Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!LSUVM.BITNET!$CSD211 From: $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: new apple IIs... Message-ID: <9011301912.AA13533@apple.com> Date: 30 Nov 90 18:35:59 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 49 |The Amiga and the Next are not clones. Clones of any sort are developed for |one purpose, to get a piece of the action from a hot item. People or companies |who develop a computer because they want to create something new ( like the |original Apple team ) don't make copies. That would be a contradiction. I |realize that there are many of us who believe that a cheap clone of the GS |would sell well. However, I believe that most smart hardware companies are |going to look at the current sales rather than projected ones. | |bob church |bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu I never insinuated that either the Amiga or the NeXT were clones. I was making the point that just because the state of the market would lead one to believe that a course of action (such as building a new computer or a clone of a less popular model) would not be wise does not mean that they are always correct. The Amiga and the NeXT were designed, built and marketed not out of any love for great sums of money but because they were new and groundbreaking ideas (that could have some profit attached to them). If NeXT were somehow taken from Steve Jobs, he'd start a new company in a shot. What is this obsession over a "cheap GS clone." Is this what people really want? If I were John Sculley, I wouldn't try to market the GS. Why make yourself look like a fool. The GS is so far out of the mainstream (technology wise) that I'd be embarassed to market such a machine. (Of course, Who's fault is that??) When you look at the machines put out by competing companies, the GS looks like a joke. It's only redeeming features are it's Apple II heritage and the Ensoniq (which is quickly becoming a moot point at the hands of PC sound cards like the Roland LAPC-1). The only kind of person who would build a clone of a GS would be one that had recently received a sharp blow to the head. It's doable, but why bother cloning something that is neither popular or technologically remarkable. I, on the other hand, feel that building a new computer with modern parts in the tradition of the Apple II (many slots, ROM BASIC, system monitor, etc...) that maintained partial compatibility (i.e. full IIe compatibility and partial GS compatibility using public domain translators) would be ideal. I say partial because it would be impossible to build a fully compatible machine. Apple holds too many of the patents/copyrights. We'd lose Apple Desktop Bus, the serial drivers (i.e. MIDI capability through the serial ports - kiss programs like SysExGS, Synthlab, and other MIDI applications...but that dosen't mean that they can't be replaced by better ones), the Smartport, etc. ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------