Path: utzoo!utdoe!generic!pnet91!ericmcg
From: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: New Computer?
Message-ID: <239@generic.UUCP>
Date: 1 Dec 90 02:30:06 GMT
Sender: root@generic.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet91], Etobicoke, ON
Lines: 30

There is no particular problem with either the 6502 or the 65816. Sure it
would be nice to have more general purpose registers (my personal favorite is
the 88000), but so what? It is not the processor that is important, it is the
system. The GS as a system is the best on the market for home use. It was
years ahead in 1986, although only really practical in 1989 with system 5.0. 

What do MIPS really mean anyhow? Will Mathematica on a 20 MIPS machine really
balance your checkbook any better than Appleworks on a .35 MIPS machine? If
your new machine requires a hardware emulator for II compatibility and that is
all that it is used for, then why bother with a different processor at all? IF
you use a software emulator then how well will a 20 MIPS processor emulate a
.35MIPS processor? DO you really gain anything for the extra cost?

Remeber that the new system will have zero software available initially and
will only run II software. How many 'named' companies are going to support yet
another system? 

If you want a non-apple II that emulates an Apple II then get the Mac LC or a
DOS Box and the Trackstar board or a UNIX Box with the IIe emulator. Why even
bother redesigning the same wheel that others have already built, assuming you
want this kind of wheel.

I like the GS as is. It should have more motherboard speed, better graphics
modes, and just a little support, but otherwise the design is perfectly valid
for what I want in a computer. Dammit, there is nothing wrong with the GS
today that will not be automatically be wrong with whatever system gets
designed as a replacement by the time it is in production.

UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg
INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com