merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (10/28/87)
In article <76000032@uiucdcsp>, gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > IBM, I believe, only stumbled with the PCjr (and slightly with the > AT). They killed it any gave up on the market completely. I wonder > what will happen if they stumble with the new PS/2 line (which I think > they will) -- will they get out of the PC business of become a > spectator manufacture? I don't see that IBM particularly stumbled with the AT. They most certainly did with the RT. However, I don't see the PS/2s bombing. First off, I think I read somewhere that the PS/2 Model 50 was the biggest selling personal computer around (with the Mac SE running second). They're much more reasonably designed than the first ones -- service people I know love the machine because you can take the whole thing apart without a screwdriver. The Micro-channel architecture seems to have many of the same capabilities as the Mac II NuBus (although, I have no clue which could be deemed "better") And, someday, when they have an operating system that knows about memory above 640K... -- "I've had the time of my life..." Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP)
sarrel@tut.UUCP (10/30/87)
To combine two subject threads: In article <7504@dartvax.UUCP> merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) writes: >And, someday, when they have an operating system that knows about memory above >640K... In the above quote, Peter was talking about the PS/2's and IBM's DOS that doesn't recognize memory above 640K. In another subject thread someone complianed about having to switch from Packit to Stuffit. I would like to point out that those who are that resistant to change and commited to the past end up like IBM: they have a 1987 machine with a 1977 operating system. Please forgive if those dates are incorrect. You get the idea. (No personal offense intended toward the person in question). BTW, is there any way to follow up to more than one aritcle at a time. I would have liked to include material from both subject threads, but was unable to figure out how. -- Marc Sarrel The Ohio State University 611 Harely Dr #1 Department of Computer and Information Science Columbus, OH 43202-1835 sarrel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Disclaimer: Hey, what do I know? I'm only a grad student.
kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (10/30/87)
> I don't see that IBM particularly stumbled with the AT. > They most certainly did with the RT. there was life after the Apple III and the Lisa, I certainly expect life after the RT; maybe IBM will buy AT&T to get some new ideas ((-: oh, and let's not forget to mention the Mac 128k, which was relatively useless all things considered (flaky hardware, no software, insufficient power) aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 (and the arrival of cheaper 256k RAM-chips) so that the "rest of you" could get on the bandwagon. Isn't anyone ever going to say thanks ??? ((-: -- kraut@ngp.utexas.edu
neil@dsl.cis.upenn.edu (Neil Radisch) (10/30/87)
In article <6659@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > >oh, and let's not forget to mention the Mac 128k, which was relatively useless >all things considered (flaky hardware, no software, insufficient power) > >aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used >them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 (and the arrival of >cheaper 256k RAM-chips) so that the "rest of you" could get on the bandwagon. >Isn't anyone ever going to say thanks ??? > ((-: Don't be so harsh with the 128. I know many people who have them and still use them regularly to do word processing and other 'simple' tasks. They think the machine is great because it's so simple to use. They are very content and see no reason to upgrade. Its nice to see people without the "BIGGER,FASTER,MORE MEMORY!!!" obsession. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | "Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove | | all doubt" --- Abraham Lincoln | | | | neil@dsl.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <6659@ut-ngp.UUCP>, kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > oh, and let's not forget to mention the Mac 128k, which was relatively useless > all things considered (flaky hardware, no software, insufficient power) > > aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used > them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 (and the arrival of > cheaper 256k RAM-chips) so that the "rest of you" could get on the bandwagon. I'd dispute the claim that a Mac 128K was useless. I used it constantly throughout 1984 for MacWrite and MacKermit, both of which did a better job than any software/hardware combination I had available in any other form. I still like the 128/Plus/SE form factor, which is not bad for a transportable computer. Sure, the 128K was not a serious business computer. But I found the slowness and smallness of the disk drives more serious than 128K (at the time). Thanks to MultiFinder, however, today 1 Mb just isn't enough. -- Joel West (c/o UCSD) Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083 {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
keith@apple.UUCP (Keith Rollin) (10/31/87)
In article <6659@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > >aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used >them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 (and the arrival of >cheaper 256k RAM-chips) so that the "rest of you" could get on the bandwagon. >Isn't anyone ever going to say thanks ??? > ((-: > >-- >kraut@ngp.utexas.edu Thank You!!!!! -- Keith Rollin amdahl\ Sales Technical Support pyramid!sun !apple!keith Apple Computer decwrl/ Disclaimer: I read this board for fun, not profit. Anything I say is from the result of reading magazines, hacking, and soaking my head in acid.
kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (10/31/87)
In article <4205@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > In article <6659@ut-ngp.UUCP>, kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > > aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used > > them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 ... > I'd dispute the claim that a Mac 128K was useless. I used it constantly > throughout 1984 for MacWrite and MacKermit, both of which did a better > job than any software/hardware combination I had available in any > other form. I still like the 128/Plus/SE form factor I bought a 128k Mac KNOWING full well that it wasn't going to be useful enough to justify me spending money on it, but I wanted Apple to survive and was willing to bet some money that 2 years later (if they'd make it that far), I'd probably be able to buy a "USEFUL" combination of Mac-hardware and software. Towards the end of 1984, however, I had my doubts, and reading Sculley's book today, I'm amazed how close I came to adding the Mac to my computer museum of "white elephants" (neat stuff that should have made it, but didn't). Actually, by that time I was convinced that the Amiga had the potential to outclass the Mac .... unless they screwed up (which they did, it seems). If MacWrite and MacKermit, which were both rather simple little programs, was the best you had available then, that's one thing. I had a "little" CP/M box with 256k RAM the size of a DataFrame which I could carry around with me under my arm or in my case and hook it up to any LARGE SCREEN video terminial - and I had subsets of mainframe EMACS and SCRIBE running, and I could upload my textfiles to the mainframe and SCRIBE it to the an Imagen LaserPrinter .... And my dual processor HZ-100 with both 8- and 16-bit processors had an immense library of CP/M and DOS programs, compilers, utilities - could connect to a COLOR!! monitor, had 7 S-100 bus-slots, could interface to hard disks, plotters, ... you name it. No, let's not kid ourselves, the Mac in 1984 was nothing but a toy with promise - and it didn't even have a decent set of games available. It became acceptable with the arrival of VersaTerm, QUED, and third-party *AFFORDABLE* 512k upgrades, respectable with Excel and PageMaker, the DataFrame HardDisk and 2Meg third-party upgrades, and great with ..... well, let's see now, I think it's Apple's turn to do something right for a change - so, let's look forward to a GREAT system, with the arrival of a screenless SE in a shoebox, with 6 half-height slots, a combination of the 68020, 68851 and 68881 chips on the motherboard with 4 Meg of RAM and a built-in 2400baud modem, and large and small sized B/W and colour monitors, all at an affordable price ...... ...... nope, I'm afraid not this Xmas, and not 'affordable' by next Xmas, unless the third-party world is going to produce a new wave of hungry youngsters willing to work for little money to make "affordable" possible by next Xmas ..... > Sure, the 128K was not a serious business computer. But I found the slowness > and smallness of the disk drives more serious than 128K (at the time). > Thanks to MultiFinder, however, today 1 Mb just isn't enough. it wasn't even a serious toy computer then, but that doesn't take anything away from the usefulness of what's available today - which is most of what I had hoped for. The 128K had promise, has matured into a useful system today, which is WORTH improving (yep, I believe that the right way of going about things, is to take good stuff, make a LOOONG list of it's shortcomings, and go make things better) And I'm still willing to bet money on my feeling that for the next 2 or 3 years, Apple's Macs are going to be my prefered system. I'm not so sure about AU/X and Mac-IIs though, but I sure hope that Apple will come out with better documentation and utilities than comes with that SUN which cost us another Friday night just now, and is likely to ruin most of my weekend to come, I fear. Apple better find a way to do the hand-holding their user-base will need to deal with a system as complex as UNIX to maintain - otherwise, forget it, the AU/X will never be running on the machines of "the rest of them" ....(-: It is my feeling that Apple certainly failed in educating their Mac-users in how to do the (little) system maintenance required to make the Mac to best computer it can be for it's owner. I forget, does the SE manual admit to knowing about the term "Error" and "Crash" yet ....((-: Why Apple has not realized yet that a monthly FREE newsletter to all registered Mac-owners, possible consisting of the best articles of the publications of user-groups or written by one of the many enthusiastic and knowledgable "volunteer Mac Evangelists" is a better long-term investment than a 30-second SuperBowl commercial (don't stop, I love them; when can I get a videotape of all the footage that was shot and later cut down to just 30 seconds ???!!!) ... that beats me. And why they have not started selling (or giving away via users groups) tape cassettes, which talk a user through things like "installing a system upgrade", installing/removing fonts and DAs, analizing a printer problem, etc, ..... well, that proves to me that I'm more inventive and concerned about supporting the "rest of them" than Apple is. Heck, I and many of you reading this, probably deserve a "letter of appreciation" (if not something more substantial :-) from Apple for the many satisfied customers whose money is in Apple's bank-account, due only to the friendly and cost-free support we have provided them with. But I have to admit, I wouldn't, voluntarily, support MS-DOS users .... so thanks, for making it possible, Apple. yes, my tongue is in my cheek, but I'm NOT blinking my eye !!! after all, it's Halloween, and we are allowed to HOOooooowl, a little! send your tricks or treats to, ---Werner "we specialize in absorbin flames" ------------------ werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu werner%rascal@ut-sally.uucp PS: some folks have earlier speculated that Apple would not discontinue the as long as they are selling so well: well, why should Apple do that, if it is cheaper for them to build SEs than Pluses? -- kraut@ngp.utexas.edu
zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (11/02/87)
Lest we forget: When the original 128k Macintosh came out, you were faced with the following choice: Spend $130,000 on a lisp machine from Symbolics or LMI, spend $50,000 on a lisp machine from Xerox, or spend $4,000 on 128k Macintosh and get a computer with a more-polished and better-performing window system. Those were the choices if you wanted to buy a computer with a window system to program. Despite Apple's promises, the Lisa was not programmable, and everything else was roll-your-own window system, completely ad hoc, and had no hope of ever developing an applications base. At the time I was considering taking an IBM-PC, getting some small OS like XINU running on it, and rolling my own window system. One look at the Macintosh software architecture convinced me that I ought to spend my time programming the Mac instead -- what a gem! (Or rather, what a lot better than GEM!) So before you get up and say how much less capable was than it could have been, consider that it was capable enough to embarass some very heavy hitters with its window system performance, and that, from the beginning, it had a more elegant software architecture than anything yet created for microcomputers. From the point of view of a software developer, the Macintosh was always a superior machine, and now the users are reaping the benefits of that superiority in the form of measuably more productive tools for business. So why are 128k Macs doorstops? 1) Apple missed the boat on the economics of disks and memory. 2) Developers couldn't learn to deal with programming the Mac and dealing with the memory limitations (for which the toolbox provided tools for dealing with). 3) Users did not pursue Apple's upgrade path and do not now avail themselves of the considerable third-party upgrades available. 4) Those damn 400k disk drives made THE most unpleasant noise I have ever heard come out of a computer -- not an inconsiderable flaw in a machine that was supposed the visceral appeal of a Cuisinart, BMW, or Braun appliance. Any questions? -Zigurd ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Zigurd R. Mednieks MURSU Corporation 25 Exeter Street Boston, MA 02116 (617) 424-0146
rcopm@koel.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) (11/03/87)
kraut@ngp writes... > aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used > them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 (and the arrival of > cheaper 256k RAM-chips) so that the "rest of you" could get on the bandwagon. > Isn't anyone ever going to say thanks ??? > ((-: This is marketing at its best. Get the ones that can see the potential for a machine committed (ie get them to buy the pre-prototype), then change the machine slightly. The suckers will still "follow" like loyal puppies. Keep doing this and watch the fun. Yes, I was one of those suckers who purchased a 128k Mac in the 1st half of '84. I now have an "old" 512 Mac and refuse to upgrade it any further. I still have access to the "new breed" at work, but am annoyed at the way that the original supporters of the Mac are the ones that have the most expensive Macs. Not just because of the drop in price, but due to the rip-off upgrade prices, and perhaps the "embedded" dependence on the need for upgrades. Take the Mac II for example. Why did Apple choose NuBus? One reason must have been that it would support the 68030's very capable burst mode transfer. So what does the MacII have? Burst mode transfer between Nubus slots, but NOT with motherboard transactions. Why???? One could only guess an upgrade is in the wings to a MacII+ (which has a 68030) where all MacII owners can once again donate to a worthy cause by upgrading the logic on the motherboard. This also means (once again) that it won't be a simple matter of swapping chips. Very good planning. I s'pose there aren't going to be too many suckers this time, only the idle rich can afford the MacII as a PERSONAL computer. But, I do know of some that have BOUGHT a MacII, not as a tax dodge, not by getting a company to by them one, but out of their own money. No they aren't idle rich, they like what they see - enough to stretch themselves to get one. I just hope for their sake that they don't regret believing that the MacII, as it stands, will be supported for some time. The above seems to contradict that. On a different tack - I occasionally look at what's happening to the blue-chip crowd. I was told of this amazing NEW package called Meta-windows. I am not sure how long it has been on the market, but I could only smile when I opened the manual and saw a part of the list of routines available. Yes Apple, you have done well, very well in the s/w department. This is the only reason why I purchased the my 128k Mac. This is the only reason why I still believe that the Macs are years ahead of anything else. This is the only reason that, one day, I might be rash enough to purchase another of your line. "Opinion? Yooo Betcha!" Paul Menon. Dept of Communication & Electronic Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 124 Latrobe St, Melbourne, 3000, Australia ACSnet: rcopm@koel UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!koel.rmit.oz!rcopm CSNET: rcopm@koel.rmit.oz ARPA: rcopm%koel.rmit.oz@seismo BITNET: rcopm%koel.rmit.oz@CSNET-RELAY PHONE: +61 3 660 2619.