Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!dptcdc!dpmizar!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple II Future Message-ID: <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 9 Dec 88 23:02:13 GMT References: <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 13 In article <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I'm afraid it is an argument that many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. If every Apple IIGS magically started operating at 100 MIPS, it still would not displace the Macintosh for at least a few years. (And of course there won't be such a fast 65xxx-based machine any time in the foreseeable future.) The speedy IIGS would not run any of the Mac software, which is what sells Macs. It would take a long time to bring that level of sophistication into the Apple IIGS world.