Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: compete?
Message-ID: <14772@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 7 Jan 91 22:53:59 GMT
References: <304@generic.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 40

In article <304@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes:
>What would it take to make the GS competitive? Standard clone fare these days
>is 12-16MHz, 1-2Meg memory, 640x480 16 colour VGA (usually the 320x200 mode is
>used for games though), 40 Meg HD. Most CPUs are 16 or 32/16 bit processors.

Having spent the last few weeks using an IBM PC clone, I'm now in a position
to compare the IIGS with it:

IBM PC clone specs:  33MHz, 80386, AST VGA Wonder with NEC 3D multisync color
monitor, IDE hard disk as well as one each of the two sizes of high-density
floppy drives, 8MB RAM, MS-DOS 3.3 plus Windows 3.0, Sound Blaster, 3-button
serial mouse, HP LaserJest IIP laser printer on parallel port.

My IIGS specs: 6.25MHz, 65816, RGB color monitor, SCSI hard disk as well as
two each of the two sizes of low-density floppy drives, 8MB RAM, System Disk
5.0.3 plus ORCA, SuperSonic, one-button mouse, Imagewriter II.

The IBM PC was more expensive than the IIGS, although peripherals for it are
generally less expensive, so for a "fully equipped" home installation the
overall prices are comparable.

The PC was noticeably faster, no surprise there, and had significantly better
screen resolution, but in almost every other way the two systems were
comparable.  The PC OSes were kludgier, although Windows was implemented
rather well considering that it still had to support MS-DOS.  The one
dramatic difference between the systems was that I could find scarcely ANY
IIGS software in Houston-area stores, while there was a surfeit of IBM PC
software available.

From this experience I would say that the main things the IIGS would need
to be even semi-competitive in the HOME COMPUTING market are:

1.  Vendor support, to the extent that the commercial software industry
would eventually come on board.

2.  At least 640x400 resolution, preferably with more bits per pixel.

3.  Perhaps, somewhat more processor speed.  (Certainly at least 6.25MHz.)

I think Apple has utterly blown point #1 and probably can't recover.