davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu (05/04/90)
A lot of discussion has gone on here recently about the worthiness of
the Apple II line. Some have claimed that the II series is "outdated."
Outdated is definitely a relative term and its meaning depends upon what it
is being compared to. When compared to the Macs the IIs are outdated, but
if people wanted a computer to do what a Mac does they'd get Macs. The II
is not outdated when compared with what people use it for: word processing,
hacking, educational programs, telecommunications, and even games. The
average home user probably does not need the ultra-high-resolution graphics
or speed of the Mac, so why pay a fortune for one? Apple, Inc. has itself
acknowledged that the II is not obsolete - it spent a lot of money in legal
fees and took a lot of risk in suing Franklin didn't it? I'm sure Apple
continues to spend a lot of money on lawyers to make sure Laser doesn't
come too close. It seems to me that Mr. Sculley knows that, in the right
hands, the II could be a killer product in the low-end domain.
While on the subject of Laser, it seems that Laser's sales are expected
to overtake sales of Apple's II products. Not bad for an "obsolete"
platform. Perhaps Apple needs to seriously consider why Laser is succeeding
where Apple is failing (i.e. price? built-in features?). Apple had better
do this pretty quick, since Laser could release its GS equivalent as early
as December! This could be quite a threat since Laser tends to produce
compatibles that traditionally have more built-in features than its Apple
equivalent.
Of course the platform may not be up-to-date, but the use of up-to-date
software can more than compensate for that. Appleworks 3.0 is an example.
To summarize, I'd say its not the 6502/65C02 that's obsolete; rather,
it was Apple's method of marketing it that was obsolete.lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) (05/05/90)
In article <memo.345166@lynx.northeastern.edu>, davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu writes: > A lot of discussion has gone on here recently about the worthiness of > the Apple II line. Some have claimed that the II series is "outdated." > Of course the platform may not be up-to-date, but the use of up-to-date > software can more than compensate for that. Appleworks 3.0 is an example. > > To summarize, I'd say its not the 6502/65C02 that's obsolete; rather, > it was Apple's method of marketing it that was obsolete. The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more... Larry Fischer
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/05/90)
lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more... Did you actually read the post? If you honestly believe that computers explode every time a more modern product comes out, I suggest you subscribe to the Mac Of The Month club. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) (05/07/90)
Greetings. Pseudo-flame follows. Has anyone noticed that Apple Inc. is following the same dark path that Tandy has... Compare all the Mac IInnn models to the TRaSh 80 ones... And yes, people still buy them at those prices... -- _____________________________________________________________________________ "The FORCE will be with you. Always." It _IS_ with me and has been for 10 years Filip Gieszczykiewicz "..of future fame...." "Ok! So I have a dream..." FMGST@PITTVMS or fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu "My ideas, ALL MINE!!"
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/07/90)
In article <3960@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >> To summarize, I'd say its not the 6502/65C02 that's obsolete; rather, >> it was Apple's method of marketing it that was obsolete. >The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more... To make a logical argument, you certainly DO have to say more! The IBM 360 architecture is considerably older, yet IBM mainframes with upward-compatible architectures still capture an important segment of the market for commercial computing. The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never surpassed. Just because something isn't the latest fad doesn't mean that it isn't good for what it was designed for, or that it cannot evolve through continued modernization programs to address changing needs.
lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) (05/08/90)
In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <3960@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: > >> To summarize, I'd say its not the 6502/65C02 that's obsolete; rather, > >> it was Apple's method of marketing it that was obsolete. > >The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more... > The IBM 360 architecture is considerably older, yet IBM mainframes are you claiming 360's arent obsolete? > The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never > surpassed. the sr-71 was just retired. Larry Fischer - and I do own an apple ][+ which I just bought more stuff for... - I love it. people wrote amazing software for it. but its outa date...
dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu (David C. Troup - Skunk Works) (05/08/90)
In article <3962@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>In article <3960@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >> The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never >> surpassed. >the sr-71 was just retired. Yea, and several sections/systems are STILL classified! And it's still the fastest, and highest flying machine around. One classic bird! And my IIe? My mother loves it! Though she will be getting my IIgs when I get my Max IIx this summer. :-) heh. -- David C. Troup ! SkunkWorks ! 2600 hz |"Im going to work at an office dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu | that has no phone, and 414-524-6809(dorm)7343(work) | returning home with sandy The Surf Rat - DC 12 on Neil Pryde and Seatrend | feet."
lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) (05/08/90)
In article <1422@carroll1.cc.edu>, dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu (David C. Troup - Skunk Works) writes: > In article <3962@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: > >In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >>In article <3960@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: > >> The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never > >> surpassed. > >the sr-71 was just retired. > Yea, and several sections/systems are STILL classified! And it's still but we are talking about OBSOLETE...I would say retired makes it obsolete... Larry
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/09/90)
In article <3962@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >> The IBM 360 architecture is considerably older, yet IBM mainframes >are you claiming 360's arent obsolete? Why don't you read what I said? The 360 *architecture* is far from obsolete. Certain *realizations* can certainly be considered obsolete, but newer, compatible models are still extremely important. >> The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never >> surpassed. >the sr-71 was just retired. But not from technical obsolescence, which is what we were discussing. The SR-71 was not replaced by a superior newer design; it retired while still champ. (In fact there were many upset people in the intelligence community when the SR-71 operational funding was eliminated, which was viewed as a short-sighted budgetary decision. Its capabilities cannot be adequately replaced by satellites, which take too long to shift in situations where timeliness is critical.)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/09/90)
In article <3964@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >but we are talking about OBSOLETE...I would say retired makes it obsolete... The rest of us were talking about the special category of "technical obsolescence", wherein a design becomes obsolete (unused) because it is supplanted by better designs. If you want to use the broader concept, then the Apple II is NOT obsolete, simply because it is still being used (see your dictionary definition of "obsolete"). However, that's not a useful measure of what we were concerned about, which is how well the basic design holds up as time goes on.
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (05/09/90)
In-Reply-To: message from lfischer@pluto.dss.com
Larry Fischer says with respect to the Apple II:
>The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more...
What is your point?
The Apple IIGS is no more an Apple II+ than a Mac IIfx is an original 128K
Mac. The II+ is unquestionably obsolete, though it is still sufficient for
some users. I think the issue whether APPLE II ARCHITECTURE is obsolete is a
weightier and less clear issue. By your reasoning, the Mac-series is 7 years
old, PC technology 8 years... Please don't try to compare original machines to
today's machines to try to draw any conclusions about today's machines. As
you say "Dont have to say any more..."
Stephen Brown (Willowdale, Ontario, CANADA)
...I could have a long .sig but who'd read it?
UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil
INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.comcs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (05/09/90)
In article <3964@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >In article <1422@carroll1.cc.edu>, dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu (David C. Troup - Skunk Works) writes: >> In article <3962@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >> >In article <12792@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >> >>In article <3960@pluto.dss.com> lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) writes: >> >> The SR-71 is another example of a venerable design that was never >> >> surpassed. >> >the sr-71 was just retired. >> Yea, and several sections/systems are STILL classified! And it's still >but we are talking about OBSOLETE...I would say retired makes it obsolete... Not necessarily. The Air Force retired the SR-71 because it was more expensive to operate than spy satellites that do the job _almost_ as well. Note that I said "almost as well;" there are some things, I'm sure, that the SR-71 can do that no satellite will ever be able to do. It's all what happens when money gets short. Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple II: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu / v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
lfischer@pluto.dss.com (Larry Fischer) (05/10/90)
In article <12359.infoapple.net@pro-generic>, sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from lfischer@pluto.dss.com > > Larry Fischer says with respect to the Apple II: > >The computer (][+ series) is 12 years old.... Dont have to say any more... > > What is your point? > old, PC technology 8 years... Please don't try to compare original machines to > today's machines to try to draw any conclusions about today's machines. As I dont. I say the apple (][+) is obsolete. You can read whatever you want into that. If you all think the apple is not obsolete - great! Larry Fischer