$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (09/28/90)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 10:58:59 CDT From: MARK ORR <$CSD211@LSUVM> Subject: Apple wimped the GS. Not compatibility To: info-apple@apple.com ======================================================================== >From: Andy Tefft <psuvm!art100@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU> >Subject: Re: The Late Great Apple // >now I don't mean to get on the Apple bashing bandwagon, but >the //gs was really not as state-of-the-art as the previous >Apple machines. What held it back? // compatibility. But as >someone mentioned, a GS without // compatibility would be another >Macintoy, maybe without the "mac users are computer-illiterate" >stigma. Who needs that? It's time this argument be put out of it's misery. Apple wimped out on the GS. The GS was not held back by compatibility, but rather by Apple's FEAR that the GS would compete against the Mac. All the problems that the GS has (i.e. the 1 MHz video bottleneck, the problems with accessing more than 4.3 Mb of RAM) have nothing whatsoever to do with making the computer compatible. These problems were invented to prohibit the GS from competing. Apple has for a long time believed in HANDICAPPING low end models to prevent prospective buyers from seeing them as an alternative to the higher end (higher priced) models. As an illustration of this, find a copy of the Oct '85 Creative Computing (or was it August...It was late '85 anyway). In their Apple Cart column (you'll know it's the one because the first page has a idealized picture of the "open Mac" that everyone was hoping for back then) it was revealed that when the Mac was designed, it was handicapped to avoid market competition with the LISA 2/10. When Apple engineers heard that General Computer had invented the Hyperdrive (the first fast hard disk for the Mac - which connected directly to the 68000) one was noted to have exclaimed "THAT"S IMPOSSIBLE, WE MADE SURE OF IT!" Another illustration...look at this month's InCider (or any month's InCider for that matter) look at LASER's ad. for the 128EX/2 (the one with the motherboard exposed). Get reader service from these people. The Laser has 64k of video RAM which operates independently of other system functions as not to bottleneck the video (it isn't needed on a IIc clone, just very functional). These video RAM's were available in '85 when the GS was designed...they could have completely eliminated the video bottleneck (and greatly speeded up the GS) with judicious use of VRAM's. It is known that the 4.3 Mb RAM limitation was added to prevent competition with the Mac (because the old Mac's couldn't address reliably RAM above 4.3 Mbytes... Apple couldn't let anyone think that the GS could address more memory than it's precious Mac). In case you hadn't heard...LASER 128's are selling really well. They are well priced, are better designed than IIc+'s, and have many features that Apple IIc's dont: Like a decent keyboard, built in MIDI ports (without a pricey adapter), and (I think) a slot. It's not that Apple can't make a better II. Or even that one wouldn't be cost effective (LASER's sales/ Marketing, plus recenent introductions by Tandy (RL-1000) and IBM (PS/1), prove there is a big enough market) but that Apple Co. has simply made the decision that making serious, significant upgrades to the II is not worth their time. No evil plots here, they just don't want to (all SculleyBabble aside). Listen to their own words: "The Apple II base of users has not been growing" Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they don't tell anybody about it. They have decided that the Apple II has stopped selling (wether it true or not - It isn't, LASER seems to have no trouble selling their "technological limitations" - LASER MARKETS their products - in II magazines - preaching to the converted as it were). If you (or anyone else) hasn't done so already, I would suggest that you download the textfiles "Reality vs. Apple Computer" (TE.REALITY) and "The Apple //F paper" (TE.APPLEIIF) from FTP Site UMMTS.CC.UMICH.EDU. (35.1.1.43). These are two well written papers by Todd Whitesel that present credible arguments for the continuing and augmenting the II line. (really...I'm not kidding) ---------------------------- Mark Orr ! I hear the GS is big in France, $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! rather like Jerry Lewis. ----------------------------
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (10/02/90)
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: [ crippled GS conspiracy theory deleted ] Your technical points are all correct, but the conspiracy theory cannot be responsible for some of them. The Mega // was originally designed for a low cost //e, but wasn't cheaper enough, and was hastily kludged around to get the GS out the door and into competition with the PCjr which was never really a threat. Thus the 1 mhz video bottleneck was born. Later, when the Video Overlay Card was designed, the engineers attempted to do it right and make a new chip to eliminate all the kludges, but management wouldn't give them the resources and the project turned out to be complex and overpriced because of it. I can't offer any evidence on the 4 meg expansion limit except that the FPI should have supported more than it did -- the DMA compatibility problems are due to certain specs of the slowest 65816 Apple used in the GS in combination with the fact that the FPI does not fully support memory past four rows of chips. >If you (or anyone else) hasn't done so already, I would suggest that you >download the textfiles "Reality vs. Apple Computer" (TE.REALITY) and >"The Apple //F paper" (TE.APPLEIIF) from FTP Site UMMTS.CC.UMICH.EDU. >(35.1.1.43). These are two well written papers by Todd Whitesel that present >credible arguments for the continuing and augmenting the II line. >(really...I'm not kidding) This is old news here, as I posted both here first. It's nice to hear them recommended though. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu