Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>In article <326FB037.4287@eccosys.com>, David Moles  <deivu@eccosys.com> wrote:
>>I heard once that the IIGS was deliberately speed-crippled
>>to avoid competing with the Mac. Does anyone know if there's
>>any truth to that rumor?
>
>I think that's right.  The IIgs was running at 3.5MHz, while the Amiga,
>Mac, and other comparable machines were doing a good 8MHz.  You could get
>third-party accelerators that would push the IIgs to 8MHz and beyond.

The GS runs at 2.8MHz.  That's not as bad as it seems.  The chip is
clocked differently and benchmarks have shown that it is actually
comparable to a 6MHz PC/AT ('286) in speed.  You cannot compare MHz
between processors.

That makes sense.  The GS runs a GUI.  Can you imagine Windows running
on a 2.8MHz PC?  Impossible.

Still, PC/AT speed was slower than it could have been.  Apple probably
did cripple it intentionally.

>
>The IIgs had a mousey desktop, color, and legacy software.  I suppose
>Apple had to do something if they wanted Mac to catch on.

My thoughts exactly.  The GS had everything that the Mac Plus had and
resembled the cool Amiga across the street in some areas.  It had
everything going for it, so Apple had to cripple the speed to prevent
it from completely eclipsing the Mac Plus.