Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford)]

In article <nevin-ya023180002810961239520001@192.12.69.9>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <28OCT199612481191@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
>(Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>
>>     I wanted an enhanced Apple IIgs, not a Macintosh. The two are not the
>> same, even though they may externally look and (to some extent) even feel
>> and act the same.
>
>There is no doubt that Apple could have made the technological decision to
>go with improving the IIgs.  The question, which most advocates tend to
>ignore, is:  are there sound *business* reasons for doing so?

I submit that an up to date Mac which can run Apple II software is in essence
an enhanced IIgs.
-- 
Randy Shackelford                                 
shack@frii.com