>>12153949
>Scrapping that 65816 CPU
CPU was downrated because they were the first customer and would buy them at "faster than 6802" assuming full compatibility, and wanted to get to market ASAP. 65816 was going to 8MHz in many examples and 16MHz in some select bins, but Steve had gotted into a plane crash and was in hospital with amnesia and the other Steve was busy making Mac the future of Apple in his absence. It was purely because of internal sabotage that the IIgs didn't ship with at least an 8MHz 65816.

I know you're mostly joking but the 816 was a beast for the time.

>>12153972
Yes. There was even a 32-bit IIgs that was in development with full backwards compatibility with the 65816 and 6502, the "Mark Twain." It would have run a unified Toolbox which would allow Mac developers to port their software to this platform with a simple recompile. It advanced to the working prototype pre-production stage before being canceled by the Pepsi guy.