SNES did indeed display more colours, but its slower CPU was still a hurdle devs had to get over, and eventually did.

Do your own research, it's common knowledge. 

It's common knowledge that the Genesis was faster than the SNES. It's not common knowledge that devs struggled. A quick look at comparison videos of early 4th gen games, and the fact that you're unwilling to provide sources are enough reasons for me to dismiss your bullshit.

supernes game clealry looked better even as a kid i could see big differnce, comparing it to wiiu makes no sense, cause most wiiu ports look the same and run worse, only trine 2 show a nice upgrade, and thats cause the game doesn't require cpu use.

If you google it, all you get is pages and pages of unsourced forum posts. I'm not spending hours wading through all that to find a tech article from 1993.

To see that devs struggled, all you have to do is look at the slowdown common to so many early SNES games, or just the fact that this slowdown is still talked about in the endless SNES vs Megadrive arguments online.

There were slowdowns in Sonic The Hedgehog games, for Pete's sake. ¬_¬

Ports of games have always looked closer to their original version on the SNES compared to the Genesis. There are very few exceptions to that. Batman and Robin for example. But you're saying devs struggled. They didn't.

Fast paced games with lots happening on screen suffered from more slowdown and flicker on SNES. In early games like Gradius III and Super R Type the framerate plummets when things get busy.

Of course, once devs figured out how to play to strengths of the system, they churned out games bursting with rich colours and Mode 7 effects that Megadrive could only dream of.

the genesis did have a few advatages over the super nes, but clealry the super was more powerful, ports always showed better garphics.  iti did googled it and all i found was super nes ports are better, i found very few games were genesis was the winner unless they were different games, with the same name.

Likewise, the PS3 and 360 have a few advantages over the Wii U, but clearly the Wii U is more powerful.

Also: http://retro-sanctuary.com/compaisons%20-%20James%20Pond%20II.html

Of the SNES version:

"Still plays well, but there's much more slowdown noticeable here, in fact some levels (such as those under water and those with a big emphasis on flying) are pretty much constantly plagued with fairly serious slowdown issues."

so you named 1 game as proof, as developers struggling and stiil even though the game had slow down it still looked much better then the genesis version, wiiu is not clearly more powerful as its not showing the results that clearly more powerful hardware shows, it doesn't matter what your excuse is, clearly more powerful hardware is suppose to let you play better versions of games, not inferior.

Super R Type, Gradius III, plenty of early SNES games had framerate slowdown. It is well known.

Results don't mean shit when the games aren't properly optimized; early PS3 games did not show its full power, early SNES games did not show its full power, and early Wii U games do not show its full power. You're deluding yourself if you think incompetently developed shovelware ports like Arkham Origins or Assassin's Creed are indicative of Wii U's true capabilities.