🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4205@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes:
> In article <6659@ut-ngp.UUCP>, kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes:
> > aren't you glad that "just enough" of us bought a 128k Mac in 1984 (and used
> > them as doorstoppers) to allow Apple to make it to 1985 ...
 
> I'd dispute the claim that a Mac 128K was useless.  I used it constantly
> throughout 1984 for MacWrite and MacKermit, both of which did a better
> job than any software/hardware combination I had available in any
> other form.  I still like the 128/Plus/SE form factor

I bought a 128k Mac KNOWING full well that it wasn't going to be useful enough
to justify me spending money on it, but I wanted Apple to survive and was
willing to bet some money that 2 years later (if they'd make it that far),
I'd probably be able to buy a "USEFUL" combination of Mac-hardware and software.
Towards the end of 1984, however, I had my doubts, and reading Sculley's book
today, I'm amazed how close I came to adding the Mac to my computer museum
of "white elephants" (neat stuff that should have made it, but didn't).
Actually, by that time I was convinced that the Amiga had the potential to
outclass the Mac .... unless they screwed up (which they did, it seems).
If MacWrite and MacKermit, which were both rather simple little programs,
was the best you had available then, that's one thing.  I had a "little"
CP/M box with 256k RAM the size of a DataFrame which I could carry around
with me under my arm or in my case and hook it up to any LARGE SCREEN video
terminial - and I had subsets of mainframe EMACS and SCRIBE running, and I
could upload my textfiles to the mainframe and SCRIBE it to the an Imagen
LaserPrinter ....

And my dual processor HZ-100 with both 8- and 16-bit processors had an
immense library of CP/M and DOS programs, compilers, utilities - could connect
to a COLOR!! monitor, had 7 S-100 bus-slots, could interface to hard disks,
plotters, ... you name it.   No, let's not kid ourselves, the Mac in 1984 was
nothing but a toy with promise - and it didn't even have a decent set of
games available.  It became acceptable with the arrival of VersaTerm,
QUED, and third-party *AFFORDABLE* 512k upgrades, respectable with Excel and
PageMaker, the DataFrame HardDisk and 2Meg third-party upgrades, and great with
..... well, let's see now, I think it's Apple's turn to do something right for
a change - so, let's look forward to a GREAT system, with the arrival of a
screenless SE in a shoebox, with 6 half-height slots, a combination of the
68020, 68851 and 68881 chips on the motherboard with 4 Meg of RAM and a built-in
2400baud modem, and large and small sized B/W and colour monitors, all at an
affordable price ......  
		...... nope, I'm afraid not this Xmas, and not 'affordable' by
next Xmas, unless the third-party world  is going to produce a new wave of
hungry youngsters willing to work for little money to make "affordable"
possible by next Xmas .....
 
> Sure, the 128K was not a serious business computer.  But I found the slowness 
> and smallness of the disk drives more serious than 128K (at the time).  
> Thanks to MultiFinder, however, today 1 Mb just isn't enough.

it wasn't even a serious toy computer then, but that doesn't take anything
away from the usefulness of what's available today - which is most of what
I had hoped for.  The 128K had promise, has matured into a useful system today,
which is WORTH improving (yep, I believe that the right way of going about
things, is to take good stuff, make a LOOONG list of it's shortcomings, and
go make things better)  And I'm still willing to bet money on my feeling that
for the next 2 or 3 years, Apple's Macs are going to be my prefered system.
I'm not so sure about AU/X and Mac-IIs though, but I sure hope that Apple will
come out with better documentation and utilities than comes with that SUN
which cost us another Friday night just now, and is likely to ruin most of
my weekend to come, I fear.

Apple better find a way to do the hand-holding their user-base will need to
deal with a system as complex as UNIX to maintain - otherwise, forget it,
the AU/X will never be running on the machines of "the rest of them" ....(-:
It is my feeling that Apple certainly failed in educating their Mac-users
in how to do the (little) system maintenance required to make the Mac to best
computer it can be for it's owner.  I forget, does the SE manual admit to
knowing about the term "Error" and "Crash" yet ....((-:

Why Apple has not realized yet that a monthly FREE newsletter to all registered
Mac-owners, possible consisting of the best articles of the publications of
user-groups or written by one of the many enthusiastic and knowledgable
"volunteer Mac Evangelists" is a better long-term investment than a 30-second
SuperBowl commercial (don't stop, I love them; when can I get a videotape of
all the footage that was shot and later cut down to just 30 seconds ???!!!)
... that beats me.  And why they have not started selling (or giving away
via users groups) tape cassettes, which talk a user through things like
"installing a system upgrade", installing/removing fonts and DAs, analizing
a printer problem, etc, .....  well, that proves to me that I'm more inventive
and concerned about supporting the "rest of them" than Apple is.  Heck, I
and many of you reading this, probably deserve a "letter of appreciation"
(if not something more substantial  :-) from Apple for the many satisfied
customers whose money is in Apple's bank-account, due only to the friendly
and cost-free support we have provided them with.  But I have to admit,
I wouldn't, voluntarily, support MS-DOS users .... so thanks, for making
it possible, Apple.

	yes, my tongue is in my cheek, but I'm NOT blinking my eye !!!

	after all, it's Halloween, and we are allowed to HOOooooowl, a little!


		send your tricks or treats to,
						---Werner

			"we specialize in absorbin flames"
------------------
werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
werner%rascal@ut-sally.uucp

PS: some folks have earlier speculated that Apple would not discontinue the
	as long as they are selling so well:  well, why should Apple do that,
	if it is cheaper for them to build SEs than Pluses?

-- 
kraut@ngp.utexas.edu