Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!alberta!edson!news From: jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: My decision for the LC Message-ID: <1991Feb14.024241.24764@ee.ualberta.ca> Date: 14 Feb 91 02:42:41 GMT References: <9102132324.AA00480@apple.com> Sender: news@ee.ualberta.ca Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering Lines: 107 In article <9102132324.AA00480@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >This is in reply to the message from the person that decided to get an LC >to replace their GS... > >I (personally) have nothing against you deciding you needed an LC over a GS, >but I'd like to point a couple of things out in reply to some of the things >you included in that post: > >1. We -don't- all '*like*' macs. > I don't dislike macs. I'd rather have a mac than no computer at all, > but I'd rather have a GS. If someone offered to swap a mac IIfx for > my GS, I'd be happy to ablige. I could sell it and buy 10 GS's :) >2. People aren't mad at the mac. > People are mad at Apple management for not supporting the II when > there was plenty they could have done. If there wasn't anything they > could do to make the GS better, I'd have no problem with them and > no problem """upgrading""" (quotes emphasized) to a mac. But knowing > That Apple Co. treated me this way when owning a II, how do I know they > won't do the same again if I got a mac? Another reason people are Actually, they are treating you fairly well. Consider the architecture of the 6502/65816 and consider the 680x0 series. Other considerations aside I'd much rather program the 680x0's in assembler than 65xxx. And I certainly wouldn't want to write a compiler for the 65xxx chips. I think Apple has considered this when they decided to forge on with the Mac. There is a future in the 68000 architecture because it was designed with the future in mind. The 65816 is a horrible kludge. If it had been designed more with a separate 16-bit mode (ie. no more 6502 instructions, just similar) it might have been worth taking a lot further. If you've read the article Randy Hyde posted about what the 65816 could or should have been, you know what I mean. If you haven't he basically outlined a completely new instruction set for the 16-bit mode with emulation of a 6502. But I digress... What I am saying is if you were a manufacturer who was trying to put power in people's hands, you wouldn't want to make a choice that was going to limit you in the future. I think Apple has done that. People love to hate Apple it seems. Take a look at Commodore. The 64 still sells. But what do you get from Commodore? Absolutely nothing. Apple gives you the video overlay card, the high speed DMA SCSI card, (all Apple IIs) and if you have a GS, new system software, Hypercard, and ongoing technical support even to those who don't pay for it. What more should they really do? Think carefully about what you would do if you were Apple. What can you do with the GS that's not a bunch of new hardware kludges? The architecture just doesn't lend itself to upgrading. > mad at apple is because the prices on their products are just rediculous. > the price of their LOW DENSITY 3.5" drive is more than some 40meg > hard drives, for starters. Since Apple is obviously trying to replace > the II with the mac, it makes some people want macs less than they did Yes, their prices are high, and have always been that way. I don't like their idea of telling me what to buy by the pricing strategy but if I didn't own a computer now and wanted to buy a new one, I sure wouldn't buy an Apple II. > before, because the more macs that are sold instead of II's, the more > Apple is willing to continue with this ludicrous idea. >3. The GS is more upgradable than an LC (in contrast to what you printed). > The LC has ONLY ONE slot. The GS has SEVEN slots. Since this discussion was about LC/GS's, I have to agree. I think the LC is a crippled Macintosh. (maybe like the crippled GS was in '86) > >Apple has fallen back on the fundamental reasons Steve Jobs & Wozniak created >the company for in the first place: To inexpensively computerize the world. You really think that's why they created Apple? More like Woz liked giving people something fun to play with and do cool things on and Jobs wanted to make piles of cash. Apple's have always cost lots. >Instead, Apple is doing just the opposite; they're charging outrageous prices >on their computers (inluding the II's), with the exception of the Classic. >Now the Classic is not incredibally overpriced. It's only about twice as much >as it should be. > >I'm not even going to touch on the reasons why many of us like the II more >than the mac (it's been said only about a hundred million times on this net). > >Now, I'm not saying the the LC isn't right for you. Only you can make that >decision. But the reason I'm replying is because you claimed the 'anti-apple >sentiment is ludicrous' and I want you to understand where it comes from. > > Michael J. Quinn > I understand why people are anti-apple. But in some ways I don't. They get so fanatical about it that it's almost insane. And lots of times I think they do it to convince themselves that they aren't wasting their time, money, and effort on a machine that might just be limiting the usefulness or fun of their computing. I like Apples a lot but I realize I'm never going to get a 10 MIPS Apple II and to try to make my GS anywhere near that is going to end up costing me a lot more than leaving it the way it is and purchasing another more powerful machine. I must also add that I don't think we should all run out to buy the latest technology. Not everyone needs it. But I for one would like to have more power at my fingertips. Sticking to the II line just because I like a lot of things about it means I'm missing a lot of nice things about other systems. Flame away, folks. :-] -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada