Re: Of course we can trust Apple for our next

["Edwin E. Thorne" <ethorne@chicagonet.net>]

On Sun, Apr 5, 1998 12:50 AM, Supertimer <mailto:supertimer@aol.com> wrote:
>"Edwin E. Thorne" <ethorne@chicagonet.net> wrote:
>
>>No, I'm not kidding.  The C64 had all the hardware features of the Apple
II
>>and a GUI called GEOS too.
>
>Not all.  The Apple IIe had 80 columns and 128k standard as well
>as much faster floppy drives.  It was expandable to 1MB and beyond.

The C64 had a 512K RAM expansion, and I believe that it could be expanded
to 80 columns, but you're right, it doesn't match the Apple II.  Oh, well. 
That's what I get for believing sales bruchures.  ;-)

>I think the Apple IIe/IIc was more similar to the Commodore 128.

snip.

>What the Apple IIe lacked was a sound chip and sprites.  It was
>a much inferior a graphics and sound machine to the C64...but
>the Apple II leaped into the Amiga class with the GS.
>
>I looked up the C65...a very impressive computer.  

snip.

The more I learn about the GS, the more I understand why Apple IIGS
customers are angry at Apple for discontinuing it.  The Amiga can't touch
the sound abilities of the GS as a stock machine.  It might have sound
cards that would bring it up to the GS's abilities, but those are certainly
awesome built-in capabilities in the GS.
>
>This would be how I would classify the analogy:
>
>C64 = Apple II+ (enhanced with a Phasor 12-voice FM sound card)
>Apple IIe/IIc = Commodore 128
>Apple IIGS = Amiga
>

Thanks for the information.  I accept your analogies.  It's been a lot of
years, and I never did have a complete picture to began with.  

Best regards,
Edwin
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System