Re: What apple ][ is the best?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) writes...

>Louis Schulman <louiss@gate.net> wrote:
>
>> In <21JAN199809503433@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell
>> Spector) writes:
>> >In article "mflynch" <mflynch@msn.com> writes...
>> >
>> >>What is the best kind of Apple II? (//, //+,//c, ect...)
>> >>E-mail me at prodos3@geocities.com
>> >>
>> >>Tell me what you think
>> >
>> >    Simple. Without a doubt, the Apple IIGS.
>>
>> ..
>>
>> Well, there is some doubt.  From the point of view of capabilities, you of
>> course are right, since the GS has the most features, 16-bit CPU, etc.
>> But of course it is also the most recent.
>
>Not quite.  The Platinum version of the IIe came after the IIgs, as did
>the IIc+ (which is arguably the fastest Apple II out of the box, but not
>necessarily in all situations).

    If you examine things by order in which they were released, that
is true, but the Apple IIgs is still the most recent in terms of how
far ahead it was in a technological sense. Apple _advanced forward_
with the IIgs, only to change direction and return _backwards_ when
they re-released the Apple IIe and introduced the Apple IIc Plus.

    The Apple IIe should have been phased out in 1986, the Apple IIgs
was a logical replacement since it could use, more or less, all the
same hardware and software. Of course the IIc Plus should have been
a new IIgs model -- Apple showed they had no logical or common sense
of direction. It would be like inventing the integrated circuit, then
suddenly abandoning it and returning to the vaccum tube. It makes no
sense, but then Apple Computer has rarely made sense. ;-)

    Incidentally, if you argue the Platinum IIe counts as a newer
version of the Apple II, then the Apple IIgs was in fact the last
model of the Apple II line. There was the ROM 3 introduced in 1989
and nothing ever followed it. :-)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca