Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!lm03_ltd From: lm03_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Larry Moss) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple II Future Message-ID: <469@ur-cc.UUCP> Date: 10 Dec 88 06:33:58 GMT References: <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: lm03_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Larry Moss) Organization: University of Rochester Lines: 25 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. Personally, I'd like to see this happen. The thing I like most about the Mac is its ability to get the computer phobic type of person to actually sit in front of a computer. The Mac happens to be a very powerful machine. It was just not designed with the hacker in mind (like the original Apple). The Mac has introduced a number of new things to the personal computer market. (Most notably the graphical user interface.) I use both Macs and Apple IIs these days. I like playing with my II+, which will let me do anything I want with it. But there are definately times when I feel that it just doesn't have the power that I would like. Why should Apple be concerned about creating competition for the Mac? I think the mistake came when they created competition for the II line. There has been a whole lot of talk about Apple bringing the II up to the level of the Mac so they could dump off the old machine that's just hanging around. I think people are just looking at it the wrong way. If an Apple II can become as powerful as a Mac, than obviously it's the Mac that isn't needed. Let's bring the power of the Mac to the Apple II. Wasn't it Woz that said the Apple II was all anybody needed. With a graphical user interface anybody can use it, and it can remain a hacker's dream.