Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!pwcs!ems!srcsip!shankar From: shankar@src.honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple II Future Message-ID: <13242@srcsip.UUCP> Date: 11 Dec 88 01:19:58 GMT References: <1327@cod.NOSC.MIL> <9124@smoke.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: shankar@haarlem.UUCP (Son of Knuth) Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN Lines: 22 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, 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. Also, speed isn't an one-dimensional quantity. The GS could conceivably be made faster then the Mac for typical home and small business applications (graphical word processing, databases for example), but be much slower in scientific applications which are floating point intensive. This is just an example, other combinations exist off course. Not that I see Apple making the GS faster in any application.