Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!pro-pac.cts.com!tsouth From: tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Another GS+ rumor.. Message-ID: <8904080916.AA20098@crash.cts.com> Date: 8 Apr 89 02:02:20 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.mil Organization: The Internet Lines: 85 Re: > Date: 7 Apr 89 02:04:58 GMT > From: Hal Meeks > Organization: North Carolina State University - Computing Center > Subject: Re: Another GS+ rumor.. > Apple really has committed a great deal of it's resources to the Mac, > and much less to the GS. Now the rumors are flying that there finally > will be a competitive GS configuration available from apple. Add to this I see no problem with this! Whether or not the resources have been mostly directed at the Mac line, or not, there is a large installed base of Apple ][ owners out there that 1.) will not buy Mac, and 2.) want the Apple ][ family made into a competitive machine -- especially in the speed of the machine as compared to other comparative products. When we sit down and look at the actual numbers of educational institutions which do have Apple //e's and //gs's, and the installed _loyal_ user base I think that the numbers should be obvious to most competent people. > Why would apple start thinking of improving the GS when it's > obvious where their road is carrying them. The last two years of show a > slow withdrawal from innovation on the apple II front as far as Apple is > concerned. It's been the 3rd party folks that have brought it along. > Why would you put more money into a system that you know you will be > abandoning in the next 5 years? And I don't mean a little money; I mean > I've heard about the Golden Gate project; when I first heard of it over > a year ago, it made a lot of sense. Now, looking at the state of affairs, > I'm not so sure. There are many things to consider here. As I see the third-party and software industry, they are looking at getting a system with the speed to make something work for them (classic example is the failed SDI project for the //gs) and finding better support and resources to work their magic on the machine. Don't ask me why :) but Apple is starting to take the appearance that they do care more about the installed base of users. They, and the support staff they have hired, are working with a vengance to change past mistakes, IMHO. Also, to expect the installed educational community to trash their Apple ][ family computers and buy Mac's should not even be considered in the analysis of changing over to a K-12 Mac environment. If that actually did happen I think that Apple would make IBM appear to be a small business. :) The supposed Golden Gate project would allow this conversion while keeping the conversion to a low cost. Heck, you wouldn't even have to give up all the old software or hardware at all! Plus, the market would be able to have the best of both worlds. From what I understand, personally, about the system it is still a good idea and I know that it will swamp the market if any of the rumors are to be believed. Face it, even if you just changed the educational market, though, there are still _millions_ of users out here who do not want Mac's, either for personal or financial considerations. It is silly to think that everyone will buy a used Mac+ or low-end SE when they know that the machines are already becoming obsolete in the scheme of things. > Apple isn't the benevolent "hacker's" company it was 2-3 years ago. It's > a corporation. And the bottom line is money, not if you are going to hurt > someone's feelings. Why in the world would Apple sell you a color system > that would emulate a mac, and run at about the same speed, when they can > sell you a color mac system and make more money (a _lot_ more money). Listen, I don't want to seem to be always beating a dead horse about this mate, but in 1987 Apple ][ sales were 1 billion dollars. Sales dropped in 1988, but I personally do not see that as the fault of the hardware (and I don't want to go real deep into why I think that happened). No matter how large a company you are, I cannot imagine that you would disregard sales of that caliber. > I'm not trying to make anyone angry here. I've posed a few questions, and > --hal Hope I helped... Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1