Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!LSUVM.BITNET!$CSD211 From: $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Some observations Message-ID: <9011281629.AA06256@apple.com> Date: 28 Nov 90 16:05:07 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 64 |In article <9011271241.AA27895@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) | writes: |> |>Building a GS clone is tricky, but by no means illegal,immoral,irrational, |>unsanitary, etc. If you build your clone in a foreign country, Apple can't |>touch you...Asia is full of illegal clones (anyone ever heard of the |>Happy Joiner?). |> |>How much GS compatibility are we willing to give up? |> | |HOLD IT, HOLD IT, hold it, hold it!!! The Apple IIGS is barely compatible |with _itself_, and you expect to get a shred of compatibility from a |backwards-engineered renegade machine? | |Well, ok, maybe you could get more compatibility if you didn't use System |5.0.3, but I don't think it's worth the bother. A shred may be all we need...if it can run most of the more popular programs then what's the difference. By saying that the IIgs is "barely compatible with itself" I am assuming that you refer to the ROM01/ROM03 differences...in which case you have a point (which machine do we emulate?). ROM01 would be a better choice since it runs more programs. Sure, it would be lovely if Apple just gave up on the II and let someone else develop it...but they won't. The II is a cigarette, and Apple is going to smoke it 'till the filter burns. Take inCider for instance (Apple's paid propaganda magazine)...Look what they're saying...They say the the IIgs is not really an Apple II; can you expect Apple will think much different. As I've been saying, a IIgs clone is NOT what we need. We need an Apple II gateway to the future. I'd buy a computer that "resembled" an Apple II in design (i.e. lots of expansion, ROM BASIC, system monitor,etc.). Sad that no one is willing to produce one. But since computers are now being made for the lowest common denominator... |*forever to be defined at next Apple // unveiling |{don't hold your breath} Oxygen tanks ready! From another post: | Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would they |want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardware? |There's much more money in IBM compats.... This is the real problem. Apathy. I can remeber a few years ago whenever you'd look in Sky and Telescope or CQ or QST or 73, you see interfacing projects for the Apple II. Furthermore, lots of hobbyist-type programs were being written for the Apple II. Today, largely due to the elitist-marketing of Apple's brass, the II is largely ignored and the Mac isn't looked upon well either. PC clones have filled the gap for markets where Apple has just given up (weren't glamourous enough, I guess). I have an old Computers and Music catalog from 1985 (they reviewed synthesizer and MIDI hardware, and sold it too); when you look in the back at the list of products they sold, the Apple II section was the largest - only the C-64 came close. But those markets are long gone... Apple wanted to become "The BMW of computer companies." ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ! @LSUVM.BITNET ! ------------------------------