gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/02/90)
In article <12290@wpi.wpi.edu> jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes: >Can you blame Apple for wanting to start moving from an archaic platform to >something more current? ... By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, >with sales going down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a >company, which in my opinion, makes the best personal computers around. There are some assumptions that should be challenged here. The first is that "age" is relevant. The human race has been drinking water for millions of years; isn't it about time we moved on to a more modern liquid platform? See how silly the argument sounds when applied to other areas of endeavor? The Apple IIGS is not a particularly "old" machine; it's newer than the IBM PC that (along with its clones) dominates the personal computer market. The only things "old" about it are: (1) Its Apple bus for peripheral cards; (2) Its CPU supports 6502 instructions. Neither of these is fatally damaging to the future of the product line; a future Apple II model could support just the ADB, SCSI, and serial ports and be quite successful, while it could also support just the 16-bit mode of the 65816 if there was any advantage to that. It's clear that the IIGS simply HAD to support these 8-bit Apple II features for compatibility purposes, but I would consider continued support for these features to be negotiable, depending on what the tradeoffs were. In the long run, personal computers better not look much like the IIGS OR the Macintosh. NeXT is a step in the right direction, but it's not where it needs to be yet. I won't think personal computers have arrived until the day that as a routine matter of course the typical citizen has to check his computer for messages when he arrives home, has his bills paid automatically with transaction records immediately available on request, has his meals cooked on schedule, his social calendar maintained, his home entertainment center (including reading material) controlled, etc. etc. all through his home computer. While a few hobbyists have managed some of this for themselves, the rest of the world is not geared up to interface with such systems. (There are a few tentative steps toward it, by IRS, Postal Service, AT&T Mail, some banks, and so on.) Note that most of the things that need to occur to make this a reality have little to do with the "age" of computer system architectures.
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (05/02/90)
In article <12290@wpi.wpi.edu> jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes: > [stuff about mac vs II removed] >... For example, say you owned a Chrysler >Imperial. Are you necessarily upset that Chrysler stopped making >that car? Were you upset when news got out that they were going to >replace it? By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, with sales going >down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a company, which in my >opinion, makes the best personal computers around. It might be time to move >on. A Chrysler Imperial doesn't have 5 Million owners who collectively have 25,000 programs that run ONLY on a Chrysler Imperial. Also take into account people who don't want to pay a fortune to buy a Mercedes when they can get by with a revamped Imperial (the Fury, perhaps?) I think you see my point. The apple II made Apple the profit it needed to develop the Macintosh. It can still make money. There are over 50 million households that could conceivably buy personal computers. If Apple wants to make some REAL money, they should hit THAT market. >---------- Jay Giurleo ------ jayg@wpi.wpi.edu -----jayg@wpi.bitnet ------ -- Jawaid Bazyar | This message was posted to thousands of machines Junior/Computer Engineering | throughout the entire civilized world. It cost jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | the net hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, > I Need A Summer Job! < | to send everywhere.
delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) (05/02/90)
PLEASE SAVE US ALL. It looks like a few rather long winded individuals are out to us up all the band width with talk on BIG BAD APPLE. Please don't!!! I can use my Disk Space and You can use yours to the more useful purpose the list was intended. HELPING USERS WITH PROBLEMS. Please Please Please lets keep this to a as short as possible. Grant .
jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) (05/02/90)
In article <12754@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >There are some assumptions that should be challenged here. The first is >that "age" is relevant. The human race has been drinking water for >millions of years; isn't it about time we moved on to a more modern >liquid platform? See how silly the argument sounds when applied to >other areas of endeavor? First of all, if you can devise a more modern liquid platform that could fulfill the human-race's need for water, I'll buy the first 1000 gallons. Secondly, if you can find me a computer that every person needs to survive, I'll buy the first one off the line. >a future Apple II model could support just the ADB, SCSI, and serial ports >and be quite successful, while it could also support just the 16-bit mode >of the 65816 if there was any advantage to that. It's clear that the IIGS >simply HAD to support these 8-bit Apple II features for compatibility >purposes, but I would consider continued support for these features to be >negotiable, depending on what the tradeoffs were. As far as I see it, the GS line certainly has its merits. It can do a number of things that make it desireable, however it is severely crippled by a processor that is much too slow. A graphical interface that the GS strives for can't survive on such a slow clock rate. If a faster processor came around, as I know some are being developed, then the GS would become a more worthwhile investment. However, even with a faster processor, I don't see my GS doing what the other personal computers that are available today do. For example, any type of mathematic applications might as well be fed to the dog... unless a math coprocessor was integrated. Add one of those and I'd be happy. Add a built in SCSI like you suggested, and I'd be ecstatic. > I won't think personal computers have arrived >until the day that as a routine matter of course the typical citizen has >to check his computer for messages when he arrives home, has his bills >paid automatically with transaction records immediately available on >request, has his meals cooked on schedule, his social calendar maintained, >his home entertainment center (including reading material) controlled, >etc. etc. all through his home computer. While a few hobbyists have >managed some of this for themselves, the rest of the world is not geared >up to interface with such systems. To be honest, I don't see this happening in my lifetime. The population simply isn't ready, and won't be for some time. But this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand... > (There are a few tentative steps >toward it, by IRS, Postal Service, AT&T Mail, some banks, and so on.) >Note that most of the things that need to occur to make this a reality >have little to do with the "age" of computer system architectures. Well, no it doesn't have to do with the age of it, but rather how functional the architecture is. Besides, for a system like that, the computer must only "know" how to do one set of instructions. For a home computer, we're talking about a variety of things, from games to telecommunications. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem. ---------- Jay Giurleo ------ jayg@wpi.wpi.edu -----jayg@wpi.bitnet ------
stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (05/03/90)
/* Written 11:50 am May 2, 1990 by jayg@wpi.wpi.edu in ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.apple2 */ In article <12754@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >of the 65816 if there was any advantage to that. It's clear that the IIGS >simply HAD to support these 8-bit Apple II features for compatibility >purposes, but I would consider continued support for these features to be >negotiable, depending on what the tradeoffs were. As far as I see it, the GS line certainly has its merits. It can do a number of things that make it desireable, however it is severely crippled by a processor that is much too slow. A graphical interface that the GS strives for can't survive on such a slow clock rate. If a faster processor came around, as I know some are being developed, then the GS would become a more worthwhile investment. However, even with a faster processor, I don't see my GS doing what the other personal computers that are available today do. For example, any type of mathematic applications might as well be fed to the dog... unless a math coprocessor was integrated. Add one of those and I'd ////////// i don't see why Apple didn't come out with a faster processor, and there are the accelerator boardsd available.... A math coprocessor is an option currently, and i do not beleive it should be standard on a new GS. I would also consider ceertain 8-bit features expendable, in the interest of a wondeful new machine, but i have seen no evidence that Apple intends to produce even a less than wonderful new machine. stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/03/90)
In article <12520@wpi.wpi.edu> jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes:
-As far as I see it, the GS line certainly has its merits. It can do a number
-of things that make it desireable, however it is severely crippled by a
-processor that is much too slow. A graphical interface that the GS strives
-for can't survive on such a slow clock rate. If a faster processor came
-around, as I know some are being developed, then the GS would become a more
-worthwhile investment. However, even with a faster processor, I don't see
-my GS doing what the other personal computers that are available today do.
-For example, any type of mathematic applications might as well be fed to the
-dog... unless a math coprocessor was integrated. Add one of those and I'd
-be happy. Add a built in SCSI like you suggested, and I'd be ecstatic.
My IIGS is configured to meet all those requirements, and more.
You don't need a Macintosh for these.
- Well, no it doesn't have to do with the age of it, but rather how
-functional the architecture is. Besides, for a system like that,
-the computer must only "know" how to do one set of instructions. For
-a home computer, we're talking about a variety of things, from games
-to telecommunications.
My point is that the Macintosh technology really doesn't offer appreciably
more than the Apple II technology in areas that matter. The main
difference lies in how the manufacturer has been marketing them, not
in their inherent capabilities and limitations.toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/04/90)
jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes: > Umm... excuse me for saying so, but how long has the apple II line >been around? A VERY long time as compared to just about any other computer >I know of. Can you blame Apple for wanting to start moving from an >archaic platform to something more current? The GS Operating System is technically more current than the Macintosh. A MultiFinder GS would be *much* easier to implement (you DON'T want to know how many bizarre things had to be done to make Multifinder work on the Mac). GS/OS supports foreign file systems, built in and with less restrictions than HFS. The GS toolbox has some very nice features (like TaskMaster, a tool call that handles a lot of desktop grunge so you don't have to, and the MessageCenter, a simple interapplication communication method) that the Mac does not have. The GS (and the 8 bit II's) are made up almost entirely of custom gate arrays, which if Apple would get around to updating them properly (they can, believe me!) would cost a lot less than the 680x0 based Macs. The Apple //'s are NTSC based machines, making them 'naturals' at genlock/ overlay IF THE VOC WASN'T SUCH A BLOODY KLUDGE. You can do a lot of multimedia stuff on an Amiga much cheaper than on a Mac because the Amiga is also NTSC based. (Oh woe is me, square pixels go out the window... tough.) Many of the same things could be done on the Apple II if those in charge of its hardware development had as much vision as the GS/OS team does. If Apple ever has the balls to REPLACE THE MEGA // then you will find that there is a lot of life left in it. > By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, with sales going >down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a company, which in my >opinion, makes the best personal computers around. It might be time to move >on. You're right! It MIGHT... however, after doing a lot of hardware research (and a bit of candid interviewing) I have determined that Apple's past management of the // series is the real culprit. The Apple // needs a phoenix-like rebirth... and it's more than ready for one. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) (05/05/90)
>My point is that the Macintosh technology really doesn't offer appreciably >more than the Apple II technology in areas that matter. The main >difference lies in how the manufacturer has been marketing them, not >in their inherent capabilities and limitations. I may have to disagree with you there. Apple has not made two machines and called one the GS and one the Mac. They ARE very different machines. One is more current than the other, and comes with SCSI built in. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy's Military Laws: 1. Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are. ---------- Jay Giurleo ------ jayg@wpi.wpi.edu -----jayg@wpi.bitnet ------
awillis@pro-angmar.UUCP (Albert Willis) (05/05/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jayg@wpi.wpi.edu One thing that we must remember: when and if Apple produces a board that emulates the Apple II, that will not be the end of the Apple II. Such a product would be supplied for those people, mostly in education, who want or need Apple II compatibility. The Apple IIgs will remain uneffected by this. This is just another option for Mac owners--it won't replace the Apple II line. At least not yet. So, don't worry much about it. Besides, things change quickly at Apple. Such a product may not even get produced. But, they are thinking about it. Albert Willis INET: pro-angmar!awillis@alphalpha.com | America Online: BCS Al UUCP:..!uunet!alphalpha!pro-angmar!awillis | GEnie: A.Willis