thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) (05/24/88)
M- Thank you for your extremely helpful and well thought-out reply to my obviously ignorant inqiry into the possibility of Apple II emulation on the Mac II. But I have a few (and probably just as foolish) questions. I asked, for example: >> Why hasn't someone written an Apple II or IIgs emulator for the Mac II? And you so eloquently replied: >Becuase a Mac II needs to emulate an Apple II as much as an Amiga needs >to emulate a Vic-20. >Presumably, if you bought a Well, M, I wonder...When the Amiga first came out I seem to recall a dearth (that means lack ;-> ) of software for it. Perhaps it could have indeed benefitted from the ability to execute programs developed on an admittedly inferior machine. It may not have made full use of the computers abilities, yet those of us who were involved with pre-32 bit machines managed perfectly well with such "inferior" products. Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit inferior machine. It may not have made full use of the computer's abilities, other programs for more obscure tasks like geneology or children's education well with such "obsolete" products. Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit any of the other areas in which it is difficult to find native applications. I then asked said: >> This would give Mac II owners access to software like color games I then wrote: And you once again corrected my foolish ways with a hearty: >If you really wanted to play color games and can afford a Mac II, I >assume you could buy a small 8-bit computer just for that purpose. >The best way to emulate a particular computer is to buy it. > --M What a good idea! But what if I could only just afford a Mac II, and am now saving up for a modem? Should I buy an atari instead? Maybe they should through out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer for every specific task. That'll be great! I'll have one with a really big screen and a math coprocessor for my spreadsheet, and then another one with throw out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer one with a letter quality printer built in for WP, and another one with a modem for...But wait, wouldn't that get sort of expensive? Oh well, if you think it would be a good idea... Thanks again for correcting me, and I apologize to the net for asking such a dumb question... --T Thanks again for correcting me: It's helpful info like that that makes this network such a great place to exchange ideas. I apologize to the net for asking such a dumb question... thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu You get that for which you pay..." 81C0 thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu You get that for which you pay..."
thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) (05/24/88)
(sorry, the mailer garbled the first copy. If it garbles this one I'll give up.) M- Thank you for your extremely helpful and well thought-out reply to my obviously ignorant inqiry into the possibility of Apple II emulation on the Mac II. But I have a few (and probably just as foolish) questions. I asked, for example: >> Why hasn't someone written an Apple II or IIgs emulator for the Mac II? And you so eloquently replied: >Becuase a Mac II needs to emulate an Apple II as much as an Amiga needs >to emulate a Vic-20. >Presumably, if you bought a Mac II you want to run all of the native >applications its capabilities support, not a bunch of obsolete apple>II programs. Well, M, I wonder...When the Amiga first came out I seem to recall a dearth (that means lack ;-> ) of software for it. Perhaps it could have indeed benefitted from the ability to execute programs developed on an admittedly inferior machine. It may not have made full use of the computers abilities, inferior machine. It may not have made full use of the computer's abilities, well with such "inferior" products. Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit well with such "obsolete" products. Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit other programs for more obscure tasks like geneology or children's education (a field for which I recall a particular abundance of apple II software) or any of the other areas in which it is difficult to find native applications. I then asked said: I then wrote: >> This would give Mac II owners access to software like color games >> that are so chronically lacking. And you once again corrected my foolish ways with a hearty: >If you really wanted to play color games and can afford a Mac II, I >assume you could buy a small 8-bit computer just for that purpose. >The best way to emulate a particular computer is to buy it. > --M What a good idea! But what if I could only just afford a Mac II, and am now saving up for a modem? Should I buy an atari instead? Maybe they should through out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer throw out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer screen and a math coprocessor for my great sound and graphics for entertainment and education, and then another one with a letter quality printer built in for WP, and another one with a modem for...But wait, wouldn't that get sort of expensive? Oh well, if you think it would be a good idea... Thanks again for correcting me, and I apologize to the net for asking such a dumb question... Thanks again for correcting me: it's help like that that makes the net such a great environment in which to exchange information. I apologize to the net for asking such a dumb question... Hanover, NH 03755 With all these advances in technology, thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu You get that for which you pay..." 68C0 M67,67
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (05/25/88)
thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) writes: > M- Thank you for your extremely helpful and well thought-out reply to my > obviously ignorant inqiry into the possibility of Apple II emulation on > the Mac II. But I have a few (and probably just as foolish) questions. Remember, you called them foolish, not I. > Well, M, I wonder... I'm glad to see we're on a first-letter basis already. And I thought you were going to flame me! How silly I must have been... > When the Amiga first came out I seem to recall a dearth > (that means lack ;-> ) of software for it. Perhaps it could have indeed > benefitted from the ability to execute programs developed on an admittedly > inferior machine. When the Macintosh first came out I seem to recall a dearth of software for it, too (MacWrite, MacPaint, and a buggy version of Multiplan if I remember correctly). Do you think an Apple II emulator would have been a popular software item for it at the time? > Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit > other programs for more obscure tasks like geneology or children's education > (a field for which I recall a particular abundance of apple II software) or > any of the other areas in which it is difficult to find native applications. I can just see a bunch of educators rushing out to buy Mac II's so they can emulate Apple II's to run their educational software. And you accused my reply of not being well thought out. > What a good idea! But what if I could only just afford a Mac II, and am now > saving up for a modem? Should I buy an atari instead? Use freshman economics. If buying an Atari would give you greater marginal utility than buying a modem, then buy the Atari. The whole point of economics is that you have limited resources for the things you wish to purchase and that you try to maximize your utility. It is also probable that if you spent all of your money on a Mac II and are not able to purchase peripherals, you probably made the wrong decision and should have purchased a less expensive machine such as an SE. For personal use, few applications justify a Mac II. > Maybe they should > through out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer > throw out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer > screen and a math coprocessor for my great sound and graphics for entertainmen\ > t and education, and then another > one with a letter quality printer built in for WP, and another one with a > modem for...But wait, wouldn't that get sort of expensive? Oh well, if > you think it would be a good idea... No, I don't think it is a good idea. But it is a fact that each computer system is particularly well suited for a certain class of applications, either because its architecture is well suited for supporting them or because software developers have standardized around it. You are taking my point, carrying it to an extreme, and arguing against that instead of responding in an intelligent manner. People have been known to purchase entire computer systems for the express purpose of running one software package. People have been known to purchase Macs for the purpose of running software such as MacPaint/MacDraw, PageMaker, and HyperCard. Is it so wrong to also purchase an Atari XE or Commodore 64/128 for games, considering the abundance and quality of the games they support? > Thanks again for correcting me, and I apologize to the net for asking such > a dumb question... Anytime, and your apology is accepted. --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas disclaimer: the above opinions are mine and not those of my employer.
thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) (05/26/88)
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >When the Macintosh first came out I seem to recall a dearth of >software for it, too (MacWrite, MacPaint, and a buggy version of >Multiplan if I remember correctly). Do you think an Apple II >emulator would have been a popular software item for it at the time? I don't quite see your point here. If a working apple II emulator had been available when the Mac was first introduced I think it would have been quite popular. I worked in an apple computer store at the time the Mac came out, and one of the biggest problems the Mac had was its lack of software. If I had been able to say "There's not a lot out now, but while you're waiting you can use apple II compatible stuff" I probably would have sold more. >> Maybe an Apple II emulator is a bit superfluous for games, but what about >> other programs for more obscure tasks like geneology or children's education >> (a field for which I recall a particular abundance of apple II software) or >> any of the other areas in which it is difficult to find native applications. >I can just see a bunch of educators rushing out to buy Mac II's so >they can emulate Apple II's to run their educational software. As a matter of fact, I can see a lot of PARENTS who have macs for business or other purposes rushing out and buying educational software for their kids instead of buying another computer system. This was another problem with selling the mac to people when it first came out. They'd ask me about educational software and I'd tell them that there wasn't much, and that I didn't expect much for another few years, if ever. I was right. (I can hear you muttering "Then they should have bought an Apple II" see below) >> What a good idea! But what if I could only just afford a Mac II, and am now >> saving up for a modem? Should I buy an atari instead? >Use freshman economics. If buying an Atari would give you greater >marginal utility than buying a modem, then buy the Atari. The whole >point of economics is that you have limited resources for the things >you wish to purchase and that you try to maximize your utility. >It is also probable that if you spent all of your money on a Mac II >and are not able to purchase peripherals, you probably made the wrong >decision and should have purchased a less expensive machine such as >an SE. For personal use, few applications justify a Mac II. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I should have to buy my entire setup all at once. One of the selling points of PC's is their expandability. Therefore I will continue to save up for a modem rather than selling it for a better peripherally equipped but inferior computer. >> Maybe they should >> throw out the idea of a virtual machine, and merely have a different computer >> for each specific application. I'd buy one computer with a huge >> screen and a math coprocessor for my spreadsheet, another with >> great sound and graphics for entertainment and education, and then another >> one with a letter quality printer built in for WP, and another one with a >> modem for...But wait, wouldn't that get sort of expensive? Oh well, if >> you think it would be a good idea... >No, I don't think it is a good idea. But it is a fact that each >computer system is particularly well suited for a certain class of >applications, either because its architecture is well suited for >supporting them or because software developers have standardized >around it. You are taking my point, carrying it to an extreme, and >arguing against that instead of responding in an intelligent manner. >People have been known to purchase entire computer systems for the >express purpose of running one software package. People have been >known to purchase Macs for the purpose of running software such as >MacPaint/MacDraw, PageMaker, and HyperCard. Is it so wrong to also >purchase an Atari XE or Commodore 64/128 for games, considering the >abundance and quality of the games they support? Yes, it is wrong for me to have to buy an Atari or Commodore, because, as I said above, I'm not looking for just games. I'm talking about the vast array of software for the Apple II, specifically. I seriously doubt such an emulator would be more expensive than an Apple II. It has been my experience that although it is true that 'each computer system is particularly well suited for a certain class of applications,' most personal computer users would like a variety of applications. The key point, I think, is that we are talking about PERSONAL computers. As far as I'm concerned 'personal' means reasonably affordable, and VERSATILE. I don't believe that we should have to buy several computers in order to perform several tasks. The philosophy behind PCs, with such examples as the Mac II's open architecture, support me in this. Yes, people have purchased computers for one software package, but not MOST people that buy PCs. They may mainly use one software package, but that doesn't mean they should be restricted to that package, or even packages written for just that computer if there is a handy emulator program around. Hence my original question: Is there an apple II emulator for the mac II? I feel that your negative response to this initial question was insulting and unnecessary. I own a mac II. My uses include: software development, WP, spreadsheet, MIDI, Graphic design, Database, and, you guessed it, entertainment. I see no reason why you should oppose the idea of an apple II emulator. If one is released, no one will force you to buy it. I had to sell my apple II in order to buy the mac. I miss some of my old software, OK? Is that alright with you? Others seem to agree with me. I'm merely seeking ways to expand the options users have available to them without buying new systems. Unless I read you wrong, you seem to be supporting the opposite. I believe the margins of return for this conversation are diminishing, but my economics major roommate will be glad to debate it with you at a later date on comp.sys.economics... Thomas Summerall thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu