Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pro-exchange.cts.com!rich
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (System Administrator)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: A low blow from Apple
Message-ID: <22547.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange>
Date: 23 Sep 90 20:55:19 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

In-Reply-To: message from macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca

>> Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making
>> a truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back
>> to fit the architecture for the older ]['s.
>> scottr@applesauce.bb.ny

> I think that about sums it all up.  I would gladly give of ][ compatibility
> in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place.

Those two statements seem to sum up the views of many of the folks who
read/post to this group, but I find them a bit confusing.

Apple *already* makes a machine which does all the things that have been
requested, and isn't compatible with the early Apple II software.  If what is
wanted is a computer meeting those requirements, why not buy the one they
already have in production?

Or is the problem simply that it isn't *called* an "Apple II--"... ???

Would everyone be happier if Apple just changed the name of the various
Macintosh models to "Apple IIM/n", where "n" is a model number?  It seems like
that would answer the *actual* complaints I read so frequently.  It would do
all the things people seem to want, and it would be named an "Apple II"!!

I *like* my GS...  I really do!!  But I like it because it's compatible with
all the older Apple software, even with the limitations.  If I need to do
things that exceed those limitations, I'll use a different computer, not sit
around griping that my Apple II doesn't do what a high-end Mac does!