Re: The Amstrad is the worst 8 Bit system

[steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)]

Wayne Stewart <waynes@telus.dotnet> wrote in message news:<QeEcb.23516$H86.336911@news1.telusplanet.net>...
> Jeff Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Before hitting the send button, remove all the links to inappropriate
> > newsgroups.
> > 
> > I gotta say, Commodore Amiga and Atari ST are 16-Bit computers, that are
> > different to older 8-Bits. Comparing the two, the Amiga is always superior - I
> > am not being biased here, the technical specifications of both computers
> > reveals the same thing.
> > 
> > Apple IIGS is also, 16-Bit. It pains me to say it, but the computer was
> > crippled at birth by the slow processor. If it was faster, say on par with
> > Amiga, and coupled with a few specialised processors, it might have been able
> > to compete better. Somehow Apple feared that the computer might be better than
> > Macintosh which had no colour at the time.
> 
> I can understand some of Apples decisions but others ????
> I can undestand keeping the speed down when the IIgs came out. But when
> they made the ROM 3 why didn't the crank it up a couple of mhz?
> A bigger question, why build a IIc+ at all when it would have been much
> easier to put a slotless IIgs in that case? There would have been almost
> no development costs and no payments to Zip.
> 
> Wayne

Yes, I do agree... The mainline Apple group was the Mac group, and
they actively killed off the Apple ][ group in the later days.  That's
why you didn't see a 14 MHz IIgs, and no portable (the // team did in
fact want to make a IIgs in a //c case, but they were rebuffed).

-uso.