Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23693 comp.sys.mac:50817 comp.sys.apple2:212
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!asd
From: asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Doug McClure)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <4429@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 90 08:32:22 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Mar17.053255.22944@agate.berkeley.edu>
Followup-To: comp.sys.apple
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 60
Cc:

In article <1990Mar17.053255.22944@agate.berkeley.edu> c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) writes:

>There's a program called II in a Mac that emulates a IIe (not IIGS) on any

An unenhanced IIe right?

>Mac. On a Mac II, it's faster than a stock IIe. The IIGS is far more 

Interesting, never heard it was anything but slow as shit, and major
buggy and that was a review of it when I read about it, seems like about
1-2 years after the Mac finally came out.  Course, with megadoses of
MHz, probably wouldn't run too bad.  And gosh, the IIe manages it on
just 1something MHz.  Totatlly forget copy protected stuff.  Totally
forget your add-on boards.

>680x0 in software as well. So if Apple had introduced a 68000-based IIGS,
>it could have bridged the gap much more easily. You don't even need hardware
>to emulate a IIe except for the slots.

Too bad, they didn't so it's a moot point.  I love arguements with these
"if Apple had intro'ed a 68000-IIgs".  How about IF Apple had pursued
the Apple II market, if they had supported development for the Apple II,
if they had pushed Mensch for better/faster cpu's, or done it
themselves, we'd have a great, incredible machine that wouldn't be being
beat-up by most every other machine on the market.  Or how about if the
AppleII hadn't paid for the Mac and hadn't totally fed it money to keep
development going, and had pumped it into AppleII development, all you
Mac "Kill the II by merging" folks wouldn't have much to spew about.
They didn't, so why even argue that.  Time to do something about the
present.

>>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our
>>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though
>>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening.

>That's what I've sincerely hope. Instead of seeing the Apple II and Mac as
>2 different lines of machines, we can at least try to think of them as the
>same machine for different purposes.

Yeah, right, I'm gonna go out and shell out the same amount of cash for
EVERYTHING I have with my IIgs (cpu, monitors, 4 drives, modem,
joystick, printer, boards) to get a Mac II?  Forget it.  I'll go buy a
NeXT or an Amiga where I'll be getting my money's worth.  The Amiga is
cheap for the power it has, and the NeXT at least has all the bundled
software for it's price.  The VERY least Apple would have to do is
emulate the IIgs ROM03 complete with hardware support for boards.  Be
mighty interesting seeing a Mac II with NuBus slots and Apple II slots,
and whatever odds and ends needed to run both software.  Boy, I really
wanna go out and pay for two machines!

Might be nice to have a board for Mac users who would like access to
AppleII but I sure don't see it as a replacement for the AppleII.  They
ARE two different lines, they've ALWAYS been two different lines, I
don't see it changing anytime soon, if even ever.  If anything, I vote
for merging the Mac into the AppleII vs. AppleII into Mac.  After all,
we (AppleII's) paid for them so in essence, they exist only because of
AppleII's.  Be funny seeing what Mac users thought about that!  I don't
even wanna know, cuz I could care less, it ain't gonna happen.

-k