🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1754@drutx.UUCP> dvac@drutx.UUCP (VachonD) writes:
>The //x was initially being worked on about 2 months behind schedule of the
>Apple //c...(In other words, was to be released 2 months after //c)...at any
>rate, it got tabled when the //c didn't do as good as they had expected, Woz
>left, Jobs screwed up the company, etc.....Then they got Woz back and hence,
>the IIgs was brought around....The IIgs is the finished version of the Apple
>//x.  The //x just made planning stages, and was getting ready to be put into
>production when it got tabled.  I'm glad Apple finally came out with a computer
>that looks to be promising....Sure they have had some great computers...
>(Apple II/II+/IIe, The Mac, now the IIgs), but they have had a couple of flops
>at crucial times in the computer industry (i.e. IIc / Lisa / IIx <never made
>it>)...
>

The IIGS just isn't the //x.  Among other problems, apple wanted the
//x to be based on the 65816, which simply wasn't available several
years ago.  Furthermore, the //x and IIGS were dramatically
different computers.  The //x emphasized expandability and openness,
while the IIGS boasts improved graphics, excellent sound, and
Mac-like ROMs.

Plus, would any company shelve a product less then two months from
announcement for poor sales of a complementary machine?  After years
of work?  In any case, "the planning stages" do not immediately
precede "production" in any large corporation.

Apple has made some dramatic errors, but there are hundreds of
people, at least, who will testify to the greatness of the ///, the
//c, the Lisa, and with good reasons.  The quality of the computer
isn't determined by how it does in the market, but by...
okay, that's too subjective.  You get the point.


Grobbins, making good use of the hour Congress has given us.