Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Can the II be THAT bad? (Really: let's start a letter campaign)
Message-ID: <1990Mar2.214417.9237@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 21:44:17 GMT
References: <10506.infoapple.net@pro-generic>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 50

sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes:

>  and  (d) You don't buy the line that "Apple II Technology" is obsolete, 
>           rather that you see this as a cheaply veiled way of increasing
>           Macintosh sales.

I keep telling people this, but the Mac people who think they are techies (only
a few really are and they are much better informed) pooh-pooh it even though
the Macintosh is the BEST example of it to date:

	Technology is how the machine is manufactured. That becomes obsolete
quickly as the industry progresses. It is only partially related to:
	Architecture, which is how the machine operates from the software's
point of view.
	Software doing what it is supposed to do is what determines
compatibility, and as long as that is maintained then you can take any
liberties you want with the hardware, such as:
	Implementing the motherboard with newer logic technologies and higher
density chips that are cheaper to manufacture
	Speeding things up while providing for 'slow modes'
	Making the logic itself more efficient (Mensch wants to shave off gobs
of cycles by piplining in the native mode of the 65832)

'Obsolete technology' does not invalidate a product line, it only places age
on a given implementation of that product.

>BTW: I have spoke, in person, to the guy who has designed a 20 Mhz 65816...
>and if you don't believe it (as I didn't), wait a couple of weeks, and put in
>your order. You'll get your product! There is now no such thing as "obsolete
>Apple II Technology".

Yes there is; no one implemements a complete microcomputer with just TTL
anymore. But you cannot infer from that statement as many have done that
it makes the Apple II obsolete, any more than the original Mac motherboard
makes the entire Mac line obsolete.. You _can_ infer that making a motherboard
of TTL is an obsolete manufacturing technique (which it is).

As for letters, maybe I should archive the complete //f effort (Rewrite! All
I'd have to do is cut & paste the techno ramble section from #1, it's got some
fun stuff that is mising from the final.) and "reality vs. Apple" and binscii
the AWP files? Or as text. And send it to comp.sys.apple and APPLE2-L, with
requests for free distribution, and a letter asking everyone to write you
because I haven't got the time! My grades are in jeopardy because of the //f
thing already, but I think I can pull off an archive effort without it hurting
me.

Util then, I'm keeping track of all the letters I've gotten (over 30).

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu