cbennett@pro-newfrontier.UUCP (Chris Bennett) (07/24/88)
This is my first go at posting on the net and I'll be pleasantly surprised if this actually works. Please excuse any neophyte mistakes... William L. rupp writes: > a. Apple Computer, Inc. owes nothing to users except a reliable > product that does what they claim it will. If some people Technically, of course, this is correct. But besides the fact that many of us purchased the Apple IIgs at the rather (cough) high cost of $900 with the belief that this would include the same upgrade and development support that the Mac users have come to expect there is the fact that continuing the support and development of the Apple IIgs is good for Apple. I would have to agree with you if you were to say that what Apple would like most would be to have all of the Apple II users suddenly switch their loyalty over to the Macintosh line. This just isn't going to happen, and Apple knows it. Therefore, this is what I think Apple will do with the IIgs; and it will be done because Apple realizes that it is in its best interest: The Apple IIgs+ will come out as expected. This will be done for no other reason other than to make sure that the Apple II users stay happy. There is nothing worse than a loyal customer that feels he has been betrayed. But unsurprisingly enough the IIgs+ will be even more "Mac-like" than the IIgs. In fact, as someone high up in Apple hinted at before, the Apple IIgs line will be the affordable version of the Mac II. At this point it is anybody's guess but I don't think the Apple II line will disappear. Instead, it will slowly evolve into something so similar to the Macintosh line that at some point the differences between the Apple II and Macintosh will be nearly undetectable. We will all then be converted into Mac users even though we will call our computers Apple IIs. (A Mac by any other name is still as Mac?) Keep in mind that I have no more insight into what will ACTUALLY happen than the person who wrote the letter to which I am responding. This is simply a "counter-speculation." (sort of like investing in the futures, no?) _______________________________________________________________________________ Yet another financially insecure self-taught Apple II programmer unsuccessfully attempting to _support_ his expensive habits _with_ his expensive habits...(??) UUCP: crash!pro-newfrontier!cbennett I'm not responsible for anything ARPA: crash!pro-newfrontier!cbennett@nosc.mil and neither are you but as INET: cbennett@pro-newfrontier.cts.com humans we enjoy assigning GEnie: c-bennett responsibility and purpose to Home Phone: 312-...Are you kidding?! whatever we consider relevant. _______________________________________________________________________________
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (07/26/88)
I have posted and mailed a few things regarding the furute of the //gs. My biggest point above all is that, despite disbelief in many "respected" computer circles, the // family and its processor family, the Western Design 65xx/65xxx series, has not reached its technological limit. There is great potential for the micoprocessor, because the die-hard designer at Western is setting his sights right now on a 32-bit 65832 (pin for pin compatible with the 65816) that would compare admirably with the 68030, and a 65825 parallel processor. Truly! Read the interview in last month's Open-Apple newsletter! This guy has ambition! The article even went on to envision Apple supporting two, high-end pc lines utilizing two distinct technologies; a RISC environment supporting UNIX on the Mac, and parallel processing on the //. Why not? The potential is there! The problem is Apple must get on the stick and start exploiting these resources NOW, before competition from IBM and compatibles on the high-end and Amigas on the low-end (though not low-end in performance) squeeze the // out of a market. It is fortunate that the Apple // has a strong foothold in schools (though not in universities, which is important for development) but IBM has announced that it is now focusing effort to get its 8088 based machines into the K-12 market as well. The present GS cannot compete performance-wise with these machines. The // line is not finished, but it must prove itself and do so soon. The delay in getting good staff and attention for the // frustrates me and reminds me of a time when Apple made similar mistakes in the Apple /// (a good machine in its own right), the Lisa, and even the first Macintoshes. You see, the nly thing the //GS has going against it is not technology, compatibility, or potential market; it's time.