fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (10/01/90)
Selected portions of a few articles. National Enquirer-style predictions and some second-hand ramblings from an Apple hiring rep follow. <From: bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) <Date: 29 Sep 90 02:20:25 GMT < <I have in my hot little hands a copy of the Apple 1990 Holiday Promotion <Reference Guide, which outlines the holiday season rebate programs, as <well as the advertising plans and programs. Guess what?? I cannot find <any mention in the rebate plan about ANY Apple II computer nor do I see <any mention of any Apple II wordage in the advertising plans. In fact, I <see only Mac plans. They haven't advertised the Apple II since the //gs came out back in late 1986. Why start now? Is this really a surprise to anyone? <From: tribby@hpindwa.HP.COM (David Tribby) <Date: 28 Sep 90 19:55:05 GMT < <The fall 1990 APDA catalog arrived at home yesterday. It listed a grand <total of three new products for the Apple II: Of course. Apple doesn't write educational software, so there aren't any new Apple II products. What? The Apple II could be used for other purposes? That's impossible, they made sure it couldn't... <From: q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) <Date: 30 Sep 90 01:51:48 GMT < <Someone once said, "If my next computer isn't an Apple II, it won't be <an Apple." I wholeheartedly agree. (if I that quote wasn't mine, it should've been...) Since there won't be another Apple II, you had better start shopping. No, I don't have access to secret information or new rumors. But if they came out with a new CPU, wouldn't they want to advertise it...? Or maybe it's just for educational purposes. Of course, only K-12 education, since all those English majors in college need a 33MHz processor to print out their papers. And Macintoshes are SO much better suited for education, being black & white and more expensive. But wait! There's low-cost color versions! With Apple II emulators inside! Here's my predictions: - Apple drops the Apple //e line within six months. - Apple offers "upgrade" paths to Macintosh(tm) technology, so that schools can become empowered(tm). - Scully continues shoveling BS about his commitment to us. The funny thing about being so cynical toward Apple Computer is that I'm so often right. Remember how Scully was boosting the funding for Apple II development by 20%? Anybody interested in knowing how many Apple II people they plan to hire from UC Berkeley? None. The guy my friend spoke to said that the Apple II division would be shrinking, not growing. The guy wasn't connected to the Apple II division, but he IS involved in hiring people. I realize that all this screaming and yelling doesn't amount to a hill of Mac Plusses. At one point I felt that if I worked for Apple, maybe I'd be able to push the right buttons for the right people. I've since withdrawn my request for an interview with them... I'd rather program in Cobol than do development for the Macintosh. Last year Apple started to throw away the low end market they had been a major force in for so long. Now they want it back, since IBM managed to sneak in out of nowhere and capture most of the market. Amazing how the marketing department expects to accomplish this with reduced prices on Macintoshes (seven year old technology) with Apple II compatibility (14 year old technology). I wish they'd make up their minds exactly what the "cutting edge of technology" is. I mean, hell, if they want me to purchase the cutting edge of technology, I'll go out and buy a NeXT... Everybody used to be concerned about how, if we didn't stop all this nonsense talk, people would stop buying the Apple II (the self-fulfilling prophecy concept). I hope people *do* stop buying the Apple II. I realize that I'm shooting myself in the foot, but the thought of putting a computer neophyte through all the crap that authorized Apple dealers(tm) throw at us is really horrifying. Scully will continue to support the Apple II alright. As an emulation mode in a Macintosh. -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/01/90)
In <28361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: >Or maybe it's just for educational purposes. Of course, only K-12 education, Whoa!! Wait a second? K-12? Isn't it K-8 now? Don't our high school folks need those expensive Macs? >since all those English majors in college need a 33MHz processor to print >out their papers. And Macintoshes are SO much better suited for education, >being black & white and more expensive. Absolutely! Heaven forbid a school have a few dozen machines vs. just a dozen Macs or so? Oh, WAIT, I forgot, you can buy low-end Mac's for less than you can get a II ($649 for a Mac Plus, high ed discount (I'd imagine it'd be same/close for low-ed)). Oops. Sorry. >But wait! There's low-cost color versions! With Apple II emulators inside! Absolutely! >Here's my predictions: >- Apple drops the Apple //e line within six months. >- Apple offers "upgrade" paths to Macintosh(tm) technology, so that schools > can become empowered(tm). But NOT to individuals, saying it would be cost too much for us (ie: ROM03 on GS) >- Scully continues shoveling BS about his commitment to us. Apple Co. goes into producing fertilizer and methane, immediately capable of 30 million metric tons of it on day one. >The funny thing about being so cynical toward Apple Computer is that I'm so >often right. Yup. Ain't it grand? :-( >I realize that all this screaming and yelling doesn't amount to a hill >of Mac Plusses. At one point I felt that if I worked for Apple, maybe >I'd be able to push the right buttons for the right people. I've since >withdrawn my request for an interview with them... I'd rather program in >Cobol than do development for the Macintosh. Geez, that IS pretty bad! Cobol programming is the lowest of lowest programming! :) >Last year Apple started to throw away the low end market they had been a Last year?????????? Uh, didn't they start doing that a long time ago? Like at LEAST 4 years ago when the GS came out. >major force in for so long. Now they want it back, since IBM managed to >sneak in out of nowhere and capture most of the market. Amazing how the I say, "GO IBM! Screw Apple! They deserve it!" Of course, that means the customers get screwed by IBM garbage unfortunately. But they are probably more direct about it that Apple. >marketing department expects to accomplish this with reduced prices on >Macintoshes (seven year old technology) with Apple II compatibility HA! >(14 year old technology). I wish they'd make up their minds exactly >what the "cutting edge of technology" is. A very dull knife, that MIGHT cut butter if it's heated to a few hundred degrees. :) >I mean, hell, if they want me to purchase the cutting edge of technology, >I'll go out and buy a NeXT... Yup! Hey, join the gang! Anybody want to start a "Apple II, Now NeXT Club"? A2NNC? Eww. Anybody got a better acronym? Ya know, I wonder if Jobs was expecting this! >Everybody used to be concerned about how, if we didn't stop all this >nonsense talk, people would stop buying the Apple II (the self-fulfilling >prophecy concept). I hope people *do* stop buying the Apple II. I realize I second the opinion! People STOP BUYING APPLE II's! Go buy Amiga's, NeXT's, or if at the worst, MS-DOS junk. >that I'm shooting myself in the foot, but the thought of putting a computer >neophyte through all the crap that authorized Apple dealers(tm) throw at >us is really horrifying. Hell, the thought of having computer neophyets, or ANYBODY for that matter, shelling out good money for a system that they are gonna junk anyways. Heck, buy a machine that IS going to get supported. And if you think Mac is gonna, forget it! They are getting screwed too! >Scully will continue to support the Apple II alright. As an emulation >mode in a Macintosh. And a shitty one at that I bet!
UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) (10/01/90)
Just thought I'd mention that I think it's really neat to see all these people wanting to move to the NeXT. I've thought they were really impressive since they first came out, and they're REALLY nice now. I wonder what it is that makes us gravitate towards it....and I wonder if more Apple II owners are impressed with the NeXT, than say...Mac, IBM, or Amiga users. BTW-I agree with the comments about not reccomending Apple II's. I stopped doing that a while ago. They're simply too overpriced. I figure I've got over $5K list into my system. Imagine the Mac II or NeXT setup I could have for that! ------- Mike Aos Death to IBM! East Grand Forks, MN (yeah, it's COLD up here) Are Amiga's really | Woz | that bad? UD182050@NDSUVM1 (.Bitnet?) | Apple IIgs | "Share and Enjoy" UD182050@VM1.NoDak.Edu | (and Sun 2/120) | -Sirius Cybernetics Corporation | 'till I can afford a NeXT | (reserved for a Mac slam)
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (10/01/90)
Boy, we are the pitifulest computer users ever made. bitchbitchbitchbitchbitch, whinewhinewhine whine whine. Sorta like pulling the cord on a garbage pail kid. the typical home market doesn't need a $4000 computer, unix, or 1024x1024 graphics. All I wanna do is do a bit of word processing and appleworks fits that bill just dandy. See some graphic pics, platinum paint / emerald vision / etc will be fine. Hear some nice computer music; thanks soundsmith & synthlab. heck, throw in hypercard GS & hyperstudio for god knows what. And of course play a few games every now and then. You guys are power users (hell, anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) and need to get ahold of cheap crays. now that i've inflamed everyone; is there JUST a comp.sys.apple2tech? Thats what I'm looking for. No luck so far. Maybe my local system is just missing it? parik rao
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/01/90)
In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >In <28361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: >I say, "GO IBM! Screw Apple! They deserve it!" Of course, that >means the customers get screwed by IBM garbage unfortunately. But >they are probably more direct about it that Apple. Well, I don't say GO IBM.. I still don't like IBM PCs (and don't think I ever will).. I do agree with many of these kinds of statements (unfortunately) though. >>I mean, hell, if they want me to purchase the cutting edge of technology, >>I'll go out and buy a NeXT... > >Yup! Hey, join the gang! Anybody want to start a "Apple II, Now >NeXT Club"? A2NNC? Eww. Anybody got a better acronym? Ya know, I >wonder if Jobs was expecting this! This is really sad.. Steve Jobs was a VERY VERY VERY MAJOR reason for the downfall of the Apple II in the first place.. I have no direct facts to base all of this on, so you may not believe me, but he either STOPPED or seriously slowed down many projects to improve the Apple II... This was for his pet project the Lisa.. what a flop... heh.. but, as we all know it was turned into the Mac. But I'm not saying I don't like NeXT. I think the NeXT is really cool and feel that the optical disk idea was BRILLIANT, while it seems most people say it's utterly stupid. >>Everybody used to be concerned about how, if we didn't stop all this >>nonsense talk, people would stop buying the Apple II (the self-fulfilling >>prophecy concept). I hope people *do* stop buying the Apple II. I realize >I second the opinion! People STOP BUYING APPLE II's! Go buy Amiga's, >NeXT's, or if at the worst, MS-DOS junk. NOOOOOO!!! This is the one I ---do not--- agree with. I still want people to buy Apple IIs... Buying Apple IIs (and related hardware AND SOFTWARE!) will help preserve the II longer and may somehow make Apple wise up. I'm not saying I think that'll happen but I still like the GS well enough to not switch to another computer.. However, if/when the II dies (or goes to an even worse slump than it already is), and I find I need a new computer for some reason, it almost definitely will NOT be a Mac.. [unless I am working for Apple or another company doing Mac work... Even with these strong feelings about Apple towards it's II development I still think it's a cool place to work and want to work there, even if it's on the Mac.] If those last conditions aren't satisfied, I'll get an Amiga or NeXT if they're still around... Why should I get a Mac (unless conditions are satisfied) when they're going to screw the Mac people over in a few years like they are screwing us over??? As an aside, many people use this same reasoning for why they won't buy the Atari Lynx game machine because they've been screwed over by Atari too many times.. (By the way, the Lynx game machine BLOWS the GameBoy out of the water! Read rec.games.video for more info!) >Hell, the thought of having computer neophyets, or ANYBODY for that >matter, shelling out good money for a system that they are gonna junk >anyways. Heck, buy a machine that IS going to get supported. And if >you think Mac is gonna, forget it! They are getting screwed too! As I said, I still think people should buy IIs.. Buying IIs is like throwing sand in their face! I still think it's not buying a completely dead/useless computer... so if you're buying it, it's USEFUL -AND- you're telling Apple to go to hell... Sounds funny because you're giving them money and telling them to go to hell at the same time? Well you are since you're paying for their APPLE II technology and not their MAC technology which is what they want you to buy. -- /pqbdpqbdpqbd Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu dbqpdbqpdbqp\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) (10/01/90)
In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >In <28361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: >>since all those English majors in college need a 33MHz processor to print >>out their papers. And Macintoshes are SO much better suited for education, >>being black & white and more expensive. >Absolutely! Heaven forbid a school have a few dozen machines vs. just >a dozen Macs or so? Oh, WAIT, I forgot, you can buy low-end Mac's for >less than you can get a II ($649 for a Mac Plus, high ed discount (I'd >imagine it'd be same/close for low-ed)). Oops. Sorry. Usually, I wouldn't want to stick my neck out here since I'm part of the minority, but I just have to say something about this. It is truly amazing how people react. If something goes against them, everyone is suddenly "the enemy." These comments about how "if my next computer isn't an Apple II, it won't be an Apple" really impressed me. Maybe "impressed" isn't the right word, however. First off, let me site and example from real life. While attending college, I still had my trusty Apple //e and loved it to death. I used to write my English papers with it, and thought how vastly superior my work was in appearance as compared to people who wrote their papers using a typewriter. There was no comparison, and people took notice. Soon, everyone was using a computer and great rejoicing followed :). Then one day, in 1985, I saw a paper someone had composed on a Macintosh. When compared to the output of my Apple II, I wanted to learn more about the Mac. Being a computer nerd, this was to be expected. The interesting thing was that I was not alone! At the public computer labs on campus, they had several rooms full of computers that any student could use for whatever purpose they chose. Of these machines (some 70 at the time) only 5 were Macintoshes. One was a Mac Plus, the others Mac SEs. The remaining 65 or so were PC clones running MS-DOS. I guess they took this route because the Macs were (and still are) quite expensive, especially when compared to PC clones. The interesting thing was; almost nobody used the PCs, while the Mac were cnostantly in use, usually with some sort of line waiting to use one of them. In this case, it would appear that the Mac, overpriced, using old tech- nology, and relatively slow as compared to the PC, provided a much more "popular" solution to the problems faced by most college students. It's also not suprising that many graduates, when looking for a computer for personal use go on to buy a Mac. To me, it's a matter of getting my work done, as quickly and painlessly as possible. For myself, the Mac suits me well and I use it every day. For people to say that because Apple is not going to support their machine any longer and that buying a machine from that same company is not a possibility is, to me, both shortsighted and ignorant. When I saw the number of software and hardware solutions available for the Mac, and how long it has been around, I thought it would be a good choice. I think that still holds true today (though the new NeXT does offer some serious competition) and thus find it difficult to understand why people have this attitude towards the Mac. It should be pointed out that I'm not necessarily an evangelist for the Mac (though I do own a IIci) but rather an enthusiast of all computers like I'm sure most everyone who reads this (and many other groups) are. I don't want to get into a heated argument about which computer is better (I prefer Unix machines myself) but rather obtain an understanding of why the Mac is such a hated machine by people who are fans of the Apple II. I was there, I moved on, why can't everyone? Hoping to be enlightened, -- John John Donahue, Senior Partner | UUCP: ucrmath!alchemy!{bbs, gumby} | The Future Alchemy Software Designs | INET: {bbs, gumby}@alchemy.UUCP | Begins Now -------------------+---------+-------------------------------------+----------- Communique On-line | +1-714-243-7150 {3, 12, 24, 96HST} Bps. 8-N-1 | Next Wave: Information System | Alchemy Software Designs Support System | Communique
kf@mbunix.mitre.org (Fong) (10/01/90)
Although I think this ranting and raving is a little extreme, I agree with much of the negative sentiment from Apple II users towards Apple, and believe it is sincere and supportable by observation. Let me try to explain how this feeling came about and is supported by recent events: First: The Theory Apple II owners are rightfully concerned about their investment because there is a feeling that less products (software and hardware) are being produced for the Apple II. If this feeling is actually true, then there are less products developed because third-party companies believe that: a. there is not a growing market for their product relative to the cost of product development or b. the computer is physically not appropriately equipped (too slow, low resolution, not enough color, etc.). For both of these, it may actually be true (there is truly no market or the computer really is not equipped) or it may only be perceived to be true but is in actuality false. If the situation is a matter of perception, then Apple and Apple users need to 1. show third-parties that an education AND general-purpose home user market exists, and/or the computer is appropriately-equipped. But if the situation is actually true, then to solve it, Apple needs to 2. increase the market, 3. lower the cost of product development, and/or 4. improve the computer. Next: The Observations Now is the original feeling (about less product availability) true? I think, as consumers, we all agree that the answer is YES. What has Apple done about it? 1. Has Apple shown companies that the general-purpose home market exists or the computer is well-equipped? Not really. (The Apple II presence in the education market, although declining, is well known.) Have Apple users shown companies that a general-purpose home market exists? Somewhat but can do more. 2. Has Apple increased the market for Apple II third-party products? Has Apple increased the total number of Apple II users by using price incentives or other marketing techniques? Not as far as we can tell. We've had indications that Apple doesn't even bother to inform dealers about the II. 3. Has Apple lowered the cost of product development? Probably yes, through improvements to the operating system and availability of some new software development tools. But more can be done... 4. Has Apple improved the IIGS? Yes, but too little too late. Apple greatly improved the operating system (both speed and features), improved the ROM, and produced some new peripherals. I recognize that Apple is constrained from introducing a faster CPU Apple IIGS because it cannot be assured of volume production of faster CPU chips. I know that when Apple produces a computer, it has to have an assured supply to sell hundreds of thousands a year. (Whereas I doubt that more than 50,000 TransWarps have been sold over the past 3 years.) (A sidenote: the lack of volume production of a 68040 keeps Apple from announcing a 68040 Mac, but NEXT and HP, with have much lower volumes, have already announced but not shipped). Anyway, back to the topic: I realize that Apple concentrated on improving the operating system to try to get as much power as it can from the slower CPU chip. And they have, which is good. But its not enough. I agree with others who have said that Apple could certainly improve on some of the other bottlenecks in the system. And how does the IIe emulation card for the Mac affect product development for the II? This affects items 1 and 2. One assumption is that Apple is developing the IIe emulation card for the Mac in order to "encourage" schools to start buying Macs. With this card, schools don't have to give up the software investment they have already made. This gives the strong impression that Apple has given up on trying to sell IIs (or any future improved IIs) to schools. Which means the II market will not grow any larger, while the Mac market will. On the other hand, it can also mean that the IIe market may grow larger because now Mac owners can run IIe software. But outside of schools, how many will? (One argument others have is that the market demands such a card. This may be true but it also indicates that Apple didn't fulfill an earlier market demand for an improved education computer, which could've been an enhanced IIGS.) And how does the soon-to-be announced $999 Mac Classic or the $2000 color Mac affect product development for the II? This affects items 1 and 2. Unless the price for a full IIGS color system with monitor drops under $1000, it's an indication that Apple is steering all home users to buy the Mac. The market for the II will not grow any larger. (Again, the argument is that the market demands a low-cost Mac and Apple is simply fulfilling this demand. Fine. But the market was there for a lower-cost IIGS, too. Was that demand fulfilled?) Finally: The Conclusion It's very arguable from recent events that Apple is letting the Apple II die. Although Apple has taken some steps to improve the II, it truly seems they were much too little and a little too late. So when I want Apple to tell me what they've done recently for the II, I want to know have they tried to: 1. improve third-party perception of the Apple II and its markets? 2. increase the Apple II market? 3. lower the cost of Apple II product development? 4. improve the Apple II computer? Maybe Sculley can write a letter addressing these items instead. My .02 Kevin Fong, an observer MITRE Corporation Standard disclaimer
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/01/90)
In <4709UD182050@NDSUVM1> UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes: >BTW-I agree with the comments about not reccomending Apple II's. I stopped >doing that a while ago. They're simply too overpriced. I figure I've got >over $5K list into my system. Imagine the Mac II or NeXT setup I could have >for that! Well, $5K for a Mac II wouldn't get you much. Not unless you bought used, and price hacked major. $5K+ will get you a fully loaded color system, with Unix, and a few grand worth of bundled software, a complete development system, etc. Hmm, it isn't so hard to understand why folks like the NeXT is it? :) -k
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (10/01/90)
In article <6397@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > > Boy, we are the pitifulest computer users ever >made. bitchbitchbitchbitchbitch, whinewhinewhine >whine whine. Sorta like pulling the cord on a >garbage pail kid. > >the typical home market doesn't need a $4000 >computer, unix, or 1024x1024 graphics. All I wanna >do is do a bit of word processing and appleworks >fits that bill just dandy. See some graphic pics, >platinum paint / emerald vision / etc will be fine. >Hear some nice computer music; thanks soundsmith & >synthlab. heck, throw in hypercard GS & hyperstudio >for god knows what. And of course play a few games >every now and then. You guys are power users (hell, >anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) No, we're just desperate for good news. >and need to get ahold of cheap crays. > >now that i've inflamed everyone; is there JUST a >comp.sys.apple2tech? Thats what I'm looking for. >No luck so far. Maybe my local system is just >missing it? > >parik rao No, I don't need a $4000 workstation sitting on the desk next to my bed either (although a NeXT in the den would be nice!). Is it too much to ask to keep product competitive? Every other manufacturer in the biz does. Killing the '286 doesn't count as non-support because '386 machines can run '286 programs, much like a '816 runs 6502 programs. It provides an incentive for some people to upgrade. I did. I'm sorry I did, but that's not at issue here. But it's not to be. This is the only place for discussion of Apple IIs. Things will be vile and nasty until Apple changes its mind (unlikely) or it's all been over for a while. Then reality will probably set in and we'll all get back to work. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! | (B O'Cult) Apple II Users Unite! Storm the New Product Announcement and Demand Justice!
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/01/90)
In <6397@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: >computer, unix, or 1024x1024 graphics. All I wanna >do is do a bit of word processing and appleworks >fits that bill just dandy. See some graphic pics, And you are willing to pay the kind of money Apple wants to do only that??? >platinum paint / emerald vision / etc will be fine. >Hear some nice computer music; thanks soundsmith & You want nice computer music? How about 16 bit, 44.1kHz stereo sound? As good as a CD player, or at least fairly close. Standard on a NeXT. Heck, I've heard Mac sound programs play slicker stuff the my GS. And the Mac only has 4 voices! >synthlab. heck, throw in hypercard GS & hyperstudio >for god knows what. And of course play a few games A few is right. >every now and then. You guys are power users (hell, >anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) >and need to get ahold of cheap crays. Not quite correct here. While I might be considered to be a power user compared to you, I'm not a real power user compared to REAL PU's. If I was, I'd probably have long ago had a Sun Sparc, Mac IIsomething, and maybe another computer on my desk. That's real power use. I don't program for Apples, haven't in a long time, which would qualify me as more powerful I would think. Why? Because there isn't squat for a decent programming environment, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna shell out many thousands for a Mac to get that environment. It says a lot about a company that doesn't upgrade a machine for four years, and tells us that the best way to develop is by buying a super overpriced Mac, admitting to the fact that the GS in particular is not powerful enough to do 'real' programming on. No, I wouldn't call myself a power user, not in the least, but as soon as I get my NeXT, or maybe a Sun Sparc IPC, I will definitely be one, because I'll have to tools to do it. Heck, I could become a power user buying a Amiga! But doing it with an Apple II... not without a LOT of extra expense, money that I could use buying a system with that much power right outa the box. THAT'S why I bitch at Apple. I WANT to stay with my II, I want to program on it, and stick with the computer I've had since we bought a II+ (we still have it, and it's still going strong, w/o one problem since day one, that says a LOT about durability!). I want to continue to be an avid fan of Apple, but Apple is doing everything to make me NOT be a fan, not to mention make the investment in a IIgs a very bad one. >now that i've inflamed everyone; is there JUST a >comp.sys.apple2tech? Thats what I'm looking for. >No luck so far. Maybe my local system is just >missing it? Nope, there is no such beast, unless it got created while I wasn't looking. There was some discussion about splitting the group into II and IIgs groups once, and I vaguely recall having a group for technical issues, but it never got off the ground. -k
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/02/90)
In comp.sys.apple2 you write: >In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: > Well, I don't say GO IBM.. I still don't like IBM PCs (and don't >think I ever will).. I do agree with many of these kinds of statements >(unfortunately) though. Well, actually, it makes perfect finacial sense. IBM is going to start taking big chunks of the home market away from Apple. A low cost IBM (names carry a LOT of weight to the uninitiate) is going to do VERY well against the expensive models Apple has, especially considering that the PS/1 probably comes with hard drive, good graphics, speed to match Apple's stuff (I'd presume so), and of course, the IBM name. Now Apple has only a few options, from what I see. They can ither continue on their course of limiting there market niche more and more, which is not smart, especially considering they seem to be going for the workstation market, and Sun and others have that very well covered. So if that's all they are concerned about, we will quickly discover it when they don't introduce anything to compete. If they are smart, and don't want to totally loose the home market, then they MUST introduce low cost, decently powerful, computers. That means ither Mac, or Apple II, or both is going to see some improvements. Given that we already know that there is going to be three new Macs, all aimed at low-cost markets, WITHOUT even the absolute vaguest of whispers about a new Apple II, that sorta tells you exactly what Apple cares about doesn't it? >>Yup! Hey, join the gang! Anybody want to start a "Apple II, Now >>NeXT Club"? A2NNC? Eww. Anybody got a better acronym? Ya know, I >>wonder if Jobs was expecting this! > This is really sad.. Steve Jobs was a VERY VERY VERY MAJOR >reason for the downfall of the Apple II in the first place.. I have no >direct facts to base all of this on, so you may not believe me, but he >either STOPPED or seriously slowed down many projects to improve the >Apple II... This was for his pet project the Lisa.. what a flop... heh.. >but, as we all know it was turned into the Mac. Yup, Jobs did screw over the Apple II, no doubt about it. The only problem I have with NeXT is he is heading it up. He's a great visionary, but when he runs things, things get done the "Steve 'You do computing my way!' Jobs" method. The best thing (and worst for II's) was for Jobs to get booted. With him around, he was slowing down Mac advancement. Of course, I can't prove this ither, but I'm sure you can find out from others about this. Just take a look at all the new models introduce AFTER he left. > But I'm not saying I don't like NeXT. I think the NeXT is really >cool and feel that the optical disk idea was BRILLIANT, while it seems >most people say it's utterly stupid. Yeah, too bad it was a bit ahead of it's time, unreliable in dusty environments, and NeXT has opted to let it go by the wayside, and support it as an option, and not a standard. Of course, OD technology is quickly progressing, and we should start seeing some benefits from it. Iomega, for instance, has a 600+Mb, ~60ms, OD that works like NeXT's and is ISO compatible. > NOOOOOO!!! This is the one I ---do not--- agree with. I still want >people to buy Apple IIs... Buying Apple IIs (and related hardware AND >SOFTWARE!) will help preserve the II longer and may somehow make Apple >wise up. I'm not saying I think that'll happen but I still like the GS well >enough to not switch to another computer.. Yes, I wish it too, but I can't believe that Apple IS going to wise up anymore. Heck, I don't recall hearing ANYTHING from the AIIDTS guys in awhile, anything even hinting at good things to come (ie: "I can't tell you about all the incredible things in the works here"). It's just unreasonable, IMHO, to tell anybody to buy Apple II's or otherwise support them, as I just don't believe that it's an investment that is NOT going to be a waste. Now if prices where slashed by half at least, then MAYBE, but then of course people would start buying II's wouldn't they, instead of buying Macs, or better (for them cost wise) IBM compatibles. >Why should I get a Mac (unless conditions are satisfied) when they're >going to screw the Mac people over in a few years like they are screwing >us over??? As an aside, many people use this same reasoning for why they No, no, no, they ARE screwing Mac users over right now! Remember the original Mac slogan? "The computer for the rest of us"? Now it's "The computer for the wealthy." When Macs originally rolled out, for awhile I was skeptical, and then I really liked the machines. They were gonna bring computing power to everyone! And for the most part, anybody could use one with just a little bit of training. Well, that's still true, but as far as it being a machine that folks can afford, only the real low end stuff is, and I know I'm not gonna be particularly interested in the slow machines at that end of the spectrum. >won't buy the Atari Lynx game machine because they've been screwed over by >Atari too many times.. (By the way, the Lynx game machine BLOWS the >GameBoy out of the water! Read rec.games.video for more info!) I've heard this too, from a friend who's boss has one. Says it's really cool. >>Hell, the thought of having computer neophyets, or ANYBODY for that >>matter, shelling out good money for a system that they are gonna junk >>anyways. Heck, buy a machine that IS going to get supported. And if >>you think Mac is gonna, forget it! They are getting screwed too! > As I said, I still think people should buy IIs.. Buying IIs is >like throwing sand in their face! I still think it's not buying a completely It's also like throwing money in the fire. If ya are gonna buy a II, I'd buy a IIc+. At least it has a dose of speed, is reasonably priced, has an internal 3.5, and is semi-portable. >dead/useless computer... so if you're buying it, it's USEFUL -AND- you're >telling Apple to go to hell... Sounds funny because you're giving them money >and telling them to go to hell at the same time? Well you are since you're >paying for their APPLE II technology and not their MAC technology which is >what they want you to buy. Actually, you probably ARE giving them money for Mac technology, mainly for R&D.
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (10/02/90)
In article <6397@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > Boy, we are the pitifulest computer users ever >made. bitchbitchbitchbitchbitch, whinewhinewhine Kinda like your posting... :-) >the typical home market doesn't need a $4000 >computer, unix, or 1024x1024 graphics. Tell that to Apple. > All I wanna >do is do a bit of word processing and appleworks >fits that bill just dandy. Exactly. The //gs is perfect for that. Tell it to Apple. Tell them that a machine created after their beloved Macintosh is still useful. [stuff deleted] > You guys are power users (hell, >anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) >and need to get ahold of cheap crays. Read the article you are following up to. My point isn't that the //gs is underpowered, it's that the //gs is no longer marketed, and won't be supported for much longer. 3rd party support is already dwindling to nothing. Recommending a //gs to somebody else is really insane under these conditions. I'm keeping this machine, but I'm moving onward soon, and I'm not going to get stuck by Apple again. >parik rao -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/02/90)
In article <5666@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >You want nice computer music? How about 16 bit, 44.1kHz stereo sound? >As good as a CD player, or at least fairly close. Standard on a NeXT. >Heck, I've heard Mac sound programs play slicker stuff the my GS. And >the Mac only has 4 voices! Well then you have to check out SynthLab, SoundSmith, and Jam Session.. and maybe even other programs, but those are the 'biggies' at the moment. >>for god knows what. And of course play a few games >A few is right. Well, I'd like to play a LOT of games as well as programming, word- processing, etc. >>every now and then. You guys are power users (hell, >>anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) >>and need to get ahold of cheap crays. As other people have said, I just want the Apple II(GS) to remain competitive... Have all it's always got (hackability), and remain competitive. That's ALL. More would be nice, but not necessary. Speed to be roughly equal to other comparatively priced machines, and graphics and other characteristics that are similar too. (640 * 400 would be a minimum resolution with a decent # of colors in a palette... None of this mini-palette stuff! I think that was a throwback to hires graphics where even and odd pixels were different colors too!) -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (10/02/90)
In-Reply-To: message from asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Well, it seems to me that the Apple // is now defunct. Apple isn't going to
produce any more cpu's with "Apple //xx" on it you can rest assured. The
closest you will be able to come is "Mac XXXX". So, I suggest you all stop
bitching about it because all the bitching in the world isn't going to change
matters any. After all, Apple is releasing no less than 3 (count 'em) new Mac
CPU's in the next month. This should clue you die-hards in.
I suggest that if you want the 'ol Apple // fire, you go and purchase the
Apple // of today, an Amiga. It is the underdog with the great CPU, graphics
and it's (most importantly) affordable. The same feelings I experienced when
I purchased my first Apple // back in 1982 can be had again by purchasing an
Amiga today. All those Amiga hackers and all those magazines and the fire! I
think it's the fire in the eyes of the people that own Amiga's these days that
get's me the most. Remember when we had that fire, when the CPU was supported
by our beloved company. Well, that can be had again, get yourself an Amiga
and get out of this misery because Apple doesn't care for you. All they are
concerned about is the bottom line. Because, the bottom line is all there is
for the Apple of the 90's. Apple has become IBM in Mac clothing.
-- Bob
______ Pro-Graphics BBS `It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!' ________
UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | America Online: Graphics3d
Internet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CompuServe: RIP
_________ ___________
Raven Enterprises 25 Raven Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854 asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/02/90)
In <7379@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >In article <5666@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >>You want nice computer music? How about 16 bit, 44.1kHz stereo sound? >>As good as a CD player, or at least fairly close. Standard on a NeXT. >>Heck, I've heard Mac sound programs play slicker stuff the my GS. And >>the Mac only has 4 voices! > Well then you have to check out SynthLab, SoundSmith, and Jam Session.. >and maybe even other programs, but those are the 'biggies' at the moment. It can't even come close to what the DSP can put out on the NeXT. I do have SoundSmith, which I really like tho. Now if I could just get a Midi device and output to the synth we have at home. Are Synthlab and Jam Session share/freeware? I think I've heard of Jam Session, but not Synthlab. >>>for god knows what. And of course play a few games >>A few is right. > Well, I'd like to play a LOT of games as well as programming, word- >processing, etc. Really! And make them fast, colorful, exciting, and long lasting as hell. >>>every now and then. You guys are power users (hell, >>>anyone who wades through all these msgs must be!) >>>and need to get ahold of cheap crays. > As other people have said, I just want the Apple II(GS) to remain >competitive... Have all it's always got (hackability), and remain >competitive. That's ALL. More would be nice, but not necessary. Speed >to be roughly equal to other comparatively priced machines, and graphics >and other characteristics that are similar too. (640 * 400 would be a minimum Absolutely! Unfortunately, I don't believe in Apple coming thru. I would love to see Apple come out with a machine that addressed all these problems. Heck, I'll printout my posts and eat my words, literally, if they do! Anybody want to make bets on wether they will come thru? -k
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/02/90)
In article <6397@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: >now that i've inflamed everyone; is there JUST a >comp.sys.apple2tech? Thats what I'm looking for. This is it. Because it's unmoderated, there is no way to keep nontechnical discussion out of it. The common suggestion for a new newsgroup name would not solve the problem; only changing to a moderated newsgroup could do that. I haven't heard any volunteers for the job of moderator..
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/02/90)
In article <181@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >I ... want to ... obtain an understanding of why the Mac is such a hated >machine by people who are fans of the Apple II. Here are what I think are the main reasons: 1. The Macintosh is perceived as aimed at "appliance users" rather than hobbyists and other do-it-yourselfers. 2. Programming the Macintosh for simple applications is much harder than programming the Apple II in AppleSoft BASIC. This of course is also an argument against the IIGS's desktop environment. 3. Macintoshes were not expandable until recently, while all Apple IIs except the //c (and //c+) supported add-on peripherals, simple controls via the game-port connector, etc. 4. Macintoshes did not provide color displays until recently. 5. Macintoshes were targeted at business applications rather than personal computing. 6. Apple's emphasis on the Macintosh at the expense of the Apple II line crippled commercial support for the Apple IIs that people had purchased. Note that I'm not making these arguments myself, merely trying to convey what I think the most common reasons are that have any validity. (There are undoubtedly some invalid reasons too.)
knauer@sunc5 (Rob Knauerhase) (10/02/90)
In article <5673@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >In <7379@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >> As other people have said, I just want the Apple II(GS) to remain >>competitive... Have all it's always got (hackability), and remain >>competitive. That's ALL. More would be nice, but not necessary. Speed >>to be roughly equal to other comparatively priced machines, and graphics >>and other characteristics that are similar too. (640 * 400 would be a minimum This is all any of us are asking. (We used to ask for more, but have trimmed down our expectations. :) >Absolutely! Unfortunately, I don't believe in Apple coming thru. >I would love to see Apple come out with a machine that addressed all >these problems. Heck, I'll printout my posts and eat my words, >literally, if they do! Anybody want to make bets on wether they will >come thru? Well, although I'm not enough of a gambling man to take this offer, do let me remind you (and all the others who are whining prematurely about the death of the II) about the rumored things that may (or may not) be coming Real Soon Now: - System Software 6.0 [DTS, back me up on this, like with a product?!?] - HyperCard GS (w/HFS FST?) [Ditto for Claris/Apple people] - Duet Mac-emulation board [Cirtech, are you out there?] - SynthLab - (I forget the name) the Animation package that was seen at KansasFest - Fast 65816's from whomever - BlackBox-thingy to allow use of 1.44MB or higher 3.5" drives I'm the first to admit that this is a lot of promise and no delivery. Some of these things may very well exist at least in beta, but are held up somehow. BUT we shouldn't give up the ship yet! [Mainly, I can't afford a IIfx or NeXT and I'm not completely sold on the Amiga. :)] It's OK to be a bit jaded and suspicious, but the last people we need as doomsayers are II-people! (Besides, you guys are getting so good at II-bashing you could work for MacWeek!) However, we can all be sure of one thing. If Apple does phase out the II and bets its future on a way-too-expensive Mac IIfx and a "Mac Classic" (yeah, which I wouldn't trade an HP28S calculator for), it'll give Commodore and IBM a lift like they've never seen before. More later. Rob +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert C. Knauerhase | | knauer@cs.uiuc.edu | U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign| | rck@ces.cwru.edu,knauer@cwru.bitnet | Case Western Reserve University | | knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov | NASA Lewis Research Center | +----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | "Computers are different from telephones. Computers do not ring." | | -- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", p. 32 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
knauer@sunc5 (Rob Knauerhase) (10/02/90)
In article <4756@crash.cts.com> bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) writes: >Well, it seems to me that the Apple // is now defunct. Apple isn't going to >produce any more cpu's with "Apple //xx" on it you can rest assured. The >closest you will be able to come is "Mac XXXX". So, I suggest you all stop >bitching about it because all the bitching in the world isn't going to change >matters any. After all, Apple is releasing no less than 3 (count 'em) new Mac >CPU's in the next month. This should clue you die-hards in. This is bad; mere doomsaying. "The sky is falling..." Apple has released so many Mac CPU's in the past four years that I've stopped paying close attention to their differences. Why should we give up faith just because Apple's releasing three more? :) [Ill-disguised cynicism.] >I suggest that if you want the 'ol Apple // fire, you go and purchase the >Apple // of today, an Amiga. It is the underdog with the great CPU, graphics >and it's (most importantly) affordable. The same feelings I experienced when >I purchased my first Apple // back in 1982 can be had again by purchasing an [snip, snip] There's some merit to this, but let's keep it in comp.sys.amiga or alt.religion.computers. Not all is roses with the Amiga. [And besides, it's a (gasp) Commodore?!? Peeeee-yew! <grin>] >All they [Apple] are >concerned about is the bottom line. Because, the bottom line is all there is >for the Apple of the 90's. Apple has become IBM in Mac clothing. Not really. If they cared about the bottom line, they wouldn't try to foist an 8Mhz 68000 with 9" B/W monitor and 800K drive on the American public of 1990. I really hope this machine fails; the GS blows it away in almost every respect... If Apple were a little more like IBM, they'd follow IBM's lead and market a machine for the estimated 66 million households who can afford a PS/1. They'd revamp the GS for speed and price, bundle it with AppleWorks GS (or even AppleWorks) and maybe a cheap hard disk, and let it blow the PS/1 away. This month's _A2-Central_ addresses this issue well, and ends with some great lines (quoted from 10/90 A2-Central, Dennis Dom's editorial): "Despite the fact that Apple's customers have clearly stated their desires and despite a four-year lead time, IBM has beaten Apple to the market that the IIGS is perfect for. I hope Apple finds the results truly embarassing." Just food for thought. I admit that the past few months haven't been the brightest in the GS's history, but there's still a lot of potential there IF ONLY, IF ONLY Apple would see it. Rob +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert C. Knauerhase | | knauer@cs.uiuc.edu | U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign| | rck@ces.cwru.edu,knauer@cwru.bitnet | Case Western Reserve University | | knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov | NASA Lewis Research Center | +----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | "Computers are different from telephones. Computers do not ring." | | -- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", p. 32 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Oct2.044919.12938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: >In article <4756@crash.cts.com> bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) writes: >This is bad; mere doomsaying. "The sky is falling..." >Apple has released so many Mac CPU's in the past four years that I've >stopped paying close attention to their differences. Why should we give up >faith just because Apple's releasing three more? :) [Ill-disguised cynicism.] Are any of the Macs so close in abilities that they are analogous to the 'upgrade' from the ROM 01 to ROM 03 GS? I think they just dropped one a few weeks ago that really wasn't much different.. a few hundred more bucks (when you're that expensive already, a few hundred doesn't make much difference! heh) and you greatly improved the abilities.. So I think the lower one wasn't selling well.. This was the IIcx and IIci or something like that. (probably wrong here) Your statements about how the GS would be perfect for where the PS/1 is supposed to go are correct. HELL, I would'nt care TOO MUCH if they advertized it as the 'inexpensive computer with the Mac interface'.. AS LONG AS THEY ADVERTIZE IT.. And whoever wrote it release the (finished) Excel workalike program they wrote! {As an aside, I call it the APPLE interface rather than the MAC interface.. Yeah, I guess if we were totally technical, I'd call it the Xerox/PARC interface, but oh well} -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
kf@mbunix.mitre.org (Fong) (10/02/90)
Of the reasons for why Apple II users hate Macs, I think the only one that is valid is that Apple emphasized the Mac to such a degree that they let the Apple II development and marketing drop. I wouldn't even bother replying to this article, except the one thing that really bugs me about many of these Mac-bashing articles from Apple II users is that it seems they really believe all those other reasons given for hating Macs. (Not all Apple II users bash the Mac.) Apple II users have good reasons for bashing Apple, but except for the reason given above, the other reasons given are just simply no longer true and therefore, invalid. Apple has long since (3 years now) recognized the Mac's weaknessses and improved upon the original design by adding slots,16.8 million colors, and programming (Hypercard) capability to the basic Mac package. There is an excellent third-party programming environment that costs less than $100 (Think Pascal/C). Apple and others have also improved on their windowing system such that all you have to do is hold down one key and you can close all your windows at once. (To those who seem to comment now after having tried it once back in the beginning, try it again before you make any comments that indicate your lack of use!!) The Mac "for the rest of us" was never cheap ($2495 list at introduction in 1984) and has never meant it was affordable. Never! Never! Apple and affordable has never gone together except in people's dreams. The whole idea of the "rest of us" was that it was easy to learn and use for people who were not previously computer users, not that people could afford it. The Mac was not originally geared for business, but because Apple was going through tough times (reember 1985), they decided that they needed to sell to the business market. (By the way, the Apple III was geared for the business market, too.) But people on this list bashed it even before it was aimed to the business market. The Mac has been a "hobbyist" machine since 1987. It may be a costly hobbyist machine, but I don't understand what features or lack of features excludes it from being a hobbyist machine. Is it simply because you can't program in assembly? The Mac is used extensively for personal programming (loads and loads of shareware), video, music, etc. Mac users customize their Macs constantly. Hypercard is used by people to do exactly what they want. But enough. I am entirely sympathetic to the plight of the Apple II user and I've written before that just about everything Apple does seems to justify the complaints of the Apple II user. Apple has done little and done it too late to improve the atmosphere surrounding the Apple II. You can hate Apple for that and not buy a Mac because you hate Apple. (No argument with that.) But there are many people who work very hard to make the Mac what it is, and there are many people who love their Macs as much as Apple II users love the Apple II, and they don't care to hear some of the unjustified Mac-bashing. A couple of other things that should be clarified. Apple is dropping the Mac IIcx model not because it isn't selling (in fact, it is the best selling model among Macs), but because its price is about the same as the next higher-level model, the IIci. The IIcx has no built-in video and the IIci does and the difference in cost between the two machines is less than the cost of an 8-bit color video card. In reality, what Apple is doing is dropping its prices. Unheard of, uh? (But I bet that the IIci costs a lot less to manufacture than the IIcx.) The color low-end Mac LC is expected to cost about $2500 with a 40MB hard disk but monitor extra. The total cost is about $3000. If Apple had wanted to phase out the Apple IIGS, wouldn't they have lowered the price some more so it would directly compete? If Apple lowers the price of the Apple IIGS, it would be a good indication that they want both to exist. Which leads me to this: At a recent Apple accounts and dealers intro, Apple reps said that the Apple IIe, Mac SE, and Mac IIcx are no longer a part of the family. Apple indicated that work and support for all members of the family (including the Apple IIGS) were going strong. Kevin Fong IIGS and Mac user MITRE Corporation Standard disclaimer
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (10/04/90)
On Mon, 1 Oct 90 07:38:03 GMT BBS Administration said: >In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >"the enemy." These comments about how "if my next computer isn't an Apple >II, it won't be an Apple" really impressed me. Maybe "impressed" isn't >the right word, however. Well, I think -part- of the reason people say that is because, if Apple drops the //, then how can we be sure they won't drop the Mac in the Future? Another reason people say that is because, if Apple isn't going to support them, they aren't going to support Apple. >me well and I use it every day. For people to say that because Apple is >not going to support their machine any longer and that buying a machine from >that same company is not a possibility is, to me, both shortsighted and >ignorant. (You better be wearing your asbestos suit when saying that in this place.) I don't think it's ignorant to abandon a company that no longer supports the product you spent so much money on. How do you know they won't do the same for the next product you buy from them? Why should someone support a company that keeps promising and promising support and never delivers it? Also, I think a big part of the reason Apple II people don't want a Mac is because the Mac and the Apple II are to RADICALLY different computers. Apple II people generally, don't like to have their hand held when working with an application. They like to be able to get 'inside' the computer (the monitor, AppleSoft) and have absolute control over it. This is close to impossible to do on a Mac, even with that 'debug' init. The Mac has no built-in ROM character set, so everything HAS to be done with graphics, even if you're emulating characters, which, drastically, slows down response time. An the Apple II's, if you want to quit a program, you hit a key, and, with most programs, you are immediately at the Applesoft prompt, even before you have a chance to lift your finger off the key. With the mac, you have to select Quit from the file menu, wait for that application to shut down, wait for the finder to load, wait for the icons to be drawn on the screen and wait for any windows left open to be drawn. >When I saw the number of software and hardware solutions >available for the Mac, and how long it has been around, I thought it would >be a good choice. I think that still holds true today (though the new >NeXT does offer some serious competition) and thus find it difficult to >understand why people have this attitude towards the Mac. I thought the same thing of my GS back in '87 when I got it, and it doesn't look like it's going to be around much longer (I'm still hoping they're going to miraculously start supporting it). People don't really have an attitude towards the MAC, it's towards Apple, the company. They sold us our //'s, now they're not supporting them anymore and they're wanting us to spend megabucks on a computer that we don't really like. I, personally, don't dislike the Mac, I just like using Apple //'s MUCH more. >Apple II. I was there, I moved on, why can't everyone? I, personally, wouldn't call it 'moving on', but 'moving over'. The Apple // is overpriced as it is, and the price of the Mac is just outrageous if I get one comparable to my GS. The Apple // is more of a hackers machine. I like to get down inside and get my hands dirty, get inside programs and see what makes them tick and experiment with hardware calls, softswitches, and the like, which is close to impossible to do in a 'protected graphic shell'. If I wasn't a programmer and didn't know as much about computers as I do, I'd probably like the Mac, but when something goes wrong, it's not nearly as easy to deal with on the Mac as it is a //. On a two, I can hack out a patch to fix whatever went wrong, hack a basic program and mess around with data files and figure out why one might not work, fix it and move on etc. etc. > >Hoping to be enlightened, > >-- John > > Alchemy Software Designs | INET: {bbs, gumby}@alchemy.UUCP | Begins Now >-------------------+---------+-------------------------------------+----------- >Communique On-line | +1-714-243-7150 {3, 12, 24, 96HST} Bps. 8-N-1 | Next Wave: >Information System | Alchemy Software Designs Support System | Communique ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (10/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET
Mike Aos mentions:
>BTW-I agree with the comments about not reccomending Apple II's.
I concur, if we are talking about new Apple ][gs's for the AVERAGE person,
whoever that may be.
However, there are a dirth of used Apple ][e's and c's available all over the
country. You see them each day advertised in the classifieds as people either
decide they need something else or don't know what to do with them.
Here is the source for the next generation of inexpensive computing. They
still do word processing (etal with Appleworks) very well and with appropriate
software can do more esoteric things.
If one just has to purchase new, then I recommend the Laser 128; at 2/3 to 1/2
the price of a new Apple ][, they go Apple, Inc one better.
I mean, would you rush out to purchase a new gs these days no matter what
Apple, Inc dreamed up? Not me, unless it was under $1000, had VGA quality
color and at least a 40mb hard drive....ha! Fat Chance.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic
Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu
300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil
Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com
Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58Aphilip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/04/90)
In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes:
[tirade directed at Apple's computer policies,etc...deleted]
Get a hold of yourselves. This is getting out of hand. The idea of the Mac and
the II() line converging is a very good one for all of us. The more we share
with the Mac, the more choices we will have and the more programmers will be
attracted to the GS. The way it's coming across is that the GS has no qualities
at all, and if Apple were to offer low-cost Macs that would be the end of the
GS. I assume GS prices will drop as Apple adjusts its pricing policies. An
inexpensive GS has great appeal. If it doesn't( and I believe it does) then our
discussion is somewhat academic anyway.
Finally, will all those people contemplating a move to the NeXT please get a hold of NeXT's Fall catalogue. Look at the software prices. The GS and the NeXT arenot competing. Neither is the GS competing with the Amiga3000.
It might be a good idea to enjoy the GS, buy software( MusicWriter from PyWare
has just been upgraded to version 2.0 and is a significant program, Diversi-Tuneis being upgraded, and there are others.). The GS does need a bit more speed.
What we could do without are self-fulfilling musings.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto-> philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[my opinions]bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) (10/04/90)
First off, let me state that I really enjoyed reading the various replies to my article. Rather than receiving flames, I've learned a great deal and am pleased with the overall outcome. Now, off to quoting things and replying to these comments... In article <9010040151.AA28593@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Mon, 1 Oct 90 07:38:03 GMT BBS Administration said: >>"the enemy." These comments about how "if my next computer isn't an Apple >>II, it won't be an Apple" really impressed me. Maybe "impressed" isn't >>the right word, however. >Well, I think -part- of the reason people say that is because, if Apple drops >the //, then how can we be sure they won't drop the Mac in the Future? Another >reason people say that is because, if Apple isn't going to support them, they >aren't going to support Apple. Well, here's the deal, as far as I'm concerned: I truly hope that "in the future" (whenever that might be, hopefully not for a year or two or three) that Apple *does* stop supporting the Mac and moves on to something even better. They can keep coming out with new Macs and that will be great, someday I might even upgrade before the "great departure from the Mac" comes to be, but somewhere along the line, I think it will happen. It's inevitable. Technology advances at an incredible rate as we all know, and someday something will be invented that will make the "Mac technology" obsolete. This is not to say that the Apple II technology is "obsolete" since people are still quite productive with them, but that as time moves on, so does the person purchasing a computer. They will look at the II, and they will look at the Mac and the Amiga and everything else and over time, people will gradually adopt newer technology. Everything has a life cycle I believe, and it would appear that the II is coming to it's end -- regardless of whether it is still a very useful machine. Some might blame Apple, others might blame software developers who want to write software for a more lucrative market like the PC or the Mac (who can blame them?) the result is the same. The Apple II has "been done" and people want to move on to machines that offer new challenges, and new abilities, and new adventures. When the II came out, I bought it because it offered all these exciting things, but eventually I grew tired of the II and looked elsewhere. I think it might have something to do with human nature really. >>me well and I use it every day. For people to say that because Apple is >>not going to support their machine any longer and that buying a machine from >>that same company is not a possibility is, to me, both shortsighted and >>ignorant. >I don't think it's ignorant to abandon a company that no longer supports the >product you spent so much money on. Do you see Atari supporting the Atari 800? How about some other computers that have died? Does that mean that people who bought the Atari ST are taking an unnecessary risk with that company because they might someday stop supporting the ST? I think you could say the same thing about a lot of companies (big ones too) that have done the same thing. And if you feel this is justification for abandoning a company, then I wish you good luck in finding a company that has never done something similar. >How do you know they won't do the same >for the next product you buy from them? You don't. It's a risk you take. Right now, I'd say the machine with the largest "risk factor" would be the NeXT. They are new, they haven't sold that many machines, there is not TONS of software out for it, and it hasn't caught on like most people thought it would. Perhaps that is precisely why they are offering an absolutely incredible machine for such a small price (last ditch effort?). Right now, I'd say the Mac is a pretty safe bet for the next 5 years or so, possibly more. To be honest, I'd *love* to see them create a machine based on the Motorola 88000, and then have a kick-ass version of A/UX for it, *and* maybe a really nice GUI (not just X) and maybe even "Mac emulation" so I could still play with all my current software. That would make me really happy. This is being offered to you now -- buy a neato Mac and still use all your Apple II (not GS, I guess since the GS sound is so awesome, it would be a pain to emulate that [or impossible]) software via this emulation card. Am I just weird in my views? Could be! >Why should someone support a company >that keeps promising and promising support and never delivers it? If a company makes explicit promises and never comes through with them, that is a "bad thing." Being worried about a company that does this *is* something to think about, but in all honesty, it happens all the time and many, many companies fall victim to it (System 7.0 for the Mac was originally mentioned in like August of '89 I think and now it's not going to be available until "first quarter" of '91). Though this is not an excuse, I understand what you're going through and it does suck. The thing is, Apple is not alone when it comes to lying to their users. And Apple *II* users are not alone, the Mac suffers too (though I'm sure to a much lesser extent). >Also, I >think a big part of the reason Apple II people don't want a Mac is because >the Mac and the Apple II are to RADICALLY different computers. I think it's more like *any computer* and a Macintosh are radically different computers. The Mac was one of, if not the, first computer to have ONLY a graphical interface. Now this is becoming commonplace, even the GS and IBM PCs are adapting. I think it's for the better since it takes less time to teach people how to be productive with a computer (training can be very expensive, especially when trying to teach people how to use brain-dead MS-DOS). >Apple II people >generally, don't like to have their hand held when working with an application. >They like to be able to get 'inside' the computer (the monitor, AppleSoft) and >have absolute control over it. Are you aware that you're speaking for several million people when you say that? Just checking. I'm not so sure I agree. I like the Mac better. One of my best friends (who, like me is still an Apple enthusiast and still thinks the Apple II is a cool machine) sold his Apple II, and his Apple IIGS and now has a Mac (he's a Mac consultant even). The list goes on and on actually. Let's just suffice it to say that the Mac interface isn't so bad, and not being able to "peek & poke" values via BASIC is not something I really miss all that much and finally, most people who use Apples merely *use* them. They probably want something that is easy to use so that you don't have to reference an AppleSoft manual to find out what value to poke into a memory location to do something nifty. >This is close to impossible to do on a Mac, >even with that 'debug' init. The Mac has no built-in ROM character set, so >everything HAS to be done with graphics, even if you're emulating characters, >which, drastically, slows down response time. Two things here. One, if I want to play around with the internals, I use THINK C and hack away. There is a difference, and it *is* neato to really get dirty with the II, but for myself, I've got better things to do than find out how to make the speaker click. Two, I agree with you about the slowness of the Mac being a drawback. That's why I bought a IIci, and I'm still not happy with its performance. When I had a RocketChip in my //e I *loved* it. Ran my BBS on it and it screamed. Still, the Mac has much to offer, and the slowness of QuickDraw is something you learn to live with. >An the Apple II's, if you want >to quit a program, you hit a key, and, with most programs, you are immediately >at the Applesoft prompt, even before you have a chance to lift your finger off >the key. With the mac, you have to select Quit from the file menu, wait for >that application to shut down, wait for the finder to load, wait for the icons >to be drawn on the screen and wait for any windows left open to be drawn. Ever use AppleWorks? Didn't think so. :) As I recall, if you have multiple documents that have had changes made to them while using AppleWorks, it too will prompt you, one document at a time whether you want to save the changes, throw them away or whatever. Sounds awfully similar to the Mac to me. And another thing, most Mac programs allow you to enter Command-Q so you don't have to fiddle with the mouse, and since the default is to "save changes" I save my changes by QUITTING and just hitting <Return> several times rather than saving, then quitting. Oh, and one more thing, if you use MultiFinder (which will no longer be an option with the advent of System 7) quitting an app takes about a second or so since the desktop is already "known and present" on screen. >>When I saw the number of software and hardware solutions >>available for the Mac, and how long it has been around, I thought it would >>be a good choice. I think that still holds true today (though the new >>NeXT does offer some serious competition) and thus find it difficult to >>understand why people have this attitude towards the Mac. >I thought the same thing of my GS back in '87 when I got it, and it doesn't >look like it's going to be around much longer (I'm still hoping they're >going to miraculously start supporting it). I felt the same way you did, and really wanted to buy a GS, but I was attending college at the time and had the "struggling student" blues and thus couldn't afford one. In retrospect, I'm glad my parents didn't loan me the money for it like I had hoped they would. To be honest, I still think the GS is a pretty hot machine, and feel really bad that Apple can't be a "two horse" company and support them both EQUALLY. I'd much rather have my children learning on a GS with all kinds of neat sounds and graphics and a good user interface then learning how to use MS-DOS on some CGA machine in monochrome. Then again, I wish the whole world would switch to Unix/Mach and NeXT Step! :) :) :) [Stuff deleted -- aren't you glad, otherwise this could be sold as a book] >>Hoping to be enlightened, I was! :) Anybody else want to take a stab at my further enlightenment? -- John John Donahue, Senior Partner | UUCP: ucrmath!alchemy!{bbs, gumby} | The Future Alchemy Software Designs | INET: {bbs, gumby}@alchemy.UUCP | Begins Now -------------------+---------+-------------------------------------+----------- Communique On-line | +1-714-243-7150 {3, 12, 24, 96HST} Bps. 8-N-1 | Next Wave: Information System | Alchemy Software Designs Support System | Communique
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/05/90)
In article <184@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >First off, let me state that I really enjoyed reading the various replies >to my article. Rather than receiving flames, I've learned a great deal and >am pleased with the overall outcome. Now, off to quoting things and replying >to these comments... Well let me say I have not enjoyed this whole train, and I really don't think the net is the place for peoples' little experiments of this nature. >I think it's more like *any computer* and a Macintosh are radically >different computers. The Mac was one of, if not the, first computer to >have ONLY a graphical interface. Now this is becoming commonplace, even >the GS and IBM PCs are adapting. I think it's for the better since it >takes less time to teach people how to be productive with a computer >(training can be very expensive, especially when trying to teach people >how to use brain-dead MS-DOS). Your assertion re the training time being less for a computer with only a GUI is really on shaky grounds. Apple loves quoting these Peat Marwick studies,etc..while the other camp points to studies which indicate people trained on Macs tend to produce documents which are less rigorous in their logical foundation. Nevertheless, will you give me a break on this training time stuff. For simple applications it is very easy to design a menuing system to launch whatever programs a person is using. This can be done on MS-DOS,Unix,etc...computers. For more complex programs if a person needs icons to launch programs and handle file i/o, then I doubt they could handle the programs anyways. Would also please note that Windows3.0 , OS/2, NeXTStep, OpenLook,etc...do not give you ONLY a GUI. They provide for a CLI. In my opinion, this is a serious weakness in the Mac OS( and GS/OS). >I like the Mac better. >One of my best friends (who, like me is still an Apple enthusiast and >still thinks the Apple II is a cool machine) sold his Apple II, and his >Apple IIGS and now has a Mac (he's a Mac consultant even). The list goes >on and on actually. Well I use Macs as well. I like them. I've had them all( except the IIfx). They do the job I wanted them for. They aren't powerful enough to do any serious work of the type I need, but they are good word processors and can handle routine jobs. It's only recently that I got a GS. Like the Mac it isn't powerful enough to do the things I require on our Unix Sytem. But it serves me well as a terminal, has wonderful sound which I have experimented with, cost me a lot less and is more fun to use. It's hardly surprising your friend has moved on to the Mac, given that he's now a Mac consultant- no doubt setting up Appletalk networks, teaching Pagemaker,Illustrator,etc...One can't really take these things seriously. It always amazes me the money people pay out to "consultants" who come in and hook up an Appletalk net for them using phonenet. It may be of interest to you, since we are in the process of describing our friends' computer preferences, that most of the really good programmers where I work, who were enthusiastic when the Mac first came out, have ALL abandoned the Mac. They have moved on to platforms which are more powerful and easier to program. >To be honest, I >still think the GS is a pretty hot machine, and feel really bad that >Apple can't be a "two horse" company and support them both EQUALLY. >I'd much rather have my children learning on a GS with all kinds of >neat sounds and graphics and a good user interface then learning how >to use MS-DOS on some CGA machine in monochrome. Then again, I wish the >whole world would switch to Unix/Mach and NeXT Step! :) :) :) There's no reason at all why Apple cannot continue to support the GS. As for your assertion that you'd wish the whole world would switch to Unix/Mach,etc...that simply tells me where you are coming from. It also tell me you haven't really thought out carefully the issues involved in home/educational/personal computing. As a consequence we have had to put up with days of nonsense. Next time, why don't you just talk to your friends when you want to know more about something? Philip McDunnough Professor of Statistics University of Toronto-> philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (10/05/90)
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >Would also please note that Windows3.0 , OS/2, NeXTStep, OpenLook,etc...do not >give you ONLY a GUI. They provide for a CLI. In my opinion, this is a serious >weakness in the Mac OS( and GS/OS). Um, have you double clicked Basic.Sytem lately? CLI's are a lot easier to provide on the GS than they are on the Mac. There are some fine Shareware CLI's available for the GS -- I prefer ORCA though. >Pagemaker,Illustrator,etc...One can't really take these things seriously. It >always amazes me the money people pay out to "consultants" who come in and >hook up an Appletalk net for them using phonenet. You wouldn't believe how many people are ignorant about networks and Don't Want To Know How It Works Just Make It Work. Here at school we have had loads of fun keeping our localtalks working -- the campus computing organization effectively hired some of us after the fact... >It may be of interest to you, since we are in the process of describing our >friends' computer preferences, that most of the really good programmers >where I work, who were enthusiastic when the Mac first came out, have ALL >abandoned the Mac. They have moved on to platforms which are more powerful >and easier to program. I know what you mean, after talking to one of my friends who does program the Mac -- one thing we are working on is an Appletalk chat & file transfer facility that will be written for the Mac and the GS simultaneously. While roughing out some of the features we examined the GS Window Manager call TaskMaster, which handles nearly every standard desktop event you could ask for -- and which is still not available on the Mac (jeez!)... Also after reading about the structure of GS/OS I am very impressed and I sort of feel sorry for the Mac that they will have to kludge foreign file system support while the GS has it fully integrated into its O/S. Also the GS's support for character I/O and redirection is much better defined (i.e. it's there!) than the Mac, it has always been there in some form ever since the days of PR#1. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.171048.21481@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <184@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >>First off, let me state that I really enjoyed reading the various replies >>to my article. Rather than receiving flames, I've learned a great deal and >>am pleased with the overall outcome. Now, off to quoting things and replying >>to these comments... >Well let me say I have not enjoyed this whole train, and I really don't think >the net is the place for peoples' little experiments of this nature. Look pal, if that's the way you feel, why not employ the "kill" feature of your news reader -- or are you the only person who pays for this network feed. I was curious about why people thought they way they did about the Mac, so I asked a question. Needless to say, I've had a variety of responses, many by mail, most very informative. Yours was the first to attack me in my attempt to obtain information. I didn't consider it a "little experiment" but a valid question that others might find interesting as well. >>I think it's more like *any computer* and a Macintosh are radically >>different computers. The Mac was one of, if not the, first computer to >>have ONLY a graphical interface. Now this is becoming commonplace, even >>the GS and IBM PCs are adapting. I think it's for the better since it >>takes less time to teach people how to be productive with a computer >>(training can be very expensive, especially when trying to teach people >>how to use brain-dead MS-DOS). >Your assertion re the training time being less for a computer with only a GUI >is really on shaky grounds. Apple loves quoting these Peat Marwick studies,etc..while the other camp points to studies which indicate people trained on Macs >tend to produce documents which are less rigorous in their logical foundation. >Nevertheless, will you give me a break on this training time stuff. For simple >applications it is very easy to design a menuing system to launch whatever >programs a person is using. This can be done on MS-DOS,Unix,etc...computers. >For more complex programs if a person needs icons to launch programs and handle >file i/o, then I doubt they could handle the programs anyways. Well, when I once worked for a government research laboratory, I noticed how people had a difficult time learning how to use programs that ran on their PC and MS-DOS. I finally got them to purchase a few Macs and suddenly those people never asked me any more questions about how to make things work. When a new secretary arrived, I spent about two days explaining things compared with about a week and constantly answering questions on an almost daily basis when using a DOS machine. Maybe since I read Mac magazines and not DOS magazines I haven't heard the conflicting reports on how Mac users "produce documents which are less rigorous in their logical foundation" but I find that hard to believe. So, I move from a DOS machine to a Mac and suddenly my IQ drops; please! And finally, it's not really the menuing system that I'm saying is so great because you could use ProSEL for the II, and all kinds of things for other machines, but I'm talking about how nice it is to do the simple things: like format a disk, copy files, find things, navigate directory structures, simple networking. These are the kinds of things the Mac makes easier, not just launching a program because it's an icon. >Would also please note that Windows3.0 , OS/2, NeXTStep, OpenLook,etc...do not >give you ONLY a GUI. They provide for a CLI. In my opinion, this is a serious >weakness in the Mac OS( and GS/OS). Yes, in your opinion. In my opinion, because I am a programmer too, I like to have a CLI as well. But ask the majority of people in business whether they care about it and I think both your opinion and my opinion are in the minority. [I talked about how myself and many others moved from the II to the Mac] >It's hardly surprising your friend has moved on to the Mac, given that he's >now a Mac consultant- no doubt setting up Appletalk networks, teaching >Pagemaker,Illustrator,etc...One can't really take these things seriously. It >always amazes me the money people pay out to "consultants" who come in and >hook up an Appletalk net for them using phonenet. Hmmmm. Well, I guess I'm a bit JEALOUS of his job too. I sometimes work for him or just hang out with him when he goes on a job, and it IS laughable what he gets paid to do. He's not a CS major or a graduate, and just likes to play with Macs. Yet, I went to college and work hard while he makes upwards of $85 and hour. Outrageous. But to say that it cannot be taken seriously is ludicrous. There is a market, and he fills it. Regardless of how stupid it is, or how much he gets paid for doing so little is not the point. >It may be of interest to you, since we are in the process of describing our >friends' computer preferences, that most of the really good programmers >where I work, who were enthusiastic when the Mac first came out, have ALL >abandoned the Mac. They have moved on to platforms which are more powerful >and easier to program. Yeah, well I have too. I found the documentation of Inside Macintosh to be overwhelming and writing even the simplest of programs is a major ordeal when compared to other operating environments. Like they say, there's something like a year or two learning curve to get up to speed on the Mac, and I don't have the time to invest right now. I've decided to stick with something I know and C/Unix works just dandy for me now. >>Then again, I wish the >>whole world would switch to Unix/Mach and NeXT Step! :) :) :) >As for your assertion that you'd wish the whole world would switch to >Unix/Mach,etc...that simply tells me where you are coming from. It also >tell me you haven't really thought out carefully the issues involved in >home/educational/personal computing. As a consequence we have had to >put up with days of nonsense. Next time, why don't you just talk to >your friends when you want to know more about something? Has anyone ever explained to you what a smiley means? Yes, I went to a university where they taught us how to use Unix and as a programmer, I find it the best development environment around. Also, I've seen and used the NeXT and find its' GUI to be the most elegant. Obviously, if I had my way, I'd like this to become a dominant force in the computing world. At the same time, I understand the for the home/educational market that requiring users to understand the complexity of Unix is simply not feasible, and since you know that too, I find your comments unbecoming at best. And as for "days of nonesense" I have written but three articles (this being the third) all with the same "Subject:" which could have been killed if you were more proficient with your news reader. And suggesting that I limit myself to my friends when I want to know more about something is ridiculous -- what is the USENET for -- people who want nothing but press releases? Where does curiosity come in? I find it really easy to skip articles that don't interest me, what seems to be your problem? >Philip McDunnough -- John John Donahue, Senior Partner | UUCP: ucrmath!alchemy!{bbs, gumby} | The Future Alchemy Software Designs | INET: {bbs, gumby}@alchemy.UUCP | Begins Now -------------------+---------+-------------------------------------+----------- Communique On-line | +1-714-243-7150 {3, 12, 24, 96HST} Bps. 8-N-1 | Next Wave: Information System | Alchemy Software Designs Support System | Communique
vw3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vernon Williams) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.042059.17703@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: > >[tirade directed at Apple's computer policies,etc...deleted] > >Get a hold of yourselves. This is getting out of hand. The idea of the Mac and >the II() line converging is a very good one for all of us. The more we share >with the Mac, the more choices we will have and the more programmers will be >attracted to the GS. The way it's coming across is that the GS has no qualities >at all, and if Apple were to offer low-cost Macs that would be the end of the >GS. I assume GS prices will drop as Apple adjusts its pricing policies. An >inexpensive GS has great appeal. If it doesn't( and I believe it does) then our I agree that many people who are griping should get a hold of themselves. Apple hasn't said they were dropping the II line and though it seems right now that they don't know exactly WHAT to do with the II series. I think, however, that GS owners are somewhat worried more by the fact that the new low cost mac will emulate a IIe not a IIGS. This is a bit of a gap that the doomsayers say could lead to the "orphaning" of the GS. I hope that this does not happen, as I think the GS is a good machine with of potential, some of it realized, some not. We can only hope that there are yet some people in the industry who are as interested in finding computer solutions for people as they are in selling computers and software. The IIGS can fill lots of needs, and does. And this will be true regarless of what happens to it. My II fills a different need than a mac would. I like both machines, and I hope that they both are around for a long while. [other stuff deleted] > >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto-> philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] and my opinions :-) +---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+ |Vernon L. Williams | Electronic Mail: vw3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | |Thomas J. Watson Library | Campus Mail: 130 Uris Hall | |Columbia University | Phone Mail: 212-854-6798 |
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.200213.14531@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >>Would also please note that Windows3.0 , OS/2, NeXTStep, OpenLook,etc...do not >>give you ONLY a GUI. They provide for a CLI. In my opinion, this is a serious >>weakness in the Mac OS( and GS/OS). >Um, have you double clicked Basic.Sytem lately? I knew that would come back to haunt me when I pressed the magic "s". Really, I didn't mean to include GS/OS. I have double clicked on Basic.System recently just before my GS died( again). >CLI's are a lot easier to provide on the GS than they are on the Mac. There >are some fine Shareware CLI's available for the GS -- I prefer ORCA though. You don't have to convince me. >I know what you mean, after talking to one of my friends who does program the >Mac -- one thing we are working on is an Appletalk chat & file transfer >facility that will be written for the Mac and the GS simultaneously. This is a great idea. I urge you to finish it. There is Public Folder GS which does a good job of transferring files from the Mac to the GS but not back. I don't know if it ever will. I think it might be nice to have a GS to GS capability for your program. I'm surprised the Beagle people didn't extend Flash to the GS, but maybe this is in the works. There is a shareware file server(non-dedicated) called Easyshare which promises to support ProDos in version 1.0(they are at 0.9). >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu Philip McDunnough University of Toronto-> philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/05/90)
In article <186@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >In article <1990Oct4.171048.21481@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >>In article <184@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >>>First off, let me state that I really enjoyed reading the various replies >>>to my article. Rather than receiving flames, I've learned a great deal and >>>am pleased with the overall outcome. Now, off to quoting things and replying >>>to these comments... > >>Well let me say I have not enjoyed this whole train, and I really don't think >>the net is the place for peoples' little experiments of this nature. > >Look pal, if that's the way you feel, why not employ the "kill" feature of >your news reader -- or are you the only person who pays for this network >feed. I was curious about why people thought they way they did about the >Mac, so I asked a question. Needless to say, I've had a variety of >responses, many by mail, most very informative. Yours was the first to >attack me in my attempt to obtain information. I didn't consider it a >"little experiment" but a valid question that others might find interesting >as well. I am quite capable of killing a topic. It is simply that your approach to obtaining information strikes me as very odd indeed. It would help if you were a bit sensitive to the current feelings of many AppleII() users. Even a rock could see that many people on the net are somewhat upset. I'm glad you've learned a great deal. You could have done this by simply reading this newsgroup for a few days. [stuff re training and the Mac deleted] >Well, when I once worked for a government research laboratory, I noticed >how people had a difficult time learning how to use programs that ran on >their PC and MS-DOS. I finally got them to purchase a few Macs and >suddenly those people never asked me any more questions about how to >make things work. When a new secretary arrived, I spent about two days >explaining things compared with about a week and constantly answering >questions on an almost daily basis when using a DOS machine. Well I'm glad you recognize that we should all be buying Macs in order to ease the task of typing memos,etc...What a great way to spend $10k! I also work for a research insitution and we assume people are capable of picking up skills which demand a certain amount of learning ability. An example is trying to type technical documents on a Mac. You can take the easy way out and use an equation editor( there is no WYSIWYG mathematical wp. on the Mac-yet). You then find that it takes very little time to learn how to use them and great you have a productive person UNTIL you have to produce a long document and you must resort to Textures. Suddonly you are out of the point and click world and you must explain to someone why the Mac has become hostile after you've been assuring them that it was idiot proof. I indicated that the Mac was very good at doing things which did not demand any work of substance. Once you need to you're back in the real world. >Maybe since I read Mac magazines and not DOS magazines I haven't heard >the conflicting reports on how Mac users "produce documents which are less >rigorous in their logical foundation" but I find that hard to believe. So, >I move from a DOS machine to a Mac and suddenly my IQ drops; please! I read both Mac and DOS magazines. I suggest you inform yourself concerning the particular study, which was a published scientific article and not one of your Peat Marwick specials. >And finally, it's not really the menuing system that I'm saying is so >great because you could use ProSEL for the II, and all kinds of things >for other machines, but I'm talking about how nice it is to do the >simple things: like format a disk, copy files, find things, navigate >directory structures, simple networking. These are the kinds of things >the Mac makes easier, not just launching a program because it's an icon. I indicated that I was talking about file i/o as well as launching. There is a price to be paid for the straightjacket imposed by the Mac. And you have selected an excellent example. Lack of file redirection,etc...Try reading some of the Mac and Unix newsgroups to find out how hard it is to capture a Postscript file on the Mac, then download it to a Unix system and print it out on a LW attached to the system. And yes I am aware of Macps, command-F,etc...mypagesetup. I agree with you on the networking issue. Appletalk is rather nice. >>Would also please note that Windows3.0 , OS/2, NeXTStep, OpenLook,etc...do not >>give you ONLY a GUI. They provide for a CLI. In my opinion, this is a serious >>weakness in the Mac OS( and GS/OS). >Yes, in your opinion. In my opinion, because I am a programmer too, I >like to have a CLI as well. But ask the majority of people in business >whether they care about it and I think both your opinion and my opinion >are in the minority. You are underestimating business people, and the people going into that one area of life. If our opinion was so off you would not find the vast majority of users sticking to DOS. The basic issues involve speed( which a GUI will hinder), the fact that only a few applications are needed (except in the Mac world where Peat MarWick studies glorify the benefits of using more applications) and in reality only time will tell. It does appear` as though a GUI is becoming more popular but people still want a CLI. I suggest you look up some marketshare figures and see just how your beloved GUI only computer is doing in the corporate world. >[I talked about how myself and many others moved from the II to the Mac] So I have moved from a Mac to a GS. >>It's hardly surprising your friend has moved on to the Mac, given that he's >>now a Mac consultant- no doubt setting up Appletalk networks, teaching >>Pagemaker,Illustrator,etc...One can't really take these things seriously. It >>always amazes me the money people pay out to "consultants" who come in and >>hook up an Appletalk net for them using phonenet. > >Hmmmm. Well, I guess I'm a bit JEALOUS of his job too. I sometimes work >for him or just hang out with him when he goes on a job, and it IS >laughable what he gets paid to do. He's not a CS major or a graduate, >and just likes to play with Macs. Yet, I went to college and work hard >while he makes upwards of $85 and hour. Outrageous. But to say that it >cannot be taken seriously is ludicrous. There is a market, and he fills >it. Regardless of how stupid it is, or how much he gets paid for doing >so little is not the point. Well let me assure you I am not JEALOUS of someone setting up networks and teaching Pagemaker,etc...I am doing what I like and I have all the freedom I want. There are markets for all kinds of ridiculous activities. They are eventually seen for the shallow and worthless activities that they are. Had you told me your friend was using his computer to help solve environmental issues I would be more receptive. It is the blatant materialistic view that underlies your statement that I find offensive. >>It may be of interest to you, since we are in the process of describing our >>friends' computer preferences, that most of the really good programmers >>where I work, who were enthusiastic when the Mac first came out, have ALL >>abandoned the Mac. They have moved on to platforms which are more powerful >>and easier to program. > >Yeah, well I have too. I found the documentation of Inside Macintosh >to be overwhelming and writing even the simplest of programs is a >major ordeal when compared to other operating environments. Like they >say, there's something like a year or two learning curve to get up to >speed on the Mac, and I don't have the time to invest right now. I've >decided to stick with something I know and C/Unix works just dandy for >me now. Well I guess we can agree on something. >Has anyone ever explained to you what a smiley means? Nope. I guess you just have. >And as for "days of nonesense" I have written but three articles (this >being the third) all with the same "Subject:" which could have been >killed if you were more proficient with your news reader. And suggesting >that I limit myself to my friends when I want to know more about >something is ridiculous -- what is the USENET for -- people who want >nothing but press releases? Where does curiosity come in? I've noted that your articles have been provocative and insensitive to many people who feel that the rush to jump on the latest technological in thing( which appears to be where you are coming from) is destroying years of investment of time, energy,money,etc... I happen not to share the opinion that Apple is trying to do in the GS, but others do. Moreover, it's not as if people have another vendor to turn to. ONLY Apple makes the GS. ONLY Apple makes the Mac. I suspect that people will be very reluctant to tie themselves to a proprietary company should their worst anticipations come through. And I think that is the bottom line. A propietary company does have certain "moral obligations" towards those users who put their trust in such a company. Apple has never let me down and I've stayed with them for most of my non-Unix computing needs. I suspect that even my attitude would change were they to simply pull the rug under GS users. As for your question as to my problem. It's quite simple. I don't have one. I simply found your approach insensitive. Philip McDunnough Professor of Statistics University of Toronto -> philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct5.001921.13350@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> vw3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vernon Williams) writes: >I think, however, that GS owners are somewhat worried more by the fact that >the new low cost mac will emulate a IIe not a IIGS. This is a bit of a gap >that the doomsayers say could lead to the "orphaning" of the GS. No that's not really my worry... My worry is that the new low cost Macs will be lower cost than the GS, which will be true if the rumors are true... ($800 street price for the lowest Mac.. I guess that would be the Mac Classic... And is it true that Apple was dumb enough to pay Coke for the use of the word Classic??? It's not like "Macintosh" which is also licensed since some other company registered the word which is spelled differently than the edible apple... But 'classic' is just a word!).. If the lowest cost Mac is cheaper than the GS, then the GS will probably be bought EVEN LESS than it is now. Which is VERY bad. But I will say that a Mac with GS emulation (not //e which is the expected emulation available soon) would be a SMALL delta value better than a low cost Mac and just officially killing the GS once and for all. It wouldn't be better for ME, but it would be better for some people. (lim /_\ -> 0 = 0.. heh) -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
cyliao@hardy.u.washington.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (10/07/90)
In article <7371@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > This is really sad.. Steve Jobs was a VERY VERY VERY MAJOR >reason for the downfall of the Apple II in the first place.. I have no I don't agree with you. It is true that he involved heavily with the creation of Macs, but that's not the reason for the downfall of Apple II. True that Lisa was a mistake, and Mac wasn't any great, but he's got a vision, that's why he made his own NeXT. >direct facts to base all of this on, so you may not believe me, but he >either STOPPED or seriously slowed down many projects to improve the >Apple II... This was for his pet project the Lisa.. what a flop... heh.. >but, as we all know it was turned into the Mac. > But I'm not saying I don't like NeXT. I think the NeXT is really >cool and feel that the optical disk idea was BRILLIANT, while it seems >most people say it's utterly stupid. > The OD is too expensive today. The idea of having all a person's way to use computer in a disk was great. So you just insert your own disk, you can work the way you do at home. > NOOOOOO!!! This is the one I ---do not--- agree with. I still want >people to buy Apple IIs... Buying Apple IIs (and related hardware AND >SOFTWARE!) will help preserve the II longer and may somehow make Apple >wise up. I'm not saying I think that'll happen but I still like the GS well >enough to not switch to another computer.. I don't think anyone would like to buy a new apple II now since the company is not doing a s*t to it. If Mac Inc (former Apple Inc) is to continue the same kind of support to Apple // line as 5 years ago, I'd bet more poeple choose Apple // today. (although I do hope there are more people buying it..) cyliao@wam.umd.edu o NeXT : I put main frame power on two chips. @epsl.umd.edu o people: We put main flame power on two guys. @bagend.eng.umd.edu o :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx (reserved) o RC + Apple // + Classic Music + NeXT = cyliao