Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!tramp!hassell
From: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: apple II enhancements
Message-ID: <6477@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 9 Feb 89 04:13:25 GMT
References: <890208220053.845007@DOCKMASTER.ARPA>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Organization: (Let's see, I'm positive <clang> .. I've <rustle> got ... )
Lines: 26

In article <890208220053.845007@DOCKMASTER.ARPA> TMPLee@DOCKMASTER.ARPA writes:
# As long as people are druthering, it would seem to me that the natural
# way to enhance the performance of the GS rather than attempting to
# accelerate the whole thing would be to selectively put various parts of
# the Toolbox into hardware.  I thought, in fact, that that was the whole
# idea of defining that level and kind of interface.  One can even see the
# opportunities for selectivity -- you could buy hardware to accelerate
# only those parts you use (recognizing that if you use higher-level
# routines you'd have to accelerate the lower ones as well.)

NO NO NO NO, gosh that'd be almost as simple as putting in a new processor
to handle background tasks (like those) (and it would be :-).

Wellll, I assume that "Keith" as everyone knows him (from Apple.COM)
ain't going to talk about the reasons against putting in a powerful and
flexible background processor.  SOOO in another burst of net-logic......

We can only assume they ARE going to use it for the *next* //GS+????????
(or maybe the Mac //+ :-( :-).  POWER!!!!!   THERE'S an Apple I would LIKE!
This might be a serious possibility folks... let's get some juicy rediculous
rumors started out there!!!!!

(Well heck, if he's going to, THAT oughta make 'im talk!)

Another WILD extrapolation and unfounded assertion (of course) FROM...
### C>H> ###