shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford) (06/25/88)
I cannot get over people who refuse to stay current. For instance, I got the //e enhancement in May '85, about two days after I found out such a thing existed. Being able to input Applesoft and monitor commands in lowercase and boot the machine from a hard disk or RAM disk and have efficient 80 column firmware was just too tempting for me, so I was among the first to run my machine down to my friendly dealer and have my buggy old firmware exchanged for good new firmware. (It was also at this time that I gave up using DOS software; forsaking the old and embracing the new is a job not to be done half-heartedly.) In my IIgs (purchased in March '87 - the first opportunity I had to get one) I also got the ROM upgrade at the first opportunity (not right away, as the only dealer in the area who even knew there was an upgrade at first only upgraded machines sold by that dealer.) This upgrade added several nifty features too, such as a built in monitor desk accessory. I cannot believe there are still people out there - in mid 1988 - that still do not have the enhancement. Much less the IIgs upgrade, since it was FREE. My point is, I APPLAUD developers who require that their software be run on up-to-date hardware. I got my //e in August '83, and at the time, every program available ran on the ][+, meaning they took advantage of no features of my machine, such as double hires, lowercase characters, and up-down arrow keys. It took years until any useful program required a 128k enhanced //e or newer machine, which is the way it should be, since, after all, it is mid 1988. By the way: if anyone decides to flame me because I am an elitist or for any other reason you think you might have from reading the previous, be aware that I know the cost of staying current; my IIgs is fifteen months old, and I still owe money on it. Also, it has had SIX different motherboards in it. I am the Apple service person's worst nightmare. I would recount my long history of hardware problems, but that would in itself be an entire article... Randy Shackelford shack@bucsb.bu.edu
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/26/88)
>My point is, I APPLAUD developers who require that their software be run on >up-to-date hardware. I got my //e in August '83, and at the time, every >program available ran on the ][+, meaning they took advantage of no features >of my machine, such as double hires, lowercase characters, and up-down arrow >keys. It took years until any useful program required a 128k enhanced //e or >newer machine, which is the way it should be, since, after all, it is mid And some people wonder why there is so little profit in developing computer software. If developers consistently REQUIRES software to run on the lastest hardware, the number of customers for their products will be serverely limited. Developers who don't want to starve will REQUIRE as little as necessary for the program to be functional while providing additional functionality for owners of more capable equipment. I've owned a //e since April of '83 (even then there was SOME software that used the extended memory and the arrow keys). I still use two 1983 programs that have "//e keyboard" and "Apple 80 column card" drivers. AppleWriter //e and AppleWorks function on 64K //e's while accessing the extended memory if it's there. Why should Kermit-65 require "up-to-date hardware?" It supports the IIgs keypad if you've got one, but 48K of memory is sufficient for it to be functional. Would you believe I know ][+ owners who are still happily word processing and communicating? Why should they give up their next vacation to buy a IIgs when they're satisfied with the functionality of what they have? Why shouldn't it be possible to upgrade software for them too, when it's feasible? I appreciate Don Elton's and Dave Whitney's position on the marginal value versus the marginal cost of supporting older hardware, and some software (Publish IT! for example) that technically supports 128K //e and //c hardware really isn't practical on older hardware. Sure developers should concentrate on the opportunities that hardware advances provide, but "installed base" is where the money is (which is the prime reason why there isn't more professional software for the Amiga which really IS a lot of bang for the buck -- some hold that were it not for all those ][+'s, //e's, and //c's out there, that developers would be writing for the Amiga and the IIgs would languish). --------------------- Disclaimer: --- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} Univ. of Connecticut !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (06/28/88)
Yo, big flame ahead. Poor starving student ahead. (well, now I have a job.) In article <1804@bucsb.UUCP> shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford) writes: >I cannot get over people who refuse to stay current. Jesus people like you really piss me off. *really*. > For instance, I got >the //e enhancement in May '85, about two days after I found out such a >thing existed. Being able to input Applesoft and monitor commands in >lowercase and boot the machine from a hard disk or RAM disk and have efficient >80 column firmware was just too tempting for me, so I was among the first >to run my machine down to my friendly dealer and have my buggy old firmware >exchanged for good new firmware. Hmm. I waited until I could scroung up the money. See, $75 is half what I pay for rent. It's interesting that you waited so long to be able to use lowercase. Most people I know had patches DOS to do convertions on the fly. This allowed AppleSoft to think you had entered everything in Uppercase. But it doesn't matter. > (It was also at this time that I gave up >using DOS software; forsaking the old and embracing the new is a job not to be >done half-heartedly.) As I recall, Apple officially introduced ProDOS a lot sooner than the upgrade. Like, when they introduced the //c. Now, I though you always rushed out to get the latest? Or was it that as soon as ProDOS came out, there really weren't a whole lot of programs that used the buggy original ProDOS? Or did you have attachments to DOS 3.3 software? Do tell. >In my IIgs (purchased in March '87 - the first opportunity I had to get one) Great. At the rate I'm going, I should be able to afford one sometime in March 1990. Let's not forget my student lone. >I also got the ROM upgrade at the first opportunity (not right away, as the >only dealer in the area who even knew there was an upgrade at first only >upgraded machines sold by that dealer.) This upgrade added several nifty >features too, such as a built in monitor desk accessory. I cannot believe >there are still people out there - in mid 1988 - that still do not have the >enhancement. Much less the IIgs upgrade, since it was FREE. the IIgs upgrade was not free. The ROM upgrade was, as was the VGC fix. If the IIgs upgrade is free, please supply me with one. Thank you. I do agree that people should keep current with version of programs (including such things as ProDOS and system software, which are *so* important.), esp. if it's a free upgrade. There is generally no reason not to, and it can really cause problems. In this sense, yes, I get confused too as to why people don't upgrade. >My point is, I APPLAUD developers who require that their software be run on >up-to-date hardware. Alright, turkey, you really put your mouth in it this time. Let's just imagine that you put in code specifically designed to make your software *not* run on anything *old*. Are you gonna supply updates to *everyone* for *free* because they upgraded their hardware? No, you'd make them buy it, since you obviously feel if you own a computer, you're made out of money. But as a company, you might just damn well find out you ain't selling sh*t. > I got my //e in August '83, and at the time, every >program available ran on the ][+, meaning they took advantage of no features >of my machine, such as double hires, lowercase characters, and up-down arrow >keys. It took years until any useful program required a 128k enhanced //e or >newer machine, which is the way it should be, since, after all, it is mid >1988. Yeah, write dude, why don't you write some code for a change? Ever try double high res? Esp. Since *every* developer //e couldn't use it, not that anyone had even though of it. There's such thing as development time. And the more sophisticated the software, the longer that wait. Look how long it's taken for decent macware -- and none of it runs on the original 128K mac (and they don't even make it anymore.) >By the way: if anyone decides to flame me because I am an elitist or for any >other reason you think you might have from reading the previous, be aware that >I know the cost of staying current; my IIgs is fifteen months old, and I still >owe money on it. Also, it has had SIX different motherboards in it. I am the >Apple service person's worst nightmare. I would recount my long history of >hardware problems, but that would in itself be an entire article... Yes, I decided to flame you anyway. I know people like you, they kept coming in. When they had a problem, I fixed it. And you really aren't their worst nightmare. They get paid for doing it. Your Apple's worst nightmare. And the dealers delight. If you expect us all to go out and hock everything we own to stay current, force manufacturers and software companies to make their software only run on the *latest* and *greatest*, you can damn well bet that the computer will go the way of the Edsel. >Randy Shackelford shack@bucsb.bu.edu Sean Kamath PS, I don' want to talk about this anymore on the net, so e-mail me hate mail if you wish. Better yet, send me a GS, and I guarantee that I won't mention this for at least one year, or until they come out with a new //. -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)