Re: Have we forgotten this newsgroup is about the _Apple2_ ????

[schaf@meadow.muc.de (Soenke Behrens)]

> Philip McDunnough (phillip@utstat.toronto.edu) wrote:
> : In article <2ohle6$2ue@paris.ics.uci.edu> jlee@ics.uci.edu (Orion Pax)
> writes: : [ ]
> : >I don't see the point of this discussion.  We are Apple II here and
> : >proud.
> [ blap ]
> : The point is that a GS is not an AppleII. I simply said that the character
> : of the GS did and does not fit in with the AppleII, and it was hurt in the
> : past by association. That does not make the AppleII less useful. It
> : survived the GS...The GS never reached its potential because people kept
> : thinking of it as an AppleII.
> So what are the non-hardware characteristics of the IIGS that make it a
> world apart and different from a traditional Apple II?

As with any computer, hardware is mostly irrelevant (as long as its
adequate ... the GS's is no longer, but that's another issue altogether).
What makes all the difference is the OS and the programs that run on it.

OS-wise, a GS is a world ahead of an Apple //e or similar. It's like
comparing say NetBSD to DOS :) (Not to say that GS/OS is as neat
as NetBSD, but then ProDOS isn't quite as complete as DOS either (yuck
can't believe I just said that ;-)).

Anyway, I don't think the //e image is harming the GS. Heck, what "harm"
can be done to that machine now, anyway? Face it, it's old technology.
Still fun to use, but it's not as if a few million units sales were at
stake here. Use your GS as you see fit, and if you don't have the
dough to upgrade the hardware (HD, RAM, ZIP, BlueDisk) then for Pete's
sake use it as a glorified //e. Why not.

Yours
Soenke
--
Decompression sucksssss
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##