Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!art100 From: ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: The Late Great Apple // Message-ID: <90269.212824ART100@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 27 Sep 90 01:28:24 GMT References: , Organization: Penn State University Lines: 27 In article , jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) says: > > NeXTstations >represent a fine effort and use of resources. In comparison, Apple >doesn't seem to have much drive. Replace "NeXTstations" with "apple //s" and "apple" with "IBM," "Timex," etc... and push that date back 10-13 years and you'd still be saying something valid. Remember, in a technology that changes so rapidly, Apple is a rather aging company. IBM has always made more than just computers, and still makes computers other than personal computers, so it's withstood the test of time. Steve Jobs was called a "visionary" when Apple Computer, Inc. was founded and we're now hearing the same thing about NeXT. The Apple ][+ was an amazing machine for the times as were the //e, the //c, and the Macintosh (get out your old computer magazines if you don't believe me). I remember all the ado about "you get color graphics WITHOUT buying a graphics board!" "BASIC is built in!" "Wow, you can use a disk drive?" and "48K? WOW!" Now I don't mean to get on the Apple bashing bandwagon, but the //gs was really not as state-of-the-art as the previous Apple machines. What held it back? // compatibility. But as someone mentioned, a GS without // compatibility would be another Macintoy, maybe without the "mac users are computer-illiterate" stigma. Who needs that?