wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/02/90)
Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and complaining about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple will do what it is doing to its namesake, it will do the same thing to the Mac in five years or so. Think about it. Don't believe me? Well, any of you Mac +/SE owners feel like you're being properly supported? Can you upgrade to color? Is Macintosh Inc. moving towards the Mac II and forgetting its roots? Hmm. MacClassic, not withstanding, sounds like it. When NeXT went color, they made it possible to upgrade (or rather it will be). Also, Macintoshes keep going through different models. Is there an upgrade policy? Can a Mac IIci become a Mac IIfx? Why not? How long until Apple starts ignoring 68020 users? flame flame flame You get the point, of course. If we can't trust 'em, can you? Hell, no. You're as good as f**ked now. Bill Gulstad
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (10/03/90)
In article <143400015@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>, wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: |> |> Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and complaining |> about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple will do what it is |> doing to its namesake, it will do the same thing to the Mac in five years or so. [...] The Mac should have _replaced_ the Apple II years ago. Only now under extreme pressure from the high end (Sparcstation and NeXT) and the low end (Windows 3) is Apple considering moving Mac pricing low enough to kill off the Apple II. If you could have a Mac for the same price, would you want an Apple II? Of course not. In five years from now, will the Mac look a bit dated? It already does. Apple is late in bringing out a credible alternative future model. The Mac is a much better design than the IBM PC, and Apple has blown its advantage by failing to buy market share. It's not too late to recover. But to suppose that no major change in strategy, only incremental upgrades, will do for the next 5 years is a touch unrealistic. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/03/90)
by wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu: | Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and complaining | about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple will do what it is | doing to its namesake, it will do the same thing to the Mac in five years or so. | | Think about it. Don't believe me? | | Well, any of you Mac +/SE owners feel like you're being properly supported? | Can you upgrade to color? Is Macintosh Inc. moving towards the Mac II and | forgetting its roots? Hmm. MacClassic, not withstanding, sounds like it. | When NeXT went color, they made it possible to upgrade (or rather it will be). | | Also, Macintoshes keep going through different models. Is there an upgrade | policy? Can a Mac IIci become a Mac IIfx? Why not? How long until Apple | starts ignoring 68020 users? First of all, you can upgrade your IIci to a IIfx. Just sell the box and buy a IIfx! The only things that wouldn't have to be swapped are the NuBus cards and the keyboard/mouse! On the II--> IIfx, you just swap the motherboard. Why doesn't your favorite car manufacturer upgrade an econo box to a luxury sedan? So what is only the brake pedal is the same, right? I personally WANT Apple to forget about the 68000 Macs. In fact, I think it would be Real Nice (tm) to have a complete break in the system software and rewrite it with some 20/20 hindsight. That would go a long way to fixinig current problems. Clinging to the currenet OS may very well cause the eventual downfall of the Mac. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (10/03/90)
In <1990Oct2.190906.27339@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >Clinging to the currenet OS may very well cause the eventual downfall of the Mac. Sheesh! You should try using a computer that is still clinging to CP/M standards, is limited to 640K of usable memory, has no ROM support for graphics, and tries to shoehorn 16Meg of spare memory into itty-bitty 16K blocks! Signed, an embattled PC owner... -- ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu | "Mine... is the last voice that you will ever hear."
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (10/05/90)
Of course this is a flame, read the subject line. How could it not be a flame? In article <143400015@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and complaining >about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple will do what it is >doing to its namesake, it will do the same thing to the Mac in five years or so I get so tired of this crap. It really is difficult to imagine how some people could ever be satisfied. You probably complain at MacDonalds that their cokes are not refilled for free. >Think about it. Don't believe me? What I don't believe is why you care. The people who bought a computer did so for a reason. The computer satisfied that purpose *and* still does. The *only* case in which this is not true is if your computer's job is to be state-of-the-art. No computer, no anything can be that. >Well, any of you Mac +/SE owners feel like you're being properly supported? Damn straight. I bought a good piece of hardware at a fair price. It worked straight out of the box and still does everything I bought it for and more. >Can you upgrade to color? Is Macintosh Inc. moving towards the Mac II and >forgetting its roots? Hmm. MacClassic, not withstanding, sounds like it. Yes, I can upgrade it. All it takes is money. That is reasonable. Color costs more money. Faster cost more money. Everything costs more money. Just what is your point? Do you think that IBM is going to give me a color monitor or a 386 to put in my original 64k PC? Of course not. They do not sell upgrades for them either. But upgrades are available, so are new computers. >When NeXT went color, they made it possible to upgrade (or rather it will be). So f****ing what. So buy a NeXT and go moan and bitch in comp.sys.next about why they did not have a floppy or why they .... >Also, Macintoshes keep going through different models. Is there an upgrade >policy? Can a Mac IIci become a Mac IIfx? Why not? How long until Apple >starts ignoring 68020 users? And if Apple did not come out with new models, you and everyone else would be crying your eyes out that they were not coming out with new models, while IBM ate them alive in the market place. >flame flame flame > >You get the point, of course. If we can't trust 'em, can you? Hell, no. >You're as good as f**ked now. > >Bill Gulstad Yes, Bill, *you* are f***ed. Go back to the hospital and ask for an upgrade, your processor is too slow. All it takes is money. -- Signatures!? | Jan Isley jan@bagend We don't need no stinking signatures. | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (10/06/90)
Robert Minich writes in a message on 02 Oct 90 to All: RM> I personally WANT Apple to forget about the 68000 Macs. In RM> fact, I think it would be Real Nice (tm) to have a complete RM> break in the system software and rewrite it with some 20/20 RM> hindsight. That would go a long way to fixinig current problems. RM> Clinging to the currenet OS may very well cause the eventual RM> downfall of the Mac. ... I agree with you, **provided** that Apple also supports our older machines. I have a Plus, but wouldn't cry if Apple started creating System II, only for 68030s and above. As long as they kept fixing known bugs in the 68000 System, that would be fine. You're right--if they keep supporting the 68000 Classic, SE, and Plus, they might be crippling their business. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/09/90)
In article <143400015@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and complaining >about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple will do what it is >doing to its namesake,it will do the same thing to the Mac in five years or so. >Think about it. Don't believe me? >Well, any of you Mac +/SE owners feel like you're being properly supported? >Can you upgrade to color? Is Macintosh Inc. moving towards the Mac II and >forgetting its roots? Hmm. MacClassic, not withstanding, sounds like it. >When NeXT went color, they made it possible to upgrade (or rather it will be). >Also, Macintoshes keep going through different models. Is there an upgrade >policy? Can a Mac IIci become a Mac IIfx? Why not? How long until Apple >starts ignoring 68020 users? >flame flame flame >You get the point, of course. If we can't trust 'em, can you? Hell, no. >You're as good as f**ked now. >Bill Gulstad This is a rather pointless flame, how long can you seriously expect a company to support aging technology? There comes a time when you need to wake up and smell the coffee that 6502's don't cut it anymore. Same thing with the Mac's. Despite the comments about upgrade policies, that is something where I think Apple has excelled, no other company has provided upgrade paths for its machines as Apple has. From Mac SE, you can upgrade to a SE30 which supports color. I fully expect there will come a time when 68000 Mac support will be completely dropped. It may take several years, but it will come... Its a fact of life, everything comes to an end, and the sooner you realize this, the better off your going to be... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
cantrell@Alliant.COM (Paul Cantrell) (10/09/90)
Lots of people talking about how long Apple must support the current 68K Macs. In article <2869@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > This is a rather pointless flame, how long can you seriously expect > a company to support aging technology? There comes a time when you > need to wake up and smell the coffee that 6502's don't cut it > anymore. Same thing with the Mac's. Despite the comments about > upgrade policies, that is something where I think Apple has > excelled, no other company has provided upgrade paths for its > machines as Apple has. I've gotta agree with Norm here. Since I bought my Mac+, the various computer companies I've worked for have shipped about 4 generations of largly incompatible hardware and software. Upgrade policies have existed, but nothing like what Apple has offered on the Macs. In general each generation is a totally different architecture which requires substantial work to port software and hardware to. This is often necessary to be able to release revolutionary products. Apple has done a tremendous job making sure new versions of the software largely continue to work on the old hardware. During the same time period, I've seen my Betamax VCR become totally obsolete, and I can't get leaded gasoline for my pickup truck anymore. :-) So Apple is doing significantly better than Sony and GMC as far as that stuff goes... On the other hand, staying too long with a standard isn't always great. It's wonderful that all the NTSC televisions can all receive the same signal even though the standard has been enhanced over time to include things like color and stereo. However, at some point in the near future I hope they scrap it and go with a very high resolution version of HDTV, rather than water down the new standard to try to make it compatible with existing sets and broadcast equipment. If they do that, I won't be able to get an HDTV set with nearly as nice a picture. Similarly, if Apple is forced to stay with 68000 longer than it makes sense to, we may get computers which aren't nearly as capable as they might be. It's nice to have things last more than one year, but making it last too long can stifle progress and restrict the kind of products available to the consumer. I think Apple has struct a good comprimise, and if they announce an 88K version of the Mac that's incompatible with my Mac+, I won't feel as if I was cheated. PC HDTV = High Definition Tele Vision GMC = General Motors Corporation NTSC = Current USA television broadcast standard
jeff@ics.uci.edu (Jeffrey Gordon Erickson) (10/11/90)
wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: | Hey, Mac-dudes! You all should be rallying behind the Apple II and | complaining about Apple's failure to support it. Why? Because if Apple | will do what it is doing to its namesake, it will do the same thing to | the Mac in five years or so. [silly mode on -- apologies to BIFF] ARE Y0U IMPLUYING THAT THE APPLE ][ IS DYING? NEVER!!! I STILL HAVE AN ORIGINAL APPLE ][ WITH 4K OF MEMORY AND 8 DIFFERENT CARDS AND A FAN TO KEEP IT FROM BLOWING UP AND IT RUNS JUST FINE AND IF APPLE WANT TO KILL IT OFF WELL THATS JUST ST00PID BECAUSE ITS THE K00LIST COMPUTER IN THE WHOL WIDE WORLD!!!!!!!! *****APPLE ][ F0REVER!!!***** WELL I KNOW THAT APPLE WON'T LET THE ][ DIE EVEN THO THEY PUT ALL THAT MONEY INTO THE ][GS AND IT SUCKS GREEN DONKEY EGGS CUZ ITS JUST LIKE A MAC AND MACS SUK. MY COMPUTER'S BETTER CUZ IT HAS A THRREE DIGIT SERIAL NUMBER AND 64K AND I CAN RUN APLEWORKS 1.2 AND PLAY CHOPLIFTER BETTER THAN ANY OF YOU WIZZYWIG PANSIES!! APPLE ][ RULES 4EVER!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [end silly mode] | Think about it. Don't believe me? Oh, sure, I believe you. I believe that as the old technology becomes obsolete, Apple will (eventually) stop supporting it. Personally, I would have welcomed the death of the Apple II with open arms and a smile five years ago (when I was at StyleWare trying to program the little f--kers). The only reason it hasn't died is that Apple doesn't have enough sense (or ability?) to put reasonably priced Macs in the k-12 market. But rather than just killing it off, they produced the IIgs, which (at the time) was the biggest waste of silicon since the PC Jr. | Well, any of you Mac +/SE owners feel like you're being properly supported? | Can you upgrade to color? Is Macintosh Inc. moving towards the Mac II and | forgetting its roots? Hmm. MacClassic, not withstanding, sounds like it. "Forgetting its roots"? What about the Apple I? Why isn't Woz churning out wooden breifcases by the millions? As for your question, yes, of course you can upgrade. All you have to do is plop down your computer and a credit card and say "please upgrade me to an SE/30". Or sell your old computer and buy a new one. It's really not that hard. After all, you did buy your old one, didn't you? | Also, Macintoshes keep going through different models. Is there an upgrade | policy? Can a Mac IIci become a Mac IIfx? Why not? That's easy! The IIfx motherboard won't fit in a IIci box! (duh....) | How long until Apple starts ignoring 68020 users? Oh, I'd guess about four years. | You get the point, of course. If we can't trust 'em, can you? Hell, no. | You're as good as f**ked now. If you insist on hanging on to obsolete machines, yeah, you ARE fucked. If you bought your computer to do a job, and it did it, why should you CARE if you can't upgrade it? It still works. If you bought your computer because it was the next biggest-and-best-hot-new-thing from Apple, and were pissed off when a three months later it was obsolete, that's your problem, not Apple's. If your six-year old computer breaks down, and you can't get it fixed because no one carries parts that old any more, I hope you got your money's worth in those sixe years. Computers don't last forever. Unfortunately, their users do. [Followups to either alt.flame, alt.religion.computers, or talk.stupid] -- ___________ Jeff Erickson -- jeff@ics.uci.edu -- UC Irvine ICS Dept. | _|_ ___|___|___ Disclaimer: These may not even be MY opinions.