Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23686 comp.sys.mac:50807 comp.sys.apple2:208
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!e260-1g!c60a-3hu
From: c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar17.053255.22944@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:32:55 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: c60a-3hu@e260-1g (Calvin Cheng)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 37

In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes:
>>
>>  I don't understand why AppleII users can't accept the Mac.  If Apple
>>had not bothered with the GS but built a Mac that can run the 8bit
>>AppleII softwares, then the "GS" that you are praising for would be
>>the Mac.  Why can't you think of the Mac softwares as GS specific
>>softwares -- since they can't run on a IIe anyway?  Why can't you
>>think of the Mac as the "GS" -- since both are "new" architecture?
>>
>But Apple didn't do this, and we would have to abandon all our Apple II
>software if we ran on a Mac.  The idea that GS-specific software is
>like Mac software may, in some trivial way, hold some bit of merit, but
>until you can run Apple II software on the Mac, the Mac and the GS aren't
>both just "new" architectures.  The GS is a "new" architecture with backwards
>compatibility, while the Mac is as different from the Apple II as far as
>software compatibility goes as a 386 machine.  To say the Mac should be
>thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run
>any of the current Mac software.  How willing would you be to making the
>switch?
>
There's a program called II in a Mac that emulates a IIe (not IIGS) on any
Mac. On a Mac II, it's faster than a stock IIe. The IIGS is far more 
difficult to emulate because of the Toolbox which is wholly controlled by
Apple. And as far as software emulation is concerned, the Mac can emulate
a PC AT with EGA in software too. Future 88000-based Macs will emulate the
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.
>
>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.