Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!UTCVM.BITNET!MQUINN From: MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: My decision for the LC Message-ID: <9102141508.AA28241@apple.com> Date: 14 Feb 91 14:47:59 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 112 I'm going to try this ONE MORE TIME. This is my third attempt, so I appolige if this gets transmitted 3 different ways! On Thu, 14 Feb 91 02:42:41 GMT Jerry Penner said: > >Actually, they are treating you fairly well. Consider the architecture [reasons why the 68000 architecture is better than the 65816 architecture] >mode with emulation of a 6502. I think I missed the point of that paragraph. I looks like you're pointing out reasons why the AREN'T treating us well? I agree with what you said about the 68000 vs. 65816 though. But there are other things besides the CPU chip in an Apple II and Mac to consider. >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 I, persoanlly, don't love to hate Apple. I would LOVE to love them and defend everything they do, but I can't because of the way they've been treating Apple II users. >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 That's well and fine, but just because there's a company that gives even LESS support than Apple does, does NOT justify it. What more should they really do? This has been answered about a hundred different ways on here before. All the reasons mainly boil down to, a NEW, FASTER, Apple II with many of the bottlenecks and limitations improved or done away with. AND, ADVERTISING, so other companies have faith in the II and produce hard- ware and software for it. >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. I HAVE thought carefully about it, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY times. I don't know what you mean by 'a bunch of new hardware kludges' though. If the hardware doesn't lend itself to upgrading, that's another thing they need to do. FIX IT so it does. But I don't agree. It's been posted here several times before, by very knowledgable people, about what can be done. >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. I agree, if I didn't already have thousands of dollars invested in my II and years of experience with it, I wouldn't get one either, but I do have one, and I have spent an immeasurable amount of my time into it that I probably won't bet back out of it if Apple continues this course. >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. I agree, but the 'official' reasoning is what I posted and they definitely are not following it. Yes, Apples have always cost alot, but they just keep getting more and more expensive. >>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. I agree with this paragraph. I want more power too, but I don't think I should have to switch to another platform to get it. It's entirely possible Apple could give Apple II owners that power. That's why some of us are so fed up. > Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com