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