Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!ncar!boulder!tramp!hassell From: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Is anyone here interested in the "Future of Apple //?" Message-ID: <5678@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 8 Jan 89 05:29:40 GMT References: <2734*delaneyg@wnre.aecl.cdn> Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) Organization: (Let's see, I'm positive .. I've got ... ) Lines: 50 It appears with all the discussion that has gone on about this stuff that Apple users have become a quiescent lot, content with their place. Actually that is only based on the lack of discussion, it may be that everyone knows what they want. They just want bigger numbers in two slots in their ads... Mhz and Meg right? I personally am tired of waiting for the Mhz fairy to come and save us. Chips are now becoming less dumb and very dense but they ARE approaching a general limit on computibility. Expensive stuff is the only forefront now. New materials and techniques and qualities of gates are the only things keeping innovation going these days . As for the Apple stuff, who other than Apple will have a Specific reason to upgrade and *follow* their 65xxx line? What will the "Next Generation"'s preferences be like when they see only Mac's and AT compat's, and then they see that little *overpriced* IIgs sitting there, hmm? Mhz is NOT even a good approximation of the speed of an apple as one poster noted a while ago. It matters only when the general instruction-set is very similar. 65xxx's to a LOT more per cycle and therefore need less. I still don't posit that the 65xxx is near being as speedy as the 80x86 line or especially the 680x0 line. It is *underdeveloped* and losing steam. It is a relic by merely 3 years or so, but it has lost its momentum. I personally see the value in NOT needing the 1st fastest system on the market and the most bang for buck, especially since I don't really need them. But I do have a problem with the non-innovation and disinterest in producing anything worthy of Apple anymore. The amiga is a flawed machine and it is going to surpass Apple's meager expectations as it has before. I ask because I did see a bit of interest in a "People's" petition regarding how to design the IIgs+ or whatever computer, but I didn't see anyone with enough curiosity/tenacity to talk about any criticism to Brother Apple these days. My own design was along the lines of keeping all background tasks to a SECOND processor for the gs design. Quite helpful actually, and would produce a mama of a computer, one even suited to connectivity. I don't think that mere *compatibility* should be the party line we must toe. I know many programmers who think otherwise on that do-what-we-say -so-you'll-be-safe-when-we-get-more-Mhz-later principle. Taking a system to the limit is a *natural* programming technique and should be allowed. I'm sorry if this was a bit flamey, but it is dispersed over everyone who COULD have a say/interest in a better Apple, but doesn't. ### C>H> ###