Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!brianw
From: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Hard Drives and Slots
Summary: Sorry, but...
Message-ID: <57@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 89 07:06:24 GMT
References: <8907071717.AA01377@crash.cts.com> <35@microsoft.UUCP> <1162HHWON00@RICE>
Reply-To: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 105

In article <1162HHWON00@RICE> HHWON00@RICE.BITNET writes:
>Hey!  Where did that come from?  Since when did my post about Apple slots
>warrant a personal attack?  I NEVER EVER BLAMED APPLE for their design, just
>talking about what I've seen in my 9 years with my old II+ and IIgs.  Simple
>as that.  I never ever said I was a super hardware geek who knew the inside and
>out of my computer like the back of my hand.  I am not (nor have I ever)
>complained about the computer architecture in my post, did I?
>
>One thing *I* hate is some of the pompous remarks made without basis, Brian
>Willoughby.
>                 -HenryH (HHWON00@RICE)

I wouldn't have posted this to the net, but since it is an apology of
sorts I wanted the net to hear it...

I am sorry if anything I typed sounded like a personal attack.  I don't
know how, when or why you formed your opinions about the Apple II, nor do
I care.  But when you choose to make a statement worldwide about computer
hardware, you had better be prepared to hear from "the super hardware
geeks".  You might not have said that you know the Apple insides like the
back of your hand, but that didn't stop you from describing them to the
net world.  Perhaps you don't realize how many people are listening?

In my opinion, the purpose of comp.sys.apple (or Info-Apple), or of the
UseNet service in general, is making information widespread.  I feel that
correcting any inconsistencies in what is posted here is more important
than just the two people involved in the original and the followup
postings.  One has to consider the worldwide readership and any
difficulties they might have due to false information.  Perhaps I was
worried too much about the subject at hand, and not the feelings of the
original poster.

The intention of my post was not against you, but the various programmers
who have limited the use of Apple peripherals.  Upon reviewing my post,
the only phrase I see as a personal remark against you was the final one
stating that you didn't know the reason for the limited selection of slot
locations for various cards.

I do apologize for my hostility, since at least one person (namely you)
took it as directed against you.  I do not, however, retract my opinion
that you do not know what you are talking about, and should use better
judgement in what you choose to state as fact in your posts.

As evidence:
>The problem with Apple II slots is that they are "hardwired" and not smart.
Not true.  I wanted to point out that peripheral software written to
Apple's specs is not limited by the Apple II slot architecture.
>Each card has its own page of memory for a driver, and it isn't relocatable
>(at least not very easy to be relocated without tricks)  This is in contrast
>to, say, an IBM, where they use things like DIP switches to locate the device
>driver.
Not true, the Apple cards are relocated whenever you plug them into a new
slot, automatically, and without any chance of the user accidently
selecting a DIP switch option which conflicts with a card in another slot
(which IS possible with an IBM).  The obvious exception to this is that a
card with phantom slot capabilities can conflict with a normal one.
>This "absoluteness" is the reason why there are "traditional" places to put
>cards (the 5.25 drive into slot 6, the 80 column card in slot 3, etc).
Not true.  Again, you have witnessed the behavior, but are clueless as to
the real cause of the problem.

Unless you like to see your name in lights (i.e. at the header of a
UseNet posting), I see no value in your posting other than the fact that
it has brought the net's attention to an old problem.

If you weren't complaining about the Apple's architecture, then your
mistake was to note a problem where there isn't one.  Or at least not a
problem for the reasons you stated :-)

In your nine years of II+ and //gs use, you may have experienced troubles,
but it does no good to post an erroneous set of assumptions about them to
this group.  In fact, it is actually harmful, IMHO, to broadcast your
misconceptions, because they might influence a potential purchaser of an
Apple CPU to choose the competition.  If more people purchase Apple IIs,
then the prices of hardware will drop and the software support will
increase.  I would say that it is useful to the net to point out that
there are problems with *some* of the software out there, and perhaps
even put pressure on developers to correct their code, but your post
seems to indicate the hardware as the problem.  My first followup
attempted to set the record straight by revealing the source of your
problems. I didn't dimiss your issue, I actually supported it by
acknowledging that there is a problem.

I write almost all of the software I use, and by following Apple
guidelines I have no limitations on locating peripheral cards.  Even
if you aren't a programmer, you can be selective and use only software
which doesn't use hard-coded peripheral addressing.  Now if I knew
nothing about the Apple II, and was considering it for its expandability
(something similarly priced Macintoshes don't offer), I might read your
post and assume that the Apple was not well suited to expansion.  Is that
what you intended?

Come on, lets all (I'm speaking of no one in particular) stop bashing the
Apple II, spreading false rumors about its demise, and concentrate on
keeping everyone well informed of the facts.  And if any of us make an
error in a posting, well we'll just chalk it up to the learning process,
instead of taking a correction as a pompous slight on personal character.

Pretty simple, huh?

Brian Willoughby
UUCP:           ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw
InterNet:       microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET
  or:           microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM
Bitnet          brianw@microsoft.UUCP