toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/22/90)
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu >Todd P. Whitesel, and numerous others, write: >> We think our Mac's are swell, and if you savage Apple II users try to >> suggest otherwise, we're gonna tell. Sorry to nitpick-- I didn't say anything like that, I just didn't want you falsely reaming the Mac. I have a GS but I use Macs here at Caltech a lot and I like them too. For my own computer I prefer the GS because it suits me better, but that's not the point. I was getting fed up with all the unjustified machine bashing, and I shouldn't have blasted your post right away. >The first point to swallow is that this is the premier discussion area for the >Apple II computer. If you don't understand that, or like it, go someplace else >to hang out. Fine, it's just that the future of this wonderful but very slighted machine is in precarious question right now, and there are still some idiots who engage in hopelessly unrealistic "such and such a machine is useless" wars -- that's what started it all and (admit it) your original post was pretty inflammatory though you've been more than reasonable since. >The second point is that y'all are attacking over a lot of issues that nobody >questions -- that nobody has questioned, if you'll reread the posts you >responded to much too quickly. True. I admit I did some of that. [ Reality vs. Mac users' perceived knowledge of computers deleted ] Very true. Point is, they can get useful stuff done without knowing all the real details. I think that's great, but I agree it's pretty sad when they think that's all there is to it. Remember, to a fair number of people a computer is still a magic item and being able to do something really neat with it that easily amazes them. These are the people the Mac was made for. [ stuff that can be done on the GS better than on the Mac and for cheaper ] I agree that the GS sounds better, but the point is most Mac users are paying for the other stuff and simple stereo suits them just fine. In fact many Mac users would never use the full capability of the ensoniq so why should they pay for it? Computers need to have different features because the people who use them have different needs. I disagree about the FPE being faster than a Mac coprocessor. I have a hard time believing this, unless the Mac software used was really inefficient. The Mac CPU was designed to go direct to the coprocessor but your GS has to use a memory mapped interface. Please substantiate or clarify this. [ about xerox and the mac interface, we all know the story ] Nobody argues about that. Xerox made the mistake of waiting too long to file; they don't stand a chance five years after the fact. >There's nothing better than a Macintosh for publishing. And there's nothing >better than a IIGs for low-cost, general-interest computing. History may not >agree, since Apple isn't showing signs of being able to support -- gasp -- a >fragmented product line (anybody heard from AMC or Coca-Cola on this subject >lately?), but that will never change the facts. I couldn't agree with you more. >One last thing. I didn't mean any insults with the bit about an >unsophisticated user base being unable to optimize the situation. What I meant >by that was that more established computers such as the Apple II enjoy the >presence of a number of highly sophisticated assembly language programmers who >regularly get more from the platform than it was actually meant to deliver. True. But Apple is losing a lot of their II market to the Amiga and the PC and many of these people are not coming back. This is not because of any inherent deficiency in the II itself -- it's because we didn't have powerful, faster CPU's soon enough, it's because Apple didn't realize that they still needed to promote it or take a direct hand in its development because Motorola was dropping new Mac-able chips into their waiting hands and Apple was waiting Bill Mensch to do the same, it's because Apple's been so hard pressed getting the Mac into fighting stance against IBM and forgot about their home markets to the point where the competition has gained an advantage in them which may or may not last -- But it has NEVER been because the Apple II or any other machine was 'useless' for anything. When you actually get into the engineering of these things it becomes painfully obvious how useful ANY computer is, and how optimizing a machine to better provide specific things is the secret to success in a given market. Except the Apple II was never optimized for anything in particular -- and that is where its strength has always been. What I want to see them do is re-work each subsystem so the result is a machine that does a lot of specific things pretty well but at a lower price, so you grab the market of people who want a cheap general purpose system and not MIPS or Mega anything. There is still, and will always be, a market for such a machine; if Apple doesn't exploit it then somebody else eventually will. This, folks, is the driving force behind the //f, and the reason why I still like my no-longer-competitive Apple II. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu