Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!asd From: asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Woz giveth, Scully taketh away Message-ID: <5667@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 1 Oct 90 17:00:27 GMT References: <28361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <7371@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Organization: Purdue University Lines: 116 In comp.sys.apple2 you write: >In article <5658@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: > Well, I don't say GO IBM.. I still don't like IBM PCs (and don't >think I ever will).. I do agree with many of these kinds of statements >(unfortunately) though. Well, actually, it makes perfect finacial sense. IBM is going to start taking big chunks of the home market away from Apple. A low cost IBM (names carry a LOT of weight to the uninitiate) is going to do VERY well against the expensive models Apple has, especially considering that the PS/1 probably comes with hard drive, good graphics, speed to match Apple's stuff (I'd presume so), and of course, the IBM name. Now Apple has only a few options, from what I see. They can ither continue on their course of limiting there market niche more and more, which is not smart, especially considering they seem to be going for the workstation market, and Sun and others have that very well covered. So if that's all they are concerned about, we will quickly discover it when they don't introduce anything to compete. If they are smart, and don't want to totally loose the home market, then they MUST introduce low cost, decently powerful, computers. That means ither Mac, or Apple II, or both is going to see some improvements. Given that we already know that there is going to be three new Macs, all aimed at low-cost markets, WITHOUT even the absolute vaguest of whispers about a new Apple II, that sorta tells you exactly what Apple cares about doesn't it? >>Yup! Hey, join the gang! Anybody want to start a "Apple II, Now >>NeXT Club"? A2NNC? Eww. Anybody got a better acronym? Ya know, I >>wonder if Jobs was expecting this! > This is really sad.. Steve Jobs was a VERY VERY VERY MAJOR >reason for the downfall of the Apple II in the first place.. I have no >direct facts to base all of this on, so you may not believe me, but he >either STOPPED or seriously slowed down many projects to improve the >Apple II... This was for his pet project the Lisa.. what a flop... heh.. >but, as we all know it was turned into the Mac. Yup, Jobs did screw over the Apple II, no doubt about it. The only problem I have with NeXT is he is heading it up. He's a great visionary, but when he runs things, things get done the "Steve 'You do computing my way!' Jobs" method. The best thing (and worst for II's) was for Jobs to get booted. With him around, he was slowing down Mac advancement. Of course, I can't prove this ither, but I'm sure you can find out from others about this. Just take a look at all the new models introduce AFTER he left. > But I'm not saying I don't like NeXT. I think the NeXT is really >cool and feel that the optical disk idea was BRILLIANT, while it seems >most people say it's utterly stupid. Yeah, too bad it was a bit ahead of it's time, unreliable in dusty environments, and NeXT has opted to let it go by the wayside, and support it as an option, and not a standard. Of course, OD technology is quickly progressing, and we should start seeing some benefits from it. Iomega, for instance, has a 600+Mb, ~60ms, OD that works like NeXT's and is ISO compatible. > NOOOOOO!!! This is the one I ---do not--- agree with. I still want >people to buy Apple IIs... Buying Apple IIs (and related hardware AND >SOFTWARE!) will help preserve the II longer and may somehow make Apple >wise up. I'm not saying I think that'll happen but I still like the GS well >enough to not switch to another computer.. Yes, I wish it too, but I can't believe that Apple IS going to wise up anymore. Heck, I don't recall hearing ANYTHING from the AIIDTS guys in awhile, anything even hinting at good things to come (ie: "I can't tell you about all the incredible things in the works here"). It's just unreasonable, IMHO, to tell anybody to buy Apple II's or otherwise support them, as I just don't believe that it's an investment that is NOT going to be a waste. Now if prices where slashed by half at least, then MAYBE, but then of course people would start buying II's wouldn't they, instead of buying Macs, or better (for them cost wise) IBM compatibles. >Why should I get a Mac (unless conditions are satisfied) when they're >going to screw the Mac people over in a few years like they are screwing >us over??? As an aside, many people use this same reasoning for why they No, no, no, they ARE screwing Mac users over right now! Remember the original Mac slogan? "The computer for the rest of us"? Now it's "The computer for the wealthy." When Macs originally rolled out, for awhile I was skeptical, and then I really liked the machines. They were gonna bring computing power to everyone! And for the most part, anybody could use one with just a little bit of training. Well, that's still true, but as far as it being a machine that folks can afford, only the real low end stuff is, and I know I'm not gonna be particularly interested in the slow machines at that end of the spectrum. >won't buy the Atari Lynx game machine because they've been screwed over by >Atari too many times.. (By the way, the Lynx game machine BLOWS the >GameBoy out of the water! Read rec.games.video for more info!) I've heard this too, from a friend who's boss has one. Says it's really cool. >>Hell, the thought of having computer neophyets, or ANYBODY for that >>matter, shelling out good money for a system that they are gonna junk >>anyways. Heck, buy a machine that IS going to get supported. And if >>you think Mac is gonna, forget it! They are getting screwed too! > As I said, I still think people should buy IIs.. Buying IIs is >like throwing sand in their face! I still think it's not buying a completely It's also like throwing money in the fire. If ya are gonna buy a II, I'd buy a IIc+. At least it has a dose of speed, is reasonably priced, has an internal 3.5, and is semi-portable. >dead/useless computer... so if you're buying it, it's USEFUL -AND- you're >telling Apple to go to hell... Sounds funny because you're giving them money >and telling them to go to hell at the same time? Well you are since you're >paying for their APPLE II technology and not their MAC technology which is >what they want you to buy. Actually, you probably ARE giving them money for Mac technology, mainly for R&D.