! Versatile? You may be right about that, but it's close. Maybe I >should< go work for NeXT....Hmmm... > A very MAD Collin Douglas -- Jeff Erickson \ Internet: krazy@claris.com AppleLink: Erickson4 Claris Corporation \ UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!krazy 415/960-2693 \________________________________________________________ ______________________/ "I'm so heppy I'm mizzabil!"
labc-3dc@e260-3a.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (03/07/89)
In article <9010@claris.com> krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) writes: >I have to agree with you here. With a TransWarp and an FPE, your GS ought >to be about as fast as an SE. That's plenty fast enough to make the machine >actually useful for 16-bit programs that use the new toolbox routines. > >But Apple could have made the 7MHz 65816 standard, rather than requiring >an add-on board. Some programs, notably arcade games, *cannot* be written for the //gs because the speed makes it impossible for them to run. Such programs will *never* be written when the only way to have a faster machine is to buy a $400 board. Therefore part of the software market doesn't exist. (please withold arguments about graphics coprocessors, the value of arcade games, or current arcade games that "run just fine." I know Arkanoid is very well done, but show me F-15 Strike Eagle GS and I'll reconsider). >Jeff Erickson \ Internet: krazy@claris.com AppleLink: Erickson4 In the GS+ rumor department (I deny all responsibility/credibility/utility): "The //GSx has been released to software companies. Upgrades in the ROM routines make some QuickDraw II functions work faster, but nothing major has changed. NO speed increase, NO SCSI port." -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) labc-3dc@widow.berkeley.edu "Too young to be cynical, too old to be idealistic"
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (03/08/89)
In article <21249@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> labc-3dc@e260-3a.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) writes: >Some programs, notably arcade games, *cannot* be written for the //gs >because the speed makes it impossible for them to run. Such programs will >*never* be written when the only way to have a faster machine is to buy >a $400 board. Therefore part of the software market doesn't exist. > >fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) I guess you've never played Rescue Raiders. . . :-) :-) Actually (I know you said not to comment on this) I don't much care for the current crop of arcade games, what with the blitted image systems used. You get some hoky looking image of a fighter, and with wobbles around on the screen. I feel like I'm watching *really* bad animation, or cardboard cutouts. Sure, they scream along, but I still think Asteroids was one of the *best* arcade games to date (though perhaps a little mononotous) and Missle Command one of the more challenging. Oh, I guess I'm gettin' on. . . Sean Kamath -- 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!)
nicholaA@moravian.EDU (03/08/89)
>> From an article by Collin Broadrick Douglas: >> It sure is nice to know that someone from Claris has such support >> for the II line. > As I said before, my opinions are not Claris's opinions. Claris is VERY > SOLIDLY behind the future of the Apple IIgs and AppleWorks GS. Once we > shipped, I got off that project, but there are still plenty of very > capable people -- INCREDIBLY capable people -- working on it. Even though it's refreshing to know that your opinions are not those of Claris, just the fact that people with opinions like yours _work_ for companies which profess to support the Apple II line disappoints me. I'm steamed, and I do not like it. >> I have a GS and I am proud of it. I love it very much. Yes, there are >> days that I wish I had more speed etc. but overall I am perfectly happy >> with my GS. I knew when I bought my computer that I wasn't getting a real >> powerhouse, I accepted that. If people wanted a really powerful computer, >> they probably should have gotten a Mac Se/30 or a mac II. I am going >> to get the Transwarp GS AND the Floating Point Engine (if they will work >> together) and that will make the GS much quicker than it currently is. >> In fact, with those two add ons, I think that my GS will be fast enough >> to compete with most computers on the market. Especially since most of >> the programs I use are 8bit (Appleworks, Proterm) but I use enough 16 bit to >> fully justify buying a GS (Diversi Tune, Graphicwriter etc.) > I have to agree with you here. With a TransWarp and an FPE, your GS ought > to be about as fast as an SE. That's plenty fast enough to make the machine > actually useful for 16-bit programs that use the new toolbox routines. I (gasp!) also agree with you here. The speed of the IIgs *SHOULD* be increased markedly if apple expects it to remain the cash cow it has always been... > But Apple could have made the 7MHz 65816 standard, rather than requiring > an add-on board. At the time, no they couldn't have "made the 7Mhz 65816 standard" -- because at the time, and even today, reliable 8Mhz 65816's did not exist in quantity. Second of all, apple hadn't investigated the caching technology which it now employs in the IIc Plus, which would be necessary to run the IIgs at or around 7Mhz or faster. To run the 65816 at 7Mhz without caching would require some _really_ fast and EXPENSIVE memory. If you wanted a 7Mhz GS at the time (1986), then you would have had to pay a steep price for it. > I have no complaints at all about the Apple II line before the GS. I > learned to program on a ][+. My biggest problem with the GS is that I > expected so much MORE from Apple. There was (and still is, as Scott > points out) a lot of potential for this machine. When I first got to > play with one of these things, it was GREAT! I thought "Wow! Just think > what this machine is going to be like when it's released!" And I was > (obviously) disappointed. Forgive me if I lose sight of what Apple HAS > done, but it really hurts to see what they haven't. Exactly -- at the time (1986), the IIgs _was_ great. For a brief moment, it was a really nifty machine. Since then we've seen the introduction of a new line of LaserWriters (the II line), the Mac SE, the Mac II, Mac IIx, Mac SE/30, and Mac IIcx (introduced yesterday, no?) My point is this -- Apple has let the IIgs languish in the 2 1/2 years since its introduction. Does anyone remember that at the time of the GS's announcement, there was *NO* Mac SE at all? And here, today, 1989, we consider the Mac SE to be obsolete! Think about the GS! The software for the IIgs is really 'neato' stuff. The hardware is not. >> Another thing, My GS has color, does a Mac SE? no >> MY GS has nice sound (a full 16 voices using Diversi Tune, yes, that's rig >> Diversi Tune gives you ALL 16 voices) a mac has four voices. >> My GS can run almost ALL apple II software. I have seen the reviews for >> II-in-a-Mac and I am not impressed. > You have good point, but it all depends on what you want. Color and sound > are important, but not as important as speed and power. I want WYSIWYG, > and I want it fast. No Apple II can give that to me. I want to be able > to program in a high-level language. The languages available for the II > aren't as fast or powerful as the ones available for the Mac. And that's because Apple hasn't done _squat_ towards making the IIgs a more _POWERFUL_ system since it's introduction. No floating point coprocessors, no doubling of processor speed, no doubling the ROM space, no support for virtual screen space, no hypercard, nada, zilch, zip. Apple introduced the IIgs and then gleefully ignored it (except for system software, and amen for that!) until today... and *STILL* ignores it. You want to blame someone? You want to holler at someone? You have the unique opportunity to make a difference because you work for one of the 2 giant entities which comprise Apple. You want to make a diffference? Then go tell people _inside_ Apple that you're disappointed with the machine. Tell them to make it better. We *ALREADY* know the IIgs hardware needs work, but do apple's engineers? > If you aren't on the same speed-and-power trip I am, and you want what the > II has to offer, more power to you. How about getting off the "speed-and-power trip" to take a look at what we've all been screaming about for ages now and pitching in to HELP? > Maybe I >should< go work for NeXT....Hmmm... Maybe you shouldn't. Maybe you should try to remain employed at Claris and help champion a cause that really needs everyone who can possibly help TO help. >> A very MAD Collin Douglas A very interested Andy Nicholas > -- > Jeff Erickson \ Internet: krazy@claris.com AppleLink: Erickson4 > Claris Corporation \ UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!krazy > 415/960-2693 \______________________________________________________ > ______________________/ "I'm so heppy I'm mizzabil!" > ------------- Andy Nicholas CsNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College InterNET: shrinkit%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net Bethlehem, PA 18018 liberty!batman!shrinkit@sun.com uucp: rutgers!lafcol!lehi3b15!mc70!shrinkit AppleLink PE: ShrinkIt rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit Send replies only to "shrinkit" as our mailer is case-sensitive.
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (03/08/89)
From article <8903072109.AA01818@batman.moravian.edu>, by nicholaA@moravian.EDU: [ much deleted ] > You want to blame someone? You want to holler at someone? You have the > unique opportunity to make a difference because you work for one of the > 2 giant entities which comprise Apple. You want to make a diffference? Then > go tell people _inside_ Apple that you're disappointed with the machine. [ ... ] > >> Maybe I >should< go work for NeXT....Hmmm... > > Maybe you shouldn't. Maybe you should try to remain employed at Claris and > help champion a cause that really needs everyone who can possibly help > TO help. Let's get it straight. Claris is **NOT** Apple. Yes, Apple owns Claris, and yes, as long as Apple owns and controls Claris, the only software sold by Claris will be for machines made by Apple. The // needs to be championed at Apple, not at Claris. Claris showed that it had a major interest in the // by acquiring StyleWare and marketing (Apple/GS)Works(GS). Claris is continuing to support that product, which tends to shine a very harsh light on the limitations of the //GS. To Apple, Claris is just another software company, albeit the one selling the biggest monster for the GS. -- Scott Lindsey | UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!wombat Product Development | Internet: wombat@claris.com | AppleLink: LINDSEY1 Claris Corp. | These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, (415) 960-4070 | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead.
krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) (03/08/89)
> From an article by Andy Nicholas: >> me >>> From an article by Collin Broadrick Douglas: >>> It sure is nice to know that someone from Claris has such support >>> for the II line. >> As I said before, my opinions are not Claris's opinions. Claris is VERY >> SOLIDLY behind the future of the Apple IIgs and AppleWorks GS. Once we >> shipped, I got off that project, but there are still plenty of very >> capable people -- INCREDIBLY capable people -- working on it. > Even though it's refreshing to know that your opinions are not [Claris's], > just the fact that people with opinions like yours _work_ for companies which > profess to support the Apple II line disappoints me. I'm steamed, and I > do not like it. [later] > ...The speed of the IIgs *SHOULD* be > increased markedly if apple expects it to remain the cash cow it has always > been... [later] > My point is this -- Apple has let the IIgs languish in the 2 1/2 years since > its introduction. Does anyone remember that at the time of the GS's > announcement, there was *NO* Mac SE at all? And here, today, 1989, we > consider the Mac SE to be obsolete! Think about the GS! > > The software for the IIgs is really 'neato' stuff. The hardware is not. [later] > And that's because Apple hasn't done _squat_ towards making the IIgs a more > _POWERFUL_ system since it's introduction. No floating point coprocessors, > no doubling of processor speed, no doubling the ROM space, no support for > virtual screen space, no hypercard, nada, zilch, zip. Apple introduced the > IIgs and then gleefully ignored it (except for system software, and amen for > that!) until today... and *STILL* ignores it. > > You want to blame someone? You want to holler at someone? You have the > unique opportunity to make a difference because you work for one of the > 2 giant entities which comprise Apple. You want to make a diffference? Then > go tell people _inside_ Apple that you're disappointed with the machine. > Tell them to make it better. We *ALREADY* know the IIgs hardware needs work, > but do apple's engineers? You and I agree on EVERY point. Apple isn't doing diddly-squat about the IIgs. In response to your request that I talk to people inside Apple now that I'm (almost) inside Apple myself, I have. I have screamed by bloody little head off. Other people I work with continue to scream their bloody little heads off. I have heard Claris's president screaming at Apple about the GS. Yes, Apple engineers have heard the complaints, as have Apple Developer Tech Support, Apple management, Apple sales reps, Apple executives, and Apple marketing types. After two and a half years, I'm tired of yelling. I'm tired of actively supporting what I consider to be essentially a lost cause. Lots of people around here haven't given up, and they are still yelling, and screaming, and kicking, and bashing heads. It doesn't appear to be doing much good. >>> A very MAD Collin Douglas > A very interested Andy Nicholas -- A very fed up Jeff Erickson -- Jeff Erickson \ Internet: krazy@claris.com AppleLink: Erickson4 Claris Corporation \ UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!krazy 415/960-2693 \________________________________________________________ ____________________/ "I'm so heppy I'm mizzabil!"
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/08/89)
>Claris showed that it had major interest in the // by acquiring StyleWare and >marketing (Apple/GS)Works(GS)........ AppleWorks GS kind of sucks. I am not blaming the machine for that, I am blaming the people who wrote it. I still prefer Apw 2.0. Apw GS takes too long to loa d, to print a four to five page document take about 30 minutes. Thats because it prints in graphics mode. It would seem to me that if Claris was supporting the Apple // line they would release more than one product. You guys seem to have your heads stuck in the Mac. Not that I don't like the Mac, I just don't see much else than Apw comming out for the //s. It also overpriced for what you get, but I still like the program. Robert Brown BitNet: RXBROWN@UALR APPLELINK: ROBPHD
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (03/09/89)
From article <8903081123.aa11779@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, by RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC"):
>>Claris showed that it had major interest in the // by acquiring StyleWare and
>>marketing (Apple/GS)Works(GS)........
>
> AppleWorks GS kind of sucks. I am not blaming the machine for that, I am blaming
> the people who wrote it. I still prefer Apw 2.0. Apw GS takes too long to loa
> d,
> to print a four to five page document take about 30 minutes. Thats because it
> prints in graphics mode. It would seem to me that if Claris was supporting
> the Apple // line they would release more than one product. You guys seem to
> have your heads stuck in the Mac. Not that I don't like the Mac, I just don't
> see much else than Apw comming out for the //s. It also overpriced for what you
> get, but I still like the program.
>
And we who wrote it blame the machine/OS. AppleWorks GS/Works was conceived
at StyleWare, not at Claris. It was written according to Apple guidelines
for programs on the GS: Human Interface standards which are basically the
same as those for the Mac. You may complain that it's too Macish, but that's
the direction Apple wanted and wants to go with the machine. That's what the
tools are geared for. Yes, AWKS is faster at many things, but it doesn't have
to take "advantage" of the GS toolset.
AWGS and AWKS are two separate products for the //. It is actually somewhat
unfortunate that AWGS was named after AWKS. It is not an upgrade of AWKS.
The only things the two products share, aside from the name, are certain
concepts (word processing, spreadsheet, database, integration).
I've said it before: AWGS really stresses the limits of the IIgs in its
current incarnation. Perhaps we were over-ambitious. AWGS is the most
integrated product of its kind.
Before I get flamed further, I'm not claiming that AWGS is perfect (if it
had the perfect GS to run on). By no means. As a programmer, I recognise
the unavoidability of bugs, ESPECIALLY when writing in assembly. But AWGS
is more solid than some people give it credit. And yes we are going after
bugs in it when we find them or even suspect them. Unfortunately, sometimes
it is very difficult to track down whether a bug lies in the program or in
the tools/OS that it assumes will work correctly.
--
Scott Lindsey | UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!wombat
Product Development | Internet: wombat@claris.com | AppleLink: LINDSEY1
Claris Corp. | These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple,
(415) 960-4070 | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead.jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (03/12/89)
Scott, you say you may have set your sights too high for AWGS? Nothing of the sort. From what I understand from Jeff Erickson, you guys did some brilliant work trying to get the thing to work within GS/OS`s bounds, and unlike Paintworks Gold, you followed the Established rules. Any blame for the performance of your product is on Apple's head, because of their lack of software support and the lousy file-handling and memory-overhead associated with GS/OS. I refuse to accept GS/OS as a good OS, by the way, because I have worked with HFS for the Mac, which written much more efficiently. And should have been upgraded by now, considering how often the Mac system is upgraded. Anyway, keep your sights high, Scott. Once again, the // gets the winds up with the most Innovative software on the market, with a lot of niceties, too. It is not your fault that Apple, whose wisdom is now cutting into the success of the Mac as well, does not support its products with any trace of pride or enthusiasm. jeremy mereness jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (arpa)
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) (03/15/89)
Re: > Date: 8 Mar 89 08:22:16 GMT > From: Scott Lindsey <pnet01!crash!decwrl.dec.com!claris!wombat> > Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA > Subject: Re: Disappointed in the IIgs (was: GS/OS and programming > standards) > Let's get it straight. Claris is **NOT** Apple. Yes, Apple owns > Claris, and yes, as long as Apple owns and controls Claris, the only > software sold by Claris will be for machines made by Apple. Apple has controlling interest in Claris, so essentially Claris is a subsidiary of Apple. This is the way most conglomerates work. :) Whether the name is Apple or Claris, the lack of support is still there. To date, the only Apple II programs I have seen Claris author are conversions of programs which have already been written for the ][ family, most notably, the networked versions of Appleworks Classic. While, in a technical sense, Claris did produce the end product, called Appleworks GS, it was not conceived or written at Claris -- the major work on the program was conceived and written at Styleware. Now, Claris bought Styleware on the hopes of gaining another cash cow on a low budget, along with gaining some serious programming support. Claris made a very wise decision, IMHO. The question is, will the Claris company every start truly utilizing this venture, and the previous resources which they have gained from ][ family sales, to promote the ][ family software. Opinion within the Claris working ranks appears to be a decisive no. (Not only from net postings, but from numerous email and real-time conversations I have had with Claris employees -- both pre- and post- Styleware aquisition). Since I, as a user and hobbyist, have only this to base my opinion on, I definitely see a trend towards minimal Apple II development at Claris, no matter what the future consequences. Maybe some of the controlling officers at Claris have adopted the stance which seems to permiate throughout a number of Apple officers; Apple II sales are of no consequence, think big business only. > The // needs to be championed at Apple, not at Claris. Claris showed > that it had a major interest in the // by acquiring StyleWare and > marketing (Apple/GS)Works(GS). Claris is continuing to support that > product, which tends to shine a very harsh light on the limitations > of the //GS. The Apple II needs to be championed in both companies. Support of two products for the Apple II is really ridiculous when one considers the potential for real development of Apple II software resources which a company the size of Claris could achieve. I truly wonder why Claris has never hired some people for educational Apple II software. This is a market that is becoming so company specific that young developers are to scared to even venture into the waters. Granted, AWGS seriously sheds light on the limitations of the //gs. Granted, there is not as much business distribution for the Apple ][ family. Why can't Claris grant that it is they, in their personal relationship with the Apple company, who should be promoting the best markets of Apple ][ software? > To Apple, Claris is just another software company, albeit the one > selling the biggest monster for the GS. That is pretty hard to swallow, mate... But again, everyone has their own opinion on the matter. > -- > Scott Lindsey |UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!wombat > Product Development|Internet: wombat@claris.com | AppleLink: LINDSEY1 > Claris Corp. |These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, > (415) 960-4070 |StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead. Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (03/16/89)
From article <8903150458.AA00279@crash.cts.com>, by tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator): > Apple has controlling interest in Claris, so essentially Claris is > a subsidiary of Apple. This is the way most conglomerates work. :) No argument there. Claris is a subsidiary of Apple. > Whether the name is Apple or Claris, the lack of support is still > there. The two are not equivalent. We at Claris do not think of ourselves as a part of Apple. > To date, the only Apple II programs I have seen Claris > author are conversions of programs which have already been written > for the ][ family, most notably, the networked versions of Appleworks > Classic. While, in a technical sense, Claris did produce the end > product, called Appleworks GS, it was not conceived or written at > Claris -- the major work on the program was conceived and written > at Styleware. To date, most Claris products are conversions and upgrades period. This includes Mac software. This was the direction Claris chose: to support the software they had inheirited; to let the customer base know that support was something Claris was interested in. I say it's a pretty close call as to how much of the work was done at StyleWare and how much at Claris. Yes, 98% of the design was done in Houston, but the amount of work we put in after coming out to Mountain View in Aug. is incredible. When you add to that the work put in by the testing team... well, that's why I say it's a close call. > Now, Claris bought Styleware on the hopes of gaining > another cash cow on a low budget, along with gaining some serious > programming support. Low budget? I am not privy to all the details of the sale, but I seriously doubt that it was what could be called "low budget." > Claris made a very wise decision, IMHO. The > question is, will the Claris company every start truly utilizing > this venture, and the previous resources which they have gained > from ][ family sales, to promote the ][ family software. Opinion > within the Claris working ranks appears to be a decisive no. (Not > only from net postings, but from numerous email and real-time > conversations I have had with Claris employees -- both pre- and post- > Styleware aquisition). I will admit that programmer interest in the GS at Claris is waning, but I think the principle reason is Apple's seemingly corresponding lack of interest. The battle over the II seems to be raging within Apple as well. There is a desire to support and expand and fix the OS and tools. The Mac is such a pleasure to program for by comparison. My opinion (which I have stated before) is that the GS is a nifty machine. But that's about as far as it goes. I continue to write "nifty" things for it, but writing something powerful... well that's what we tried for with AWGS, and it's something of a behemoth. From what I can tell, Claris intends to continue to support the II, but new products... I can't tell you yes or no, but I think it depends on what Apple does with the machine. > Since I, as a user and hobbyist, have only > this to base my opinion on, I definitely see a trend towards minimal > Apple II development at Claris, no matter what the future consequences. > Maybe some of the controlling officers at Claris have adopted the > stance which seems to permiate throughout a number of Apple officers; > Apple II sales are of no consequence, think big business only. I don't think that's it. II software sales _do_ matter. The Mac market is simply larger and must have priority. It's no secret that Claris intends to go public, but when is not known to anyone. To do that we/they must have a very solid base. Being supported by Apple allowed the over-extension of resources that buying StyleWare and Nashoba required. But to launch a major campaign of II software (more major than the AWGS/AWKS pair) simply wouldn't fit well into long-term plans at this point, as I see it. > The Apple II needs to be championed in both companies. If Apple comes out hard and heavy with the II, I don't think there'll be any problem with Claris following suit. But for Claris to do it alone, any more than the current state, I can't see it. > This is a market that is becoming so company specific that young > developers are to scared to even venture into the waters. Granted, > AWGS seriously sheds light on the limitations of the //gs. Granted, > there is not as much business distribution for the Apple ][ family. > Why can't Claris grant that it is they, in their personal relationship > with the Apple company, who should be promoting the best markets of > Apple ][ software? I think that the best markets of Apple II software are games. That's something Claris probably won't touch with a 10' pole. > >> To Apple, Claris is just another software company, albeit the one >> selling the biggest monster for the GS. > > That is pretty hard to swallow, mate... But again, everyone has their > own opinion on the matter. OK, it probably depends on who in Apple you mean. I mean on a day-to-day working basis. DTS with regard to developers, etc. Yes, if you mean someone at Apple who is on the board of trustees of Claris, Claris isn't just another software company. I apologise for the we/they mixing around references. Claris existed before I became an employee. When at StyleWare, we were we and they were they. Now at Claris, "we" can refer to StyleWare or Claris, etc. etc. etc. I still wear my StyleWare T-shirt :-) -- Scott Lindsey |"Cold and misty morning. I heard a warning borne in the air Claris Corp. | About an age of power when no one had an hour to spare" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead.