Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!stuckey
From: stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Apple says "Mac will emulate a II"
Message-ID: <15800119@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 May 90 21:24:00 GMT
References: <130246@<1990Apr25>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:<1990Apr25:130246:ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:15800119:000:1576
Nf-From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!stuckey    May  2 16:24:00 1990


/* Written 11:50 am  May  2, 1990 by jayg@wpi.wpi.edu in ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.apple2 */
In article <12754@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>of the 65816 if there was any advantage to that.  It's clear that the IIGS
>simply HAD to support these 8-bit Apple II features for compatibility
>purposes, but I would consider continued support for these features to be
>negotiable, depending on what the tradeoffs were.

As far as I see it, the GS line certainly has its merits.  It can do a number
of things that make it desireable, however it is severely crippled by a
processor that is much too slow.  A graphical interface that the GS strives 
for can't survive on such a slow clock rate.  If a faster processor came
around, as I know some are being developed, then the GS would become a more
worthwhile investment.  However, even with a faster processor, I don't see
my GS doing what the other personal computers that are available today do.
For example, any type of mathematic applications might as well be fed to the
dog...  unless a math coprocessor was integrated.  Add one of those and I'd

//////////
i don't see why Apple didn't come out with a faster processor, and there are
the accelerator boardsd available....

A math coprocessor is an option currently, and i do not beleive it
should be standard on a new GS.    

I would also consider ceertain 8-bit features expendable, in the interest
of a wondeful new machine, but i have seen no evidence that Apple intends
to produce even a less than wonderful new machine.

stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu