Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>> I can plug in a card on the IIGS without worrying about
>> IRQs or DMA channels.  I can plug in a drive without worrying about PIO
>> modes or master/slave conflicts.  The IIGS is remarkably simple from the
>> users' point of view.
>
>     Yes; the GS has lots of nice features. On the other hand, it will not be
>much good as an internet machine or for advanced graphics applications until
>there is a major hardware upgrade.

Of course, but I thought we were talking about 1986.  The IIGS was
elegantly simple from the users' point of view compared to an IBM XT
or IBM AT in 1986.  It was also more elegant than the Mac Plus, also
from that era.  The XT, the AT, and the Plus are also not much good
as internet or graphics application units.  Yes, if the IIGS was upgraded
as the XT and AT were upgraded to the Pentium (or compatible) units
and the Plus was upgraded to the PowerMac, then things would be
much better for IIGS users TODAY.  But we all know who is to blame
for the IIGS not being upgraded in such a way: Apple Computers Inc.,
with Steve Jobs planting the anti-Apple II seeds long ago.

Remember, this was the guy who at the release of the Apple III and the
Lisa proclaimed the Apple II as "the boring side of Apple" and even
though the IIe was easily at match for the III, purposefully forced the
design of the IIe to boot into 40 column mode so as to make the III
look better.