Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!apple!keith From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: AppleSupport(wasre:ughh and the GS Message-ID: <27151@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 12 Mar 89 06:29:28 GMT References: Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 96 Jeremey, do you say this stuff just to raise the hair on the back of my neck? >FACTS: Applied Engineering has proved that the //gs can go MUCH faster. Apple >held that the architecture prevented it; that a total rehash of the motherboard >was required. Where have you heard this? I've never seen this theory posted here or anywhere else. The only reason I've heard as to why we don't put out 7MHz Apple IIGS's is because we are/were not able to get reliable 65816s in quantity from WDC. I don't think that AE has the volume that we do, and doesn't need the large quantity that we do in order to fulfill their orders. > Further, Programs like Roger Wagner's SoftSwitch prove that the machine, >even without a dedicated OS to perform the task, can simulate multitasking by >placing programs in different banks of memory, allowing one to switch between >them on the fly. Apple, however, allows this to remain quiet. I wouldn't call this multi-tasking. Softswitch doesn't allow background processes. I also seem to recall that it didn't work with ProDOS 8 applica- tions, but I may be mistaken. As for our remaining quiet, you know that Apple has always maintained such a stance on future product development. And since you are a regular reader of this net, you also know why. >I feel that if Apple was truly behind the machine, they would support, or >even license these products (like they did with Styleware when it announced >GS Works). They haven't. What do you mean here? From your point of view, how did we support GS Works? How would you like us to support or license Softswitch? Do you want us to buy it and put it into every GS sold? If so, then there is no advantage to you. We would have to charge more for the GS in order to cover Roger Wanger's costs and licensing fees. The net cost would either be a wash or higher than it is now. >The fact is, the Mac works, the //gs does not, and this is Apple's fault. I must really be dense this evening, as I am not following any of your arguments. As far as I see it, both machines "work". The Mac does what it does and the GS does what it does. >Jeff is simply another programmer fed up with dealing with Apple's nonsupport, >and he needs to make a living. But I won't throw out my machine until its all >over, and then maybe not. This machine is too much damned fun. If you like your Apple II, then why are *YOU* trying to kill it? With all of your comments foretelling doom and disaster for the Apple II, don't you think that you are instilling a sense of foreboding in your audience? If I were a naive listener to these networks, I would think that the Apple II was not worth a plug nickel and that it had no future. If I, as this naive listener, were also a talented programmer considering writing a great new program for the Apple II, I'd reconsider it...based on what I'd heard you say. On the other hand, if you like your Apple so much, why don't you support it? I believe that it was once you who told me that you like arguing just for the sake of it. If that is true, I'd like to see your talents steered in a more constructive vein. If, instead, you were to talk in glowing phrases about how much you liked your Apple and how you thought there was a great future for it, then you will instill this in the people who read your comments. Support of the Apple II does not have to stop with Apple. Anyone else can do it too. People's comments on the future can often be self-fulfilling; if you predict the death of the Apple II, then those comments will help to bring it around. The same can be said of predictions on its upcoming 25 year future. >I would love to have faith in the parent company, but only the third parties >seem to make the machine fly. If I worked at Apple, this would turn my >stomach, but I don't, and they have the Mac there to make the // seem >insignificant. But this is the whole purpose of 3rd party companies. Apple doesn't sell solutions. We just sell the computer. It has ALWAYS been the 3rd party companies that have provided the software that makes the Apple II useful. It has always been a combination of the 2nd party and the 3rd party to create a solution for you, the 1st party. What is so wrong with this that makes your stomach turn? There are many good reasons for Apple to rely on 3rd party companies for innovative software and hardware: - better for the economy in a capitalist system - smaller companies can create products more quickly - their products are often better because they don't design by committee the way a large company like Apple does. - Apple can concentrate on hardware and system software - If we were to write software like AWGS, all the people working on Apple II software at Claris would be out of a job. As you said, Jeff has to make a living. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions