Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ames!bionet!agate!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Mac and Amiga (Games--Macintosh vs A500) Message-ID: <1991Mar14.180927.10017@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 14 Mar 91 18:09:27 GMT References: <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> <1991Mar13.131004.9647@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991Mar13.230616.1544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 64 rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >>>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>>faster chips in the same basic box? >> >> What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >>[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >>has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] >Hmm, let's see, starting from the original A1000 they created >[in no particular order] >1) The A500, totally new motherboard and design, GARY chip >2) The A2000, Zorro II bus, and the Buster >[etc] But Apple has done exactly comparable things and more. Why does Apple get flamed for lack of innovation but Commodore can do no wrong? Methinks if Apple came out with a quad-88110 voice-recognition computer, you'd flame them for lack of innovation. But if Commodore discontinued the Amiga and told everyone they were reverting to a C-64 design, you'd call them forward thinking and innovative. Note, I don't think you can blame Apple or Commodore for being non-innovative. It's always a problem when everything you do has to be compatible with an installed base. For example, over the past 5 years, the only innovation I've seen in the PC market is NeXT and Go... both of who have had start-up operations. >The Mac was never innovative, it was a slow piece of trash in 1985, and >if you want to expand it EFFECTIVELY you have to buy a whole new model. >(like the NeXT pizzabox) The Macs with slots don't seem to have this problem... >I also DARE Apple to play fair and just, and stop trying to sue other >companies just because they are competing(GUI wise) or to put excessive >restrictions on their ROMs. Why do people insist on perpetrating this nonsense? Apple is not trying to restrict competing GUIs... Do you see them complaining about the Amiga? or NeXT? or Motif? or Openlook? Apple has a very specific suit - they signed an agreement with Microsoft on Windows 1.0, which Apple claims Microsoft broke when they introduced Windows 2.0. The courts, however, will decide if this is true. As for putting excessive restrictions on their ROMs... that's Apple's decision and only Apple's. If I were to write a book, should I be forced to make the publishing rights available to anyone?? I damn well wrote the book... I should have say over what happens to it. I don't think you can call Apple unfair or unjust for deciding to keep their ROMs to themselves. They spent however many 100 man-years writing that code, and if they want to keep the profits all to themselves, that's perfectly fair in my book. If it makes economic sense for Apple to license the ROMs, I imagine they will do so in the future (which incidentally looks quite likely to happen). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"