Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!brianw
From: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: GS Wish List/Apple twoee compatiblity
Summary: Don't forget how you got to where you are today!
Message-ID: <50004@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 90 02:15:28 GMT
References: <E6D79964CC5F801E9C@UALR.BITNET>
Reply-To: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 58


In an article RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes:
>
>  I think maybe we GS users and Apple should really consider weather or not
>we want to be strapped into the // compatibility(sp?). I think it has hurt
>the GS a bit. Because most software developers, it seemed like they said,
>"Well we have a // version and the GS user can run it." Note I did say a bit,
>I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE LACK OF SUPPORT ISSUE, I have heard it before. The
>reason I think this way is because I think it hurt the GS from the start
>(compatibility (sp?)), and now we are supposed to get a new machine so, that
>will give us more support.

Those software developers must have been lazy if they didn't want to
take advantage of the extra capabilities of the GS in a newer release
of their software.  I don't think that you are going to motivate any
of these lazy companies by TAKING AWAY Apple ][ compatibility from the
GS.  In fact, I don't think that Apple could have done anything
different that would have actually FORCED these developers to write
for the GS if they didn't want to.

For a moment, consider that there were two possibilities for the GS at
it's introduction:

A brand new machine that is A) compatible with an 8 bit machine but
capable of running new 16 bit software, or B) not compatible with any
machine and only capable of running software that hasn't been
developed yet.

If Apple had chosen B), there wouldn't have been ANY GS development,
because nobody would invest in (i.e. purchase) a machine that ran no
software.  I certainly wouldn't purchase a machine that only had a few
programs available for it (at the time of introduction), and if no one
else bought the machine, then there wouldn't be any kind of market to
interest software developers at all.

Do you remember how long it took the 1984 Mac to catch up to (and
eventually pass, sigh) the amount of software available for the ][?
Totally new platforms take a significant amount of time (and promotion
from the company) to take off.

It took Apple a long time to get GS/OS out.  And before that, all the
GS Operating Systems were 16 bit extensions of 8 bit ProDOS.  I don't
think the GS would have ever made it without the 8 bit compatibility.

>  I am not saying drop the //, I love it, I still have my //c, eventhough I
>don't use it much, but I think that the GS with its enhanced graphics and
>sound should not be made to run // software.

It's not like someone is forcing every GS to run // software.  It would
actually be more work now to REMOVE the compatibility.

>Robert Brown

Brian Willoughby
UUCP:           ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw
InterNet:       microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET
  or:           microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM
Bitnet          brianw@microsoft.UUCP