Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!cod!rupp From: rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple II Future Message-ID: <1328@cod.NOSC.MIL> Date: 12 Dec 88 19:04:18 GMT References: <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego Lines: 50 In article <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >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,.... No, it is right, right right because, in your very own words... >and I'm afraid it is an argument that >many Apple corporate decision makers would accept. See, that's the point. Neither you nor I make Apple Computer, Inc.'s policy. If the people who make decision in Cupertino are concerned about a possible conflict between a more powerful GS and the Mac, and that does not strike me as a paticularly bizarre hypothesis, then they will make their product plans accordingly. > >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 Well, I am sure Sculley and company do not want the IIGS to displace the Mac at *any* time. >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. Well, many factors go into the decision to buy brand X instead of brand Y. Software should be the most important, but price is also a very major consideration for most people as well. I think many people would go for a $1500.00 GS+ (or whatever) with its good graphics, color, and sound, instead of a Mac SE. In either case Apple would make a sale, but product development strategies at Apple surely must be based on the primacy of the Macintosh line, and for that reason I could understand a reluctance on the part of Apple to push two lines to the hilt, even if both machines are capable of significant upgrading. The long and the short of it is that if you want better performance AND a wide supply of up-to-date software, you are going to have to go with Mac at some point in the future if the computer you use is to have the Apple name on it. Of course, there is nothing to prevent you from using an Apple //e or IIGS till the year 2100, if that's what you want. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At least that's my opinion. And nothing more than my opinion, at that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------