PDA

View Full Version : November 26, 1993: Apple II Finally Discontinued


MacBytes
Nov 26, 2006, 05:15 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: History
Link: November 26, 1993: Apple II Finally Discontinued (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061126181531)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

ero87
Nov 26, 2006, 06:00 PM
oh man, we've come a long way...

Spock
Nov 27, 2006, 09:55 AM
oh man, we've come a long way...

That we have, but You must consider schools. I think schools are what kept the Apple II around so long my brothers school had a bunch of them still being used back in 1999 and they were used daily! The Apple IIgs was still a capable machine even after the Macintosh was released. The IIgs even had ADB A standard until the The first PowerMac G4

mkrishnan
Nov 27, 2006, 10:02 AM
Wow, 1993. We finally dumped our Amiga in favor of a 486DX/33 running Windows 3.1 earlier that year. Thinking about using an Apple II at that time would be just scary!

But it was a real watershed computer in the industry....

mainstreetmark
Nov 27, 2006, 12:05 PM
Wow, 1993. We finally dumped our Amiga in favor of a 486DX/33 running Windows 3.1 earlier that year. Thinking about using an Apple II at that time would be just scary!

But it was a real watershed computer in the industry....

I think the Apple ][ ended long before that. This article is probably about the Apple ][ line, so specifically Apple IIgs, which my Windows 3.1 friend was totally envous of back in that time. I had the obligatory picture of the Taj Mahal in 65,768 colors. He had it in 16.

0010101
Nov 27, 2006, 12:55 PM
That's about the time Apple screwed the pooch.

The Apple II was a highly sucessful line of computers, and the IIgs had the potential to really give home computers a serious run for their money.

What eventually killed the Amiga, AtariST, IIgs, and yes, even the Macintosh was the price point.

They were just too damned expensive for most home users.

The Mac found a solid footing in desktop publishing, which is the single thread that kept it from going belly up years ago.

Pound for pound, the Amiga 1000 and the IIgs was a far more impressive machine than the original Mac.

mkrishnan
Nov 27, 2006, 03:07 PM
I think the Apple ][ ended long before that. This article is probably about the Apple ][ line, so specifically Apple IIgs, which my Windows 3.1 friend was totally envous of back in that time. I had the obligatory picture of the Taj Mahal in 65,768 colors. He had it in 16.

True, true... but this was late in the 3.1 days... and my Amiga trounced a IIgs, let alone my 486 (which had 24 bit color).

SkyBell
Nov 27, 2006, 06:25 PM
That's about the time Apple screwed the pooch.

The Apple II was a highly sucessful line of computers, and the IIgs had the potential to really give home computers a serious run for their money.

What eventually killed the Amiga, AtariST, IIgs, and yes, even the Macintosh was the price point.

They were just too damned expensive for most home users.

The Mac found a solid footing in desktop publishing, which is the single thread that kept it from going belly up years ago.

Pound for pound, the Amiga 1000 and the IIgs was a far more impressive machine than the original Mac.

... Could you rephrase that? :confused:

mainstreetmark
Nov 27, 2006, 09:12 PM
... Could you rephrase that? :confused:

His argument was that the IIgs had lots of really interesting bells+whistles. Tons of colors, with amazing Paint applications like, um, whatshamwhosit. 32 distinct voices with even more amazing sound, with programs like Soundsmith. Nothing in 1986 could even come close to the IIgs (or the Amiga). Here comes the mac with two colors (black and un-black) and pretty average sound, yet was also probably too expensive for the average home user.

And while the IIgs had all kinds of interesting things, it was also a time when interesting things were expensive. The Mac, while not cheap, managed to be the perfect tool for the well-funded desktop publishing industry, anxious to move away from typewriters and other Gutenberg devices. That money allowed Apple to further develop, and therefore further cheapen, the Mac to the point where you could buy it for home without trading in a car.

And viola! The Home Computer evolved.

(I was anti-Mac until like 1993 or 1994, i think, but Apple ran out of Apples, so what's a fella to do! A used Mac IIc or something. I can't imagine where I found it. My brain doesn't seem to have a time before eBay anymore)

shamino
Nov 28, 2006, 03:43 PM
I agree with the others.

The Apple II line had a lot of life left in it when it was axed. The IIgs was a powerful system with better graphics and sound than its competition - including the contemporary Macs.

A small-size GS (in the //c's case) would've been a tremendous seller.

According to everything I've read, Jobs convinced Apple to kill the II series because it was cutting into Mac sales. In other words, he killed the profitable system in order to promote the new model that nobody was buying. (And lest anyone forget, the Mac-128 was practically useless, and the Mac-512 was incredibly expensive. For most users, a IIgs was a far more economical option.)

Although some ex-Apple people have publicly disagreed with me, I still think that Apple would've been better off putting their software know-how (developed by the Mac and Lisa teams) into a next-generation Apple II. They had already gotten 16-bit chips (the 65816 used by the GS), and 32-bit versions were on the horizon. The graphics resolution could easily been enhanced. More memory (at least in 16-bit mode) wasn't a problem. And ProDOS-16 (later named GS-OS) was already offering a lot of what MacOS was offering at the time.

Ultimately, the platform would probably have transitioned to PPC, Intel and Mac OS X (under some other name, of course) anyway, and support for legacy DOS 3.3 and ProDOS-8 apps would've been shunted into emulators (the way it is today) but it would've all been done without angering the II's huge established user-base, and without having to restart their market share from scratch.