From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga No OS?
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:03:44 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <BuCHCp.IyE@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.152754.23866@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>>In article <Bu32Lo.1qq@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>>In article <torrie.714898303@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:
>>>>DonD@cup.portal.com (Don Robert DeCosta) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>You know, if you had spent money on an IBM or Mac in 1986 instead of an Amiga
>>>>>you couldn't even buy a stupid shoot em up game for your computer.
>>>>
>>>>>	"1 meg Required"                  (Can't cram a Meg into that 1986
>>>>>					   Fat Mac)
>>>>
>>>>  The Mac Plus was released in January 1986, and has no problems holding
>>>>4MB of memory.
>>>
>>>But he didn't say "MacPlus".  The poster correctly said "Fat Mac".
>>>There was no way to ghhet more than 512K out of those things.
>>>
>>>It was a frustrating time for Mac owners.  Those exasperated by their
>>>128K abortions bought the Fat Mac upgrade.  Then Apple brought out
>>>the Mac Plus (no upgrade from either of the 2 earlier machines) so
>>>everyone clamored to buy the latest & greatest (and we remember what
>>>those cutesy little things cost, eh?).
>>
>>Funny, I worked at an Apple dealer and we performed several upgrades
>>from the earliest Macs to the Mac Plus level.  There were a few 
>>different levels of upgrade, including the Plus motherboard, the 800k
>>drives, keyboard, etc.  It wasn't cheap, but it was available
>
>Ah, yes.  You jogged the memory.  You could upgrade a fat mac to a plus
>for damn near the cost of a plus.  But it wansn't a "real" plus was it...
>didn't it have different connectors & other subtle differences.  But
>to get back to the point, afterwards you COULD put up to 4 Meg on it.

You're certainly correct about the price.  I still have a few price lists
from 1988 and could find out for certain, but I hate the thought of 
hooking up Amax and dealing with the damn Mac OS.  :-)  There were people
who paid something like $2500 for an original Mac and then later spent
nearly that much for a Plus upgrade.  The only similar shafting that I
can think of are the A3000 owners like myself who were assured that there
would be 040 boards available for less than $1000.  C='s latest A3000T/040
ads show just how wrong the folks at C= were.

>>>THEN... out came the SE and the MacII, and again, no way to upgrade
>>>the Mac Plus to either.  Talk about abandoning their customers!
>>>And the SE was such a lame improvement over the MacPlus!  Still,
>>>many plunked down ANOTHER couple thou...
>>
>>The Plus was still sold for quite some time after the introduction of
>>the SE.  I'd bet that you'd have an easier time getting a Plus serviced 
>>than you would an A1000.  As for the SE being a lame improvement over
>>the Mac Plus, believe me that many A1000 owners felt the same way about
>>the A500 and A2000...
>
>Naw.  It was widely acknowledged that the 500 gave a much smaller
>footprint, while still providing about the same level of expandability.
>Also, the 500 was alot cheaper than the 1000.  (The SE cost more...
>and for WHAT?)

Well, The A500 had a smaller footprint if you had a monitor stand and
didn't try to add anything to it.  An A500 + A590 + A1084s with all the
cables hanging out the back is a real desk hog.  It was certainly cheaper,
but a model with a seperate keyboard for a $100 more would have made for
an appealing "upscale" model.

>The 2000, conversely, gave a much larger footprint, the benefit being
>many slots for expansion ('course, the SE had the same toy case as the
>plus, but painted WHITE...expensive paint?).

The SE did allow for an internal HD, had the Apple Desktop Bus, and used
some sort of hack to make the video faster.  It was an improvement, but
it was more like the A600 to the A500 than anything else.

>The 500 offered significant movement from the 1000... in both
>directions.  The SE offered...  <silence>

The SE however could be upgraded to an SE/30, a damn fine machine and
in many ways much better than the bastard LC & LC II with 16 bit bus.

>>>>Evan.  (who now has to bow down to Redmond's direction every morning
>>>>because Bill is paying for my office).
>>>
>>>Then tell him to f**k off.
>>
>>Who pissed in your cornflakes?  I'm no fan of Microsoft due to the fact 
>>that I have to live use their program launcher for software development,
>>but I wish old Bill's company supported the Amiga.
>
>They DID!  Remember AmigaBasic?  (forget AmigaBasic?)

I actually had lots of fun with AmigaBASIC.  Compared to the Apple ][ junk
that I started on, the Amiga with AmigaBASIC was a wonderful experience.
With a little more support from C= and/or Microsoft, it might have matured
into a fine little language.

>>>>Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
>>>
>>>Exactly.  Put the Mac in the BIG "Trashcan"... the one outside in the alley.
>>
>>If the news from the WOC is not world-shaking, many will be saying the
>>same thing about the Amiga.
>
>Many men tried, many men died...
>
>We'll see, eh?

I've tried to keep from getting my hopes up, but I can't seem to help it
even after all the letdowns over the last few years.

Skip Sauls
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy