10 Jul
1997
10 Jul
'97
10:48 a.m.
Well, have you heard? Gilbert Amelio has stepped down and Steven Jobs
has taken on an "expanded role". Interesting. Perhaps they'll
re-introduce the Apple ][ line...perhaps the Apple IV???
(sorry, mostly off-topic but, hey, it's STEVE JOBS!!!)
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
10 Jul
10 Jul
8:21 p.m.
Sam Ismail wrote:
Well, have you heard? Gilbert Amelio has stepped down and Steven Jobs
has taken on an "expanded role". Interesting. Perhaps they'll
re-introduce the Apple ][ line...perhaps the Apple IV???
(sorry, mostly off-topic but, hey, it's STEVE JOBS!!!)
Offtopic? I though it has been made CLEAR that HISTORY is part of the
ANYTHING of this list and therefore much to the topic......or is yet
another of my English language misundertanding?
enrico
11 Jul
11 Jul
11:17 p.m.
Sam Ismail wrote:
Well, have you heard? Gilbert Amelio has stepped down and Steven Jobs
has taken on an "expanded role". Interesting. Perhaps they'll
re-introduce the Apple ][ line...perhaps the Apple IV???
I think you have got the story (dare I call it history?) WRONG. Steve
Jobs, when was trying to put the Lisa and later the Macintosh on the
market, was very much AGAIST the Apple II. His mate Steve "The Woz"
Wozniac was the one who designed and sustained model II.
Perfectly ON TOPIC (I think...)
enrico
12 Jul
12 Jul
5:51 a.m.
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, e.tedeschi wrote:
You may be right but you're also wrong. Wozniak semi-retired from Apple
and didn't do any development on the Apple ][ after 1983 or 1984
(something like that).
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
Well, have you
heard? Gilbert Amelio has stepped down and Steven Jobs
has taken on an "expanded role". Interesting. Perhaps they'll
re-introduce the Apple ][ line...perhaps the Apple IV???
I think you have got the story (dare I call it history?) WRONG. Steve
Jobs, when was trying to put the Lisa and later the Macintosh on the
market, was very much AGAIST the Apple II. His mate Steve "The Woz"
Wozniac was the one who designed and sustained model II. 
14 Jul
14 Jul
6:18 a.m.
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, e.tedeschi wrote:
I think you have got the story (dare I call it
history?) WRONG. Steve
Jobs, when was trying to put the Lisa and later the Macintosh on the
market, was very much AGAIST the Apple II. His mate Steve "The Woz"
Wozniac was the one who designed and sustained model II.
That conflicts with my memories. Remember, the Lisa didn't appear for
six years after the Apple II. Jobs is the one who talked Woz into
redesigning his homebrew system for production. Far from being against
the Apple II, that machine was what kept Jobs eating long enough to fail
with the Lisa and barely break even with the early Mac systems. (We
needn't discuss his more recent "successes" -- even though I thought the
NeXt cubes were pretty neat).
--
Ward Griffiths
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
15 Jul
15 Jul
12:15 a.m.
Ward Griffiths and/or Lisa Rogers wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, e.tedeschi wrote:
This is true but it doesn't stop the fact that he was very mcu AGAINST
continuing the Apple II production. He and his collegues even set up a
separate group sporting a black flag with all the usual death simbols to
testify that they regarded themselves as "pirates" against the
"approve"
estabilishment of the Apple family (read series II and later Lisa).
I think you have got the story (dare I call it
history?) WRONG. Steve
Jobs, when was trying to put the Lisa and later the Macintosh on the
market, was very much AGAIST the Apple II. His mate Steve "The Woz"
Wozniac was the one who designed and sustained model II.
That conflicts with my memories. Remember, the Lisa didn't appear for
six years after the Apple II. Jobs is the one who talked Woz into
redesigning his homebrew system for production. Far from being against
the Apple II, that machine was what kept Jobs eating long enough to fail
with the Lisa and barely break even with the early Mac systems. (We
needn't discuss his more recent "successes" -- even though I thought the
NeXt cubes were pretty neat).
"Success" is a VERY subjective word. He is
a successful man allright but
is he happy?
--
Ward Griffiths
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
--
================================================================
Enrico Tedeschi, 54, Easthill Drive, BRIGHTON BN41 2FD, U.K.
tel/fax +(0)1273 701650 (24 hours) or 0850 104725 mobile
website <http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~e.tedeschi>
================================================================
visit Brighton: <http://www.brighton.co.uk/tourist/welcome.htm>
8:44 p.m.
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, e.tedeschi wrote:
This is true but it doesn't stop the fact that he was very mcu AGAINST
continuing the Apple II production. He and his collegues even set up a
separate group sporting a black flag with all the usual death simbols to
testify that they regarded themselves as "pirates" against the
"approve"
estabilishment of the Apple family (read series II and later Lisa).
I think you're reading too much into this. Jobs wasn't against the II.
On the other hand, he WAS for the Mac. John Sculley killed the Apple ][.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
I think you have got the story (dare I call it
history?) WRONG. Steve
Jobs, when was trying to put the Lisa and later the Macintosh on the
market, was very much AGAIST the Apple II. His mate Steve "The Woz"
Wozniac was the one who designed and sustained model II.
That conflicts with my memories. Remember, the Lisa didn't appear for
six years after the Apple II. Jobs is the one who talked Woz into
redesigning his homebrew system for production. Far from being against
the Apple II, that machine was what kept Jobs eating long enough to fail
with the Lisa and barely break even with the early Mac systems. 
23 Jul
23 Jul
5:31 a.m.
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Sam Ismail wrote:
%
%I think you're reading too much into this. Jobs wasn't against the
II.
%On the other hand, he WAS for the Mac. John Sculley killed the Apple
][.
Zap me if you have to, but I have never been fond of Apple the company
nor its products.
The Apple II was great for the first few years. After that, it was
over priced and under powered. They stuck with a 1MHz processor when
other people did a 2MHz one (e.g. BBC Micro). Hell, even Ohio
Scientific had 2MHz 6502 boards in the 1970s! Lots of people also had
4MHz Z80-based computers (which are faster than a 1MHz 6502 but not a
2MHz 6502).
When people like Commodore had better sound and graphics systems, the
Apple II was 'upgraded' to IIe and IIc which did not add anything much
to the basic machine.
I was not surprised when the Mac 128K was over priced and under
powered too. That had been Apple's strategy for the II : get as much
profit as possible for lousy hardware.
If they had stuck with the basic promise of a computer for the common
man (the initial marketing line for the Mac), they would have had a
better long term success. The Ataris and Amigas were incredibly
successful in Europe because they were cheaper than the Apple IIs at
that time.
Interestingly enough, a very old issue of Byte magazine mentioned that
Apple was in serious trouble in 1985. I can't remember the exact
details. If anyone's interested, I can look it up (read the article a
week ago while going on a nostalgia trip).
That apple is still in trouble (12 years later) does not surprise me
at all.
Just blowing off steam. Sorry if it's off topic.
Ben
9966
days inactive
9979
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
bluesky6＠ix.netcom.com -
dastar＠crl.com -
e.tedeschi＠ndirect.co.uk -
enrico＠Brighton-UK.com -
gram＠cnct.com