Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23684 comp.sys.mac:50802 comp.sys.apple2:207
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!chaos.cs.brandeis.edu!aland
From: aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D Danziger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar17.043503.15606@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 90 04:35:03 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept
Lines: 73

In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes:
>In article <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU
>(Andy Y.A. Kuo) writes:
>>
>>  I don't understand why AppleII users can't accept the Mac.  If Apple
>>had not bothered with the GS but built a Mac that can run the 8bit
>>AppleII softwares, then the "GS" that you are praising for would be
>>the Mac.  Why can't you think of the Mac softwares as GS specific
>>softwares -- since they can't run on a IIe anyway?  Why can't you
>>think of the Mac as the "GS" -- since both are "new" architecture?
>>
>But Apple didn't do this, and we would have to abandon all our Apple II
>software if we ran on a Mac.  The idea that GS-specific software is
>like Mac software may, in some trivial way, hold some bit of merit, but
>until you can run Apple II software on the Mac, the Mac and the GS aren't
>both just "new" architectures.  The GS is a "new" architecture with backwards
>compatibility, while the Mac is as different from the Apple II as far as
>software compatibility goes as a 386 machine.  To say the Mac should be
>thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run
>any of the current Mac software.  How willing would you be to making the
>switch?

I sold my Apple IIc which I had just bought a 3.5" drive for, along
with TONS of software, when I bought my Mac SE/30.  I have never
missed it.  At the time, I was just learning about the Mac, and like
it MUCH better than the Apple II line...  Although I haven't done much
with the IIGS, it seems to be a (s)low-end Mac lookalike...

>
>>...  Are you just hard to please?  Are you being reasonable
>>at all?
>>
>
>Let's take stock here.  WHen the GS came out in, I believe, 1986, the top
>of the line Mac was an SE.  That means there have been 5 new Mac models
>(the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new
>Apple II models released.  That sounds to me like a lack of support.

There was a little thing called the IIc+ which came out I believe less
than a year ago...  Sounds like a new model to me!

>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our
>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though
>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening.

Why would there be a huge market?  Think about it.  How much was the
upgrade from a IIe to a IIGS?  How big a market was it?  Now think
about the Mac, which uses different chips, different bus, different
interface, even.  I could imagine a Mac (Plus or SE) card for a IIGS,
but how many IIGS owners would WANT a Mac?

Besides, if you want to run your Apple II software on a Mac, you CAN
(not should) get a Mac and a program called ][ in a Mac ( I don't know
who the company is offhand) and USE IT!  All you would need is a 5.25"
drive for your Mac, or if you had a 3.5" disk-based II (as I did) you
can directly use your files

Or if you use Appleworks on the II, get a Apple File Exchange file
called Works to Works, and Microsoft Works, and you can convert your
files automatically.

>Andrew Certain
>certain@cs.unc.edu

Andrew, it seems to me that you are fixed in your belief, and that is
fine for you.  But don't try to tell us what Apple should do.  If you
feel you know, then it is your responsibility as an unsatisfied
customer to report your suggestions and comments to Apple.

-- 

	-=Alan=-
	aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu