🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20020@usc.edu>, kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
> In article <507@sunfs3.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
> >In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
> >>Sigh.  The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy
> >>everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the
> >>Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed.  That isn't
> >>what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed;
> >>it's what it *is*, though.
> 
> [lot's of stuff deleted about capabilities of machines old and new]
> 
> >Yes, Apple is making a nice profit, but no, they are not suddenly
> >screwing you any worse than when you bought your first Macintosh, and
> >it must have seemed a good enough deal to you then.
> 
> The flaw in this argument is that Apple sold the Macintosh as a
> concept.  The machine for the rest of us. With that concept was the
> promise of great software in the future.  Apple was selling a promise
> and, rightly or wrongly, lots of us bought it. 
> 

Please please please please please please please please please please STOP!

If you want to read stories about "Apple is leaving us behind in the dust" 
or "Apple isn't supporting our machines anymore" then GO READ COMP.SYS.APPLE
where everyone is constantly griping about this topic.

Apple sold the Macintosh as a concept. True. But, why does the new hardware
change anything? Why do you *have* to upgrade?  When I was at grad school,
there was a lab that got used mostly for MacDraw II and Word. It was populated
with 5 Mb Mac IIx's with color monitors (256 colors, no less). 80Meg HDs. 

Were there any applications that could use the color? No.
Was there anything on the HD that *needed* that hardware? No.

Were they neato keano machines (and if you offered me one, would I 
 take it)? Yes.

Technology is moving, whether we like it or not.  When you bought a computer,
*any* computer, you took a risk in investing in hi-tech technology. It doesn't
seem as bad on the PC world, because MSDOS was primitive.  The Macintosh is
reaching farther both in terms of software and hardware - there's no reason
why 70% of the computer world out there (I guess) needs anything more powerful
than WriteNow.  There is a real lust for "what's the high-end system." 

32-bit color quickdraw. What is it good for? A lot of workstation-type 
applications that need picture-quality resolution. For the *rest of us*? 
It means zip. Word processing doesn't go beyond b&w, 90% of the time. Beyond
that, what's the practicality of having 16 million shades of green?

VM. Sounds really cool, and yes, it is really neato, but *necessary*? For the
*rest* of *us*. Nope. Memory is getting cheaper, and if the programmers out
there can get back to tight coding, there shouldn't be a massive leap into
5 Meg applications.

What would *I* like to see Apple (and other computer companies) doing? We
have all this power at our hands, right, and the prices never truly go down,
because right when the technology for making the Macintosh N is cheap, we
get the Macintosh N-prime ... and I really wish there was someway to (feasibly)
get even old 8-bit technology to people who'd never touch our technology
otherwise.  How much does it *really* cost to make an Apple IIe these days?
Is it *really* that much more than a Commodore 64?

This is enough. I got into computers because I thought they were neat,
and exciting, and a lot of good could come out of them. The technology is
advancing so blasted fast these days, that nobody is eeking the potential
out of anything anymore.  Word Processors that *need* 1024K? C'mon. It
used to be possible in 64K.  

Basta.

Roger Espinosa
rre@ihlpn.ATT.COM, or ..!att!ihlpn!rre