Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Living in the Past Message-ID: <8806251837.aa13330@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 25 Jun 88 22:05:42 GMT References:Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 51 >My point is, I APPLAUD developers who require that their software be run on >up-to-date hardware. I got my //e in August '83, and at the time, every >program available ran on the ][+, meaning they took advantage of no features >of my machine, such as double hires, lowercase characters, and up-down arrow >keys. It took years until any useful program required a 128k enhanced //e or >newer machine, which is the way it should be, since, after all, it is mid And some people wonder why there is so little profit in developing computer software. If developers consistently REQUIRES software to run on the lastest hardware, the number of customers for their products will be serverely limited. Developers who don't want to starve will REQUIRE as little as necessary for the program to be functional while providing additional functionality for owners of more capable equipment. I've owned a //e since April of '83 (even then there was SOME software that used the extended memory and the arrow keys). I still use two 1983 programs that have "//e keyboard" and "Apple 80 column card" drivers. AppleWriter //e and AppleWorks function on 64K //e's while accessing the extended memory if it's there. Why should Kermit-65 require "up-to-date hardware?" It supports the IIgs keypad if you've got one, but 48K of memory is sufficient for it to be functional. Would you believe I know ][+ owners who are still happily word processing and communicating? Why should they give up their next vacation to buy a IIgs when they're satisfied with the functionality of what they have? Why shouldn't it be possible to upgrade software for them too, when it's feasible? I appreciate Don Elton's and Dave Whitney's position on the marginal value versus the marginal cost of supporting older hardware, and some software (Publish IT! for example) that technically supports 128K //e and //c hardware really isn't practical on older hardware. Sure developers should concentrate on the opportunities that hardware advances provide, but "installed base" is where the money is (which is the prime reason why there isn't more professional software for the Amiga which really IS a lot of bang for the buck -- some hold that were it not for all those ][+'s, //e's, and //c's out there, that developers would be writing for the Amiga and the IIgs would languish). --------------------- Disclaimer: --- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} Univ. of Connecticut !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper