Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: New Macs
Message-ID: <14308@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 2 Nov 90 00:10:31 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.020133.28119@utstat.uucp> <12932@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <90304.161217UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <90304.161217UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET> UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes:
>Statments like this have bothered me since this whole thing started.  Why would
>you want IIgs compatibility on a Mac II?  Everything the GS can do, the
>Mac II's can do better.  Every IIgs program I have has a Mac counterpart that
>is more mature and bug-free.

That's not universally true.  For example, in my book Xenocide is itself a
valid reason for owning an Apple IIGS.  You won't find a Mac version of it.
(There are other counterexamples, but one should suffice.)