gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (02/02/90)
MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same 8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs (compared to the SE). The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. Apple should use an 8Mhz 68030. I am astounded that they are still trying to dump 8Mhz 68000's on consumers -- the chip is more than a decade old. A japanese businessman would hang his head in shame. It has been almost 3 years and there has been no improvement in macintosh price/performance. I think the low-cost machine will go the way of the edsel, if there is no dramatic price/performance change.
nebel@wam.umd.edu (Chris D. Nebel) (02/02/90)
In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same >8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs >(compared to the SE). Also the same processor as the Plus and SE, which people still use... >The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. Apple should use an 8Mhz >68030. I am astounded that they are still trying to dump 8Mhz 68000's >on consumers -- the chip is more than a decade old. A japanese >businessman would hang his head in shame. First, there's no such thing as an 8MHz 68030. The slowest Motorola makes them is 16MHz. Second, while it would be real nice to have an '030 machine for <$1000, Apple couldn't produce such a thing without instantly killing the Plus, SE, SE/30, and really, most of the rest of their product line. The IIci is the only machine they have that runs faster than 16MHz. The 68000 isn't nearly as obsolete as you seem to think, and it's much cheaper than the '030 (by about a factor of ten, last I heard). > >It has been almost 3 years and there has been no improvement in >macintosh price/performance. I think the low-cost machine will go >the way of the edsel, if there is no dramatic price/performance change. I think not. If they came out with a machine that gave the same functionality as a Plus or SE, but listed for under $1000, then that's an instant price/performance change of about 2x. While it does bother me that the low-cost machine is almost guaranteed not to have a real memory manager, thus cutting it off from several highly nifty OS features (virtual memory and process protection, to be specific), it would be far from "obsolete on arrival". Chris Nebel nebel@cscwam.umd.edu
rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) (02/02/90)
In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same >8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs >(compared to the SE). > >The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. Apple should use an 8Mhz >68030. I am astounded that they are still trying to dump 8Mhz 68000's >on consumers -- the chip is more than a decade old. A japanese >businessman would hang his head in shame. > >It has been almost 3 years and there has been no improvement in >macintosh price/performance. I think the low-cost machine will go >the way of the edsel, if there is no dramatic price/performance change. This appears to be another one of those poorly thought out complaints along the lines of "I want a 30MHz 68040 and 4 mbytes of RAM with color for $1000". You get what you pay for! The 68030 runs about $200. A 68000 can be had for about $8. The cost of faster components and a 32-bit bus make it utterly unreasonable to expect Apple to sell such a system for under $1000. There are two parts to price/performance. If the performance stays the same but the price drops significantly, then that makes for a dramatic price/performance gain. As for the 68000 being outdated, nonsense! Video game machines and word processors are still being developed with 8-bit 6502's and Z80's. The fact that the 68000 has been around a while is irrelevent; it still gets the job done. Most programs run just as well on a 68000 as on a 68030 (maybe better considering some of the problems people have been having with the IIci :-) ). Some people are so hard to please. Ray Fischer rcfische@polyslo.calpoly.edu
goldader@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jeff Goldader) (02/02/90)
In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > >In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same >>8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs >>(compared to the SE). >> >>The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. >> >This appears to be another one of those poorly thought out complaints >along the lines of "I want a 30MHz 68040 and 4 mbytes of RAM with color >for $1000". You get what you pay for! Agreed; but why, oh why, are they using the old 68000? Why not the CMOS 68000 developed for the portable, which runs much faster? I'm not an EE, but I figure (probably wrongly) that they could use much of the same basic circuitry, etc. I was hoping for something with the capabilities of the Portable. Being a perenially broke student, I was going to buy one of the new cheapo-macs because I could afford one. If the performance is only that of the Mac+.... But I'll wait and see what materializes from the world of vapor. Jeff Goldader University of Hawaii goldader@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Institute for Astronomy "It was the Biker of the Apocalypse..." Disclaimer: They don't support what I say, I don't care what they think, and we're happy that way.
hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) (02/03/90)
In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > >In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>... >>The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. Apple should use an 8Mhz >>68030. I am astounded that they are still trying to dump 8Mhz 68000's >>on consumers -- the chip is more than a decade old. A japanese >>businessman would hang his head in shame. >> >This appears to be another one of those poorly thought out complaints >along the lines of "I want a 30MHz 68040 and 4 mbytes of RAM with color >for $1000". You get what you pay for! > >The 68030 runs about $200. A 68000 can be had for about $8. >The cost of faster components and a 32-bit bus make it utterly >unreasonable to expect Apple to sell such a system for under $1000. >... What Apple and Motorola need to do to tackle this problem is to take a lesson from the PC world. From a software point of view, the 80286 became a dead dog (listen to Bill Gates; he's telling PC users what they are going to get). But it has a 16 bit external bus. A lot of cheap clones could be made and sold with a chip that had the 386 architecture, except with a 16 bit, rather than 32 bit, external data bus. So Intel came out with the 386SX. To a much lesser degree, the 68000 is also a dead dog, with respect to future directions in Mac OS software. A "low cost", 16 bit external data bus part, packaged in a cheap plastic DIP, that is software compatible with the 68030 would make a great platform for a new line of Macs. Make it a CMOS part and it could be used in a new Portable (it would also reduce the power requirements or a non-portable, permitting a cheaper power supply). Apple must be Motorola's largest customer for 68000s. If Apple wanted to build such a machine, Motorola would sell enough chips to make it worth their while. So get with it Motorola, and build a MC68HC036 in 8 and 16MHZ parts. Apple, use the 8MHZ part in a K-12 Mac and an ultra-lite portable; use the 16MHZ part in a new line of compact, modular Macs. (Can a MC68HC046 be far behind?) -- Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@ncar.UUCP
pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) (02/03/90)
In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same >8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs. >The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000. Apple should use an 8Mhz >68030. [remainder deleted] I disagree. The 8Mhz (being "ten-years old"), is what one would call "mature", and therefore can be produced in quantity for very little money. If you were to compare 10,000-piece prices for an 8Mhz 68000 and an 8Mhz 68030, I think you'd find a difference in the hundreds of dollars range (this is pure speculation on my part). For a low-cost machine (somewhere between $1000-$1500 street price), a difference in cost-to-build of $200 could mean a difference in street price of $500 or more. Now, I just hope the "low-cost Mac" will have SIMMs, and the ability to ADD an SCSI port (if not included), and the ability to ADD a NuBus expansion module, the ability to use different monitor types. Note that although many of us WANT SCSI, NuBus, and a 32-bit 2-page color monitor, there aren't many of us that have that kind of money -- especially all at once. What better way to ensure future sales than to "get 'em hooked" on a cheap, EXPANDABLE model ? That was the problem with the Macs from 128K -> Plus -- You paid blood for the first one, and then had to pay blood again just to keep up. That's my 2 Option-4. M. A. Pasek Switching Software Development NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-7668 CNG-er-PU4-er-MNI Development 2700 N. Snelling Ave. pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM Roseville, MN 55113
pff@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Pablo Fernicola) (02/03/90)
In article <6457@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> goldader@uhccux.UUCP (Jeff Goldader) <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu >>>MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same >>>8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k. It will have enhanced ROMs >>>(compared to the SE). >>> STOP THIS NONSENSE! JUST LOWER THE PRICE ON THE SE!!!!! Why, Why spend money developing a new product (manuals, packaging, case, advertising) when there is something already there that fulfills the needs? It would be more useful to develop new and better things. Sorry, this stupid behavior just gets me irritated. :-) -- pff@beach.cis.ufl.edu - Pablo Fernicola - Machine Intelligence Laboratory - UF IF YOU CARE ENOUGH TO READ SIGNATURES ... I am graduating Spring 1990 and I am looking for a job. MS EE, my graduate work incorporates OO-DBMS/Graphics/Robotics/AI
nrjwong@lion.waterloo.edu (02/03/90)
In article <6192@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes: >In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: >> >>In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>>... [Stuff Deleted about using an '030 in a low-cost Mac] [Stuff deleted about why the above isn't possible for Apple] >>... >What Apple and Motorola need to do to tackle this problem is to take >a lesson from the PC world. From a software point of view, the 80286 >became a dead dog (listen to Bill Gates; he's telling PC users what >they are going to get). But it has a 16 bit external bus. A lot of >cheap clones could be made and sold with a chip that had the 386 >architecture, except with a 16 bit, rather than 32 bit, external data bus. >So Intel came out with the 386SX. Another reason is because Intel wanted more profits, so the 386 and 386SX are not second-sourced. Companies like AMD and Harris who are licensed to produce 286's got left out in the cold w.r.t. the 386. I think there were lawsuits pending about this issue. Why do you think Intel has been raving in the mags about the greatness of the 386SX and the death of the 286???? PC magazine (I believe) has shown that a 16MHz 286 and 16MHz 386SX are virtually identical in speed in most cases. OS/2 is still a 286-based operating system. There isn't that much busines software out for 386's especially, and PC clone makers don't have to worry about getting sued from IBM for copying the BIOS. They just get a BIOS from any number of 3rd party sources. > >To a much lesser degree, the 68000 is also a dead dog, with respect to >future directions in Mac OS software. A "low cost", 16 bit external data >bus part, packaged in a cheap plastic DIP, that is software compatible >with the 68030 would make a great platform for a new line of Macs. >Make it a CMOS part and it could be used in a new Portable (it would >also reduce the power requirements or a non-portable, permitting a >cheaper power supply). I think the main reason the 68000 seems like a dead dog is partly due to the Mac's (small macs) design and the lack of a decent IPC. Take a look at the software packages out there today. They try to do everything at once for everyone in one package. Why? Because it's a pain to switch to another program to do stuff like graphics, etc. from, say, a word processor. There's a Scrapbook and Clipboard but as the number of third-party products out there to supplement the functions of these two devices, they just aren't enough. Performance-wise, Apple just places a huge load on the CPU when doing graphics among other things. The Amiga handles this nicely with its 3-chip set to take the load off of the CPU. I don't think you'll get great animation until the hardware changes - either speed up the bus a lot or get some sort of blitter - a real powerful one (YEAH!), just going up to a 25MHz '030 or an '040 will just delay this. Not everyone has a Mac II or higher (who has paid list price for the beast???). I think both Apple and IBM realise they need better performance from their machines if "multi-media" is to be commonplace. In the rumor mill of Amazing Computing magazine, there was a brief description about IBM's new multimedia machine; two things it's got - a blitter and a DSP chip. Meanwhile Commodore is just sitting there trying to get male teenagers to buy Amigas so they can pickup the girls next door. :-) More CMOS 680x0 parts will proliferate as the Mac portable gains market share. Look at the PC portable market these days compared to 2 years ago. > >Apple must be Motorola's largest customer for 68000s. If Apple wanted >to build such a machine, Motorola would sell enough chips to make >it worth their while. Yep. > >So get with it Motorola, and build a MC68HC036 in 8 and 16MHZ parts. >Apple, use the 8MHZ part in a K-12 Mac and an ultra-lite portable; >use the 16MHZ part in a new line of compact, modular Macs. >(Can a MC68HC046 be far behind?) If Motorola is working on such a beast they're being real quiet about it. They've still got an '040 to ship. I remember reading in Microprocessor Report (great newsletter, high price) that Apple was looking into the Motorola 88000. Unfortunately, the 680x0 series and 88K chips aren't binary comaptible so either an emulation would have to be performed of a 680x0 (which would bring the 88K down to about the speed of an 680x0) or Motorola could make a few changes to the 88K chip to allow better performance while emulating the 680x0 series. I believe someone was speculating the latter would happen. [N.B. I read this a couple of months ago so there might be some inaccuracies.] Then there's a question of what will happen to the IIgs. Lots of schools still have Apple II's though software development seems to be grinding to a standstill in most cases (maybe the new rumor about a 32-bit version of the 65816 will help). Schools are just like governments - they move slowly. Teachers are not the technophiles of the land, in general. Most of them are technophobics and are just learning about computers now along with their students. Hey, I would love a fast small Mac (though giving up screen space would be tough) rather than having to lug my Mac II around. Hey if it's cheap, even better. I just don't think that it's going to happen. A cheap Mac will increase market share which Apple needs, now that everyone and his mother has a similar GUI (though actual software is a different matter). Johnny Lee [using nrjwong's account cause my machine doesn't get these newsgroups] jlee4@orchid.waterloo.edu [MAD DOG]
jimvons@ashtate (Jim von Schmacht) (02/03/90)
It is not yet time to "retire" the 68000. It performs at the same level as the
80286, and you don't see that chip dying away. The 68030 you suggest would
drive the cost of the "Low cost" mac up above 2K. How much do you want for
nothing? It will cost 25% of what the 128k sold for in 1984 dollars. This is
meant to replace the Apple IIgs, the Plus, and part of the SE sales. Do you
have the same engine in the Nissan Sentra as you do the Nissan Maxima? Give
it a rest! Some people still want Sentras! Let them have a chance at it!
What you want is everything for nothing, and right now that is NOT a market
reality (people like to be paid you know...)
--
Jim von Schmacht Senior Member, Project Test Staff Ashton Tate Corporation
Disclaimer: Standard Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't the years - it's the mileage" -Indiana Joneslarryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) (02/03/90)
In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > >The 68030 runs about $200. A 68000 can be had for about $8. Try again. In quantities of 10,000 16MHz 68030s cost $90. I estimate Apple's cost is less than $30. (They were buying 68000's for $6 five years ago.) >As for the 68000 being outdated, nonsense! Video game machines and There exists a growing body of programs that will only run on 68020/'881 level machines. This is particularly true in science and engineering. Larry Hutchinson, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500, MS 50-383, Beaverton, OR 97077 CSNet: larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM
andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (02/03/90)
It will be difficult to make a low-cost mac using a 68030 for quite a long time. The 68030 is much more expensive than the 68000. This will not change in the near future. I think that the best chip to use for a low-cost mac is a 16 MHz 68000. This should be configured (if possible) in the same manner that the 68000 is set up in the SE (i.e. it runs 30% faster than the 68000 in the Plus). Thus, such a machine would be twice as fast as the SE, which is a quite respectable speed. Note that this should allow a 1-1 interleave (I think) for disk drives. If so, then disk I/O would be as fast as any '030 machine. A low-cost mac should have two memory SIMM sockets to conserve space and reduce cost. The machine should ship with two 1-meg SIMMs, resulting in 2 megabytes of memory, plenty for most users. The SIMMs should be upgradeable to 4-meg SIMMs, if a user wants an 8-meg machine. 80 nanosecond 1-meg SIMMs are becoming pretty cheap these days, as everybody knows. Some rough timing calculations I did make me believe that a 16 MHz 68000 (I don't have a spec for this speed) can run with no wait states using 80 nanosecond parts (is this what the portable does?). A 68030 forces 4 SIMM sockets onto the design (ignoring the dynamic bus sizing capability of the '030, assuming it uses a similar system to the '020). I have noticed a consistent bias among most writers on the net towards: 1) Really fast CPUs. 2) Gobs of memory. 3) Huge disk drives. 4) Lots of bits of color. This is probably because most net people are developing large programs, doing large technical documents, using large spread sheets. These people get frustrated when the mac is slower than the Sun Sparcstation that they use at their office. There are many people who don't need a super fast, super powerful machine. These people might prefer to have the list price of a machine reduced by, say, $500 by an attention to cost-cutting measures. Yes, I know that Apple will charge what the market will bear. However, they cannot bring an '030 machine to market at a low price and keep their customary profit margin. A 16 MHz '000 is fast enough for many users. Someone who wants more speed/power should buy an SE 30 or a IICX, not a low-cost mac. Such a machine would not be able to enjoy all of the benefits of System 7.0, but such is life. John Andrews andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
bradley@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Eugene Bradley) (02/04/90)
Why not have Macintosh clones like the people at MeSsy-DOS have? Too bad I don't know how to program a mac, but if I did, I would design a 68050 and sell the circuit for $1!!! I'd sell the computer itself (including MS-Works on a 50-meg hard drive [which I can build]) for about $500. P.S. It would be compatible with a Mac IIci and can run *all* software *with no patches necessary*. Its name: The Zetra X computer. Yes, the Zetra X computer can let you use DA's, fonts, FKEYs, CDEVs, whatever the overpriced Mac can do (and more, for half the cost of a Plus). 5 SCSI ports are included, along with *10* NuBus expansion slots. You can use the LaserWriter printers for printing, or use our PostScript printer (with *50* fonts in memory and with its own hard disk [~100 MB] so that you can store your own fonts, which I will give away for free!). The cost of the printer (which has ATM built-in the ROM [in the system and the printer]): *$125.30*!!! Oh, and if you need a cheap, *Hayes-compatible* modem, it can emulate any speed (combined with MS-Works' communications component) from 300 baud to 10e+07 baud! The cost: *$99.43*!!! As for monitors, you can use our *$10* monitor (a 13-incher, with the power to display > 1,000,000 colors and in *48-bit* mode) included with the system, and for another *$2*, I can give you a 19-inch monitor with the power to display > 10,000,000 colors and in *72-bit* mode. The circuits will be a *100-MHz* 68050 w/ PMMU and virtual memory. I will also have a 68885 math co-processor which I will build (the co-processor will run @ *75-MHz*). I will also have 64-bit QuickDraw built into the ROM and a "uni-patch" that will make *all* programs written for the Mac run on my Zetra *without* having to add any patches to the software. As for a disk drive, I will build a *500-GB* HD with 250ns access time. A disk drive (which I will also build) will hold > 4MB of info. You can use any 3.5 or 5.25 inch disk. If your disk is a SS/SD, it will hold 1.5 MB of info; SS/DD will hold 2.2 MB of memory; DS/DD will hold 3.0 MB of memory; and DS/HD will hold 4 MB of memory. Speaking of MB, my computer will have 25 MB of memory *standard*, with the ability to expand to 50 MB. N.B. You can customize my computer with as many utilities (software and hardware) as much as you like. Send replies/flames to the address below or to the net, which I read often. Remember, this is IMHO. bradley@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene Bradley) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<"May you never have to hear surf music again!">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jimi Hendrix
patten@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brian Patten) (02/04/90)
In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > > >I think that the best chip to use for a low-cost mac is >a 16 MHz 68000. This should be configured (if possible) >in the same manner that the 68000 is set up in the SE (i.e. >it runs 30% faster than the 68000 in the Plus). Thus, such >a machine would be twice as fast as the SE, which is a >quite respectable speed. Note that this should allow a 1-1 >interleave (I think) for disk drives. If so, then disk I/O would >be as fast as any '030 machine. > Come on! I was always told that the SE (Slightly Enhanced) was only 10-14% faster than the Plus. That was the main reason I elected to buy a Plus in the first place. Rather than spend an extra $500 (in 1988) for an extra 14% of speed, I chose to spend that extra money on a hard drive for my Plus. Have I been totally mistaken these last few years? Or are people trying to boost the performance of the SE in their minds to save the machine? >I have noticed a consistent bias among most writers on >the net towards: > >1) Really fast CPUs. >2) Gobs of memory. >3) Huge disk drives. >4) Lots of bits of color. > >This is probably because most net people are developing large programs, doing >large technical documents, using large spread sheets. These people get >frustrated when the mac is slower than the Sun Sparcstation that they >use at their office. There are many >people who don't need a super fast, super powerful machine. These people >might prefer to have the list price of a machine reduced by, say, $500 >by an attention to cost-cutting measures. An excellent point. This is why I am taking the trouble to post a reply. I think a number of the starving graduate students on this planet would like the most powerful Mac they can get for $1000. But "most powerful" means a lot of different things to different people. There are a lot of "net people" who are just looking for a versatile machine that will help them write their thesis (i.e. word processing), do simple data processing, and graphics. I ,myself, am almost completely content with my Plus. However, I do long for a little more speed. I think the CMOS 68000, a Screen Management chip, and 2 Megabytes of memory would be the average users dream. So I have to agree with Mr. Andrews that it seems a lot of people on the net want a Mac IIci for a $1000. It's not going to happen. Apple wants to produce a basic machine for people with basic needs. They certainly are not going to destroy the market for the SE/30, Mac IIcx, or Mac IIci (or would Apple cut their own throats? Interesting thought! :-) ). Sure, I love using an SE/30 just as much as anyone else, but when it comes to my pocketbook I have to be a little more realistic. Brian M. Patten "A starving grad student who wouldn't trade his Mac for even a Sun" "(well, maybe a Sun)" patten@hubble.ifa.hawaii.edu
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (02/04/90)
In article <20475@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, nrjwong@lion.waterloo.edu writes: > In article <6192@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes: > >In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > >> > >>In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >>>... > [Stuff Deleted about using an '030 in a low-cost Mac] > [Stuff deleted about why the above isn't possible for Apple] > >>... > >What Apple and Motorola need to do to tackle this problem is to take > >a lesson from the PC world. From a software point of view, the 80286 > >became a dead dog (listen to Bill Gates; he's telling PC users what > >they are going to get). But it has a 16 bit external bus. A lot of > >cheap clones could be made and sold with a chip that had the 386 > >architecture, except with a 16 bit, rather than 32 bit, external data bus. > >So Intel came out with the 386SX. > > Another reason is because Intel wanted more profits, so the 386 and 386SX > are not second-sourced. Companies like AMD and Harris who are licensed > to produce 286's got left out in the cold w.r.t. the 386. I think > there were lawsuits pending about this issue. Why do you think Intel > has been raving in the mags about the greatness of the 386SX and the > death of the 286???? > > PC magazine (I believe) has shown that a 16MHz 286 and 16MHz 386SX are > virtually identical in speed in most cases. OS/2 is still a 286-based > operating system. There isn't that much busines software out for 386's > especially, and PC clone makers don't have to worry about getting sued from > IBM for copying the BIOS. They just get a BIOS from any number of > 3rd party sources. > > > > >To a much lesser degree, the 68000 is also a dead dog, with respect to > >future directions in Mac OS software. A "low cost", 16 bit external data > >bus part, packaged in a cheap plastic DIP, that is software compatible > >with the 68030 would make a great platform for a new line of Macs. > >Make it a CMOS part and it could be used in a new Portable (it would > >also reduce the power requirements or a non-portable, permitting a > >cheaper power supply). > > I think the main reason the 68000 seems like a dead dog is partly > due to the Mac's (small macs) design and the lack of a decent IPC. > Take a look at the software packages out there today. They try to > do everything at once for everyone in one package. Why? Because > it's a pain to switch to another program to do stuff like graphics, > etc. from, say, a word processor. There's a Scrapbook and Clipboard > but as the number of third-party products out there to supplement > the functions of these two devices, they just aren't enough. > [Stuff deleted about why the 68000 isn't so bad] Performance isn't the only issue. Apple is supporting a ridiculaous number of variations in slot standard, support (or not) for color, etc. If all Macs had a variant on the 68030, at least Apple would be able to standardize on some significant implementation details of the OS (e.g., virtual memory available on all machines, provided you have the hard disk space). You want a better IPC? With lots of little applications sharing memory, paging becomes a virtual (sigh) necessity. Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (02/04/90)
In article <6477@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> patten@uhccux.UUCP (Brian Patten): > In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu: > > > > This should be configured (if possible) > > in the same manner that the 68000 is set up in the SE (i.e. > > it runs 30% faster than the 68000 in the Plus). > > Come on! I was always told that the SE (Slightly Enhanced) was only > 10-14% faster than the Plus. That was the main reason I elected to > buy a Plus in the first place. Rather than spend an extra $500 (in > 1988) for an extra 14% of speed, I chose to spend that extra money > on a hard drive for my Plus. Have I been totally mistaken these last > few years? Or are people trying to boost the performance of the SE > in their minds to save the machine? How about some benchmarks? A few years ago, I ran a benchmark on every computer I could find. I used a variety of text-book examples, each chosen to find out something specific about the machines. Here are some of the numbers. Chip Machine Run Time (Seconds) ----- ------- ---- 8088 IBM-PC 343 8086 ATT 6300 242 68000 Mac + 200 68000 Mac SE 189 80286 AST286 55 80386 ATT 6386 42 68020 Mac II 42 Although I have not mentioned processor speed, each was state of the art at that time. Take a close look at the Mac + and Mac SE numbers. About a 6% difference overall. I also looked at individual numbers for each of the ten parts of my benchmark. It looks like this: Component Tested % Mac SE Is Faster Than Mac + ---------------- ----------------------------- Integer Math 0% Floating Point Less Than 1% Sorting 7% Disk & I/O 15% Recursive Procedures ~25% (PS-please insert some type of standard benchmark disclaimer here.) As far as I know, the 68000 in the Mac SE runs at exactly the same speed as the 68000 in the Mac Plus--7.133MHz. The integer math number above would seem to support this claim. The differences in the SE are more modern ROM routines and improved I/O. The I/O speed was just enough faster to allow 2:1 interleave rather than the 3:1 suggested for the Mac Plus, which speeds up the fixed disk access a bit. > I ,myself, am almost completely content with my Plus. Same here, once I got rid of that stupid hi-rise keyboard. I still need to have a unix machine around though (to unpack the news 8-). -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john =============================================================================== <*** *** Disclaimer: Its my machine, so I can say whatever I want. *** ***>
Justin_Randall_Padawer@cup.portal.com (02/05/90)
Zetra X computer? With all that power and it "comes packaged with MS-Works" !!!!????? Gosh. And a disk drive with 250 megs but just 250ns access time????!!! Hmmmm. Let it come packaged with a full compliment of real software (***just a lil MS-Works joke***) and with a hard drive with 12 ns, and I'll think about it. --Randy Padawer
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (02/05/90)
I didn't say *retire* the 68000. I said *retire* the 8Mhz 68000, and suggested replacing it with an 8Mhz 68030. Someone said that Motorola doesn't make 8Mhz 68030's. That's bunk. Apple is Motorola's BIGGEST MICROPROCESSOR CUSTOMER. If Apple said, "Gee, could you take some rejected 16Mhz 68030's and relabel them 8Mhz for our new low-cost macintosh, and we'll buy a quarter of a million in the next year.", you can bet your bippy Motorola would be in the 8Mhz 68030 market, I'm guessing for < $50/each. Other people have been complaining that a low-cost macintosh would wipe out the SE and Plus. What are you, Apple employees? Have you been reading MacWorld? The low-cost macintosh is SUPPOSED to replace the SE and Plus. They can't lower the price of the SE or plus because the profit margin will be too slim. A total redesign is needed. The reason I came up with the 8Mhz 68030 is because it would standardize macintoshes on 32-bit busses with virtual memory and color quickdraw. This would save THE ENTIRE WORLD a lot of pain in software development, and expansion grief, in the long run.
mgenius@wam.umd.edu (Sandro M. Fouche) (02/05/90)
This is great! I've been watching this little discussion from the sidelines throughly enjoying a good laugh now and again. Yet I thought I'd make a comment about all this 68030 stuff. If anyone even thinks Apple would put a '30 into a macine for less than $3500 dollars they aren't in touch. The idea of a LOW cost chip is to reduce the production of the chip (for Motorla) and to reduce the cost for Apple. A 68000 may be what you want. B'ut it's lots more realistc to expect maybe a 68020 if Motorola really feels like getting rid of what little maybe left. As for color, virtual memory and expansion..etc. Ha, Ha, Ha. I have a SE/30 and I wouldn't reccomend trying that stuff and neither does apple. I think we have lots a people in the audience that have IIcx envy. As it is the aver- age mac owner has too much junk in his system folder to run a decent speed. And paged memory and virtual WON'T help. Enough trumpeting, flames on. Sandro ******************************************************************************* These ideas are not my own and they in know way reflect on my true personality. I was temporally posessed by a daemon from another server------Thank You. .
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (02/05/90)
In article <1990Feb4.182249.21942@wam.umd.edu> mgenius@cscwam.umd.edu (Sandro M. Fouche) writes: >This is great! I've been watching this little discussion from the sidelines >throughly enjoying a good laugh now and again. Yet I thought I'd make a >comment about all this 68030 stuff. If anyone even thinks Apple would put a >'30 into a macine for less than $3500 dollars they aren't in touch. >The idea of a LOW cost chip is to reduce the production of the chip (for >Motorla) and to reduce the cost for Apple. A 68000 may be what you want. >B'ut it's lots more realistc to expect maybe a 68020 if Motorola really feels >like getting rid of what little maybe left. > > As for color, virtual memory and expansion..etc. Ha, Ha, Ha. I have a SE/30 >and I wouldn't reccomend trying that stuff and neither does apple. I think >we have lots a people in the audience that have IIcx envy. As it is the aver- >age mac owner has too much junk in his system folder to run a decent speed. >And paged memory and virtual WON'T help. > > Enough trumpeting, flames on. > > Sandro > Who knows if we will ever see one.. but ATARI showed their TT at comdex. 16 mhz (has burst mode and dedicated video ram) 2 MB 68030 VGA 2 SCSI, 4 serial, 1 parallel, 1 vme slot, DMA port and ascii port plus 30 meg fast drive .. heard prices from $2995 to under $2000... -- supports 5 resolutions including 1280 x 960 monochrome. They will be offering AT&T System V 3.2 (.1?) for $300. Stick the Spectre GCR mac emulator on there.. who knows.. might be a nice workstation... Of course, with atari.. one can wait a long time for a product... -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
nebel@wam.umd.edu (Chris D. Nebel) (02/05/90)
[description of truly amazing hardware at truly amazing prices deleted.] IMHO, you have been taking some _serious_ hallucinogens, boy. But if you do build this thing, tell me. I'd buy one. Chris Nebel nebel@cscwam.umd.edu
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (02/05/90)
In article <6793@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: >There exists a growing body of programs that will only run on 68020/'881 >level machines. This is particularly true in science and engineering. > Yes, but how many people that are interested in $1000 machine are going to be buying Spice or Mathematica at $800 a shot?? You coudn't possibly imagine that "borrowing" of programs such as these could ever occur? -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/06/90)
In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>, andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > > A low-cost mac should have two memory SIMM sockets to conserve > space and reduce cost. The machine should ship with two 1-meg > SIMMs, resulting in 2 megabytes of memory, plenty for most users. Make that 4 sockets, shipping with one 1Mb SIMM in place. Why four? This gives the owner the option of upgrading to be able to run System 8.0, which should show up in four years or so. (Half :-) ) The extra two sockets shouldn't take up all that much more real estate, and the customers should be happy a bit longer. > The SIMMs should be upgradeable to 4-meg SIMMs, if > a user wants an 8-meg machine. Having four sockets will let them run up to 16Mb, which ought to be enough to some useful set of monochrome applications around 1997 or so. I'm probably being optimistic about limits to the increase in the size of operating system and applications. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
CHOOPER@acad.cut.oz (Todd Hooper) (02/06/90)
In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: >[stuff deleted] > > As for the 68000 being outdated, nonsense! Video game machines and > word processors are still being developed with 8-bit 6502's and Z80's. Hmmm. Not strictly true. Remember Atari's 'Pole Position'? That came out quite some time ago and it used THREE fast Z80 processors plus a whole bunch of graphics and sound hardware. A friend in the industry tells me that some of the new machines use 32 bit CPU's and extremely high speeds to achieve realtime 3D e.g. Namco's 'Polygonizer'. > The fact that the 68000 has been around a while is irrelevent; it > still gets the job done. Most programs run just as well on a 68000 as > on a 68030 (maybe better considering some of the problems people have > been having with the IIci :-) ). > > Some people are so hard to please. The fact is the 68000 Macs are outdated, and a PC priced at half the cost of a Mac will blow the Mac socks off. I should know, I have the misfortune to use twin-floppy networked Macs often. Believe me, they are SLOW! It seems to take forever to startup, open the Control Panel or Chooser, etc. I believe Apple will have to produce a lower cost Mac II level machine in the near future. Isn't there a product release this month?? -- Todd Hooper Computing Centre Curtin University of Technology PSImail: psi%050529452300070::CHOOPER Western Australia ACSnet : CHOOPER@acad.cut.oz Bitnet : CHOOPER%acad.curtin.edu.au%munnari.oz@cunyvm.bitnet UUCP : {enea,mcvax,uunet,ubc-cs,ukc}!munnari!acad.curtin.edu.au!CHOOPER Phone : +61 9 351 7467 (24 hour messaging system) Fax +61 9 351 2673
tga@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Greg Ames) (02/06/90)
In article <131232@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: :In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>, andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: :> :> A low-cost mac should have two memory SIMM sockets to conserve :> space and reduce cost. The machine should ship with two 1-meg :> SIMMs, resulting in 2 megabytes of memory, plenty for most users. : :Make that 4 sockets, shipping with one 1Mb SIMM in place. You'd need to put ship the machines with the SIMM's in pairs or groups of fours, as the 68K has a 16-bit external bus and wnats to access memory in 16-bit wide chunks. The 030's (and 020's?) with 32 bit busses could use only 8-bit wide memory, due to thier dynamic bus sizing abilities, but it's not to efficient. This is why SIMM's in pluses and SE's must be upgraded in pairs, but must be changed in four's on II's and SE/30's Greg -- Greg Ames, '90 | tga@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU HB 1362 | ...!{harvard,linus,inhp4,etc}!dartvax!eleazar!tga Dartmouth College | Hanover NH, 03755 | { This space available for rent! }
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/07/90)
In article <19157@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, tga@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Greg Ames) writes: > In article <131232@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > :In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>, andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > :> > :> A low-cost mac should have two memory SIMM sockets to conserve > :> space and reduce cost. The machine should ship with two 1-meg > :> SIMMs, resulting in 2 megabytes of memory, plenty for most users. > : > :Make that 4 sockets, shipping with one 1Mb SIMM in place. > > You'd need to put ship the machines with the SIMM's in pairs or groups of > fours, as the 68K has a 16-bit external bus and wnats to access memory in > 16-bit wide chunks. The 030's (and 020's?) with 32 bit busses could use > only 8-bit wide memory, due to thier dynamic bus sizing abilities, but > it's not to efficient. This is why SIMM's in pluses and SE's must be > upgraded in pairs, but must be changed in four's on II's and SE/30's Any reason why a new, low-cost Mac couldn't be designed to take memory in integer multiples of SIMMs? Is there some reason that the Plus *had* to be designed to take them in pairs only? Or was it just easier to implement that way? ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (02/07/90)
In article <131305@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: |Any reason why a new, low-cost Mac couldn't be designed to take memory |in integer multiples of SIMMs? Is there some reason that the Plus *had* |to be designed to take them in pairs only? Or was it just easier to |implement that way? It would be a lot slower and need fancy circuitry. A SIMM only has 8 DRAM chips on it, so to do a 16-bit access (like the 68000 wants to do) it would need to access each DRAM twice. With two SIMMs, you can hit 16 DRAMs at once and get at all your bits in one go. (And with the 68020/30/40 32-bit bus, you need to go 4 SIMMs at a time.) /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."
sklein@cdp.UUCP (02/07/90)
In (several messages) many people said:
>[assorted opinions regarding the number of SIMM sockets...]
How about this compromise: 4 SIMM sockets in the new low-cost Mac.
Two loaded with 1-Meg SIMMs, two empty. (Yes, this configuration works!)
At todays prices, two 1-Meg SIMMs shouldn't cost much more than
four 256K SIMMs. This is also a nice price/performance/expandibility
compromise.
-shabtaircstse@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) (02/09/90)
sklein@cdp.UUCP writes: >In (several messages) many people said: >>[assorted opinions regarding the number of SIMM sockets...] >How about this compromise: 4 SIMM sockets in the new low-cost Mac. >Two loaded with 1-Meg SIMMs, two empty. (Yes, this configuration works!) >At todays prices, two 1-Meg SIMMs shouldn't cost much more than >four 256K SIMMs. This is also a nice price/performance/expandibility >compromise. >-shabtai If you want a low cost mac, you are not going to use any SIMM's. Slots are more expensive than just soldering them on the PCB Instead you use 4 bit wide 1M4 ram chips, 4 for a 2 megabyte 68000 machine, or (I would like that) 8 for a 4 megabyte 68030/40 machine. With a high end mac, let's say with a 50 Mhz+ 68040, you are going to use 1M32 SIMM's, that would make it possible to use interleaved memory (you need that when you can't get fast enough DRAM's). With a smart design, this mac would be faster with more memory!
stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) (02/14/90)
In article <126900171@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: ... >Someone said that Motorola doesn't make 8Mhz 68030's. That's bunk. ... If an '030 works at all, it's quite likely to work at 16 Mhz. Try going to your Ferrari (sp?) dealer and asking for a cheap Ferrari that only goes 50 MPH. Here's specs of one version of the low-cost mac that's being tested: CPU -- 68008, at 11.75 Mhz ROM -- 128KB, expandable to 256KB RAM -- 768KB, expandable to 3MB I/O -- SCC, SCSI, ADB one floppy, either 800KB, or 1.4MB mono sound VIDEO -- external monochorome monitor up to 640 x 400 resolution The 68008 is the 68000 with an 8-bit external bus. It therefore has a lower memory bandwidth than a 68000 of the same speed. However, the video subsystem has a 64 byte fifo that is filled using page mode of the ram, so it uses much less of the memory bandwidth than on the Plus. The resulting system is about the same speed as the Plus. The low cost of the system is due to the 8-bit bus -- there is only one ROM chip, and three SIMM sockets, which (obviously) don't have to be filled in pairs. There probably won't be a Processor Direct Slot. Packaging -- the box is about 4" x 10" x 8", and may be used upright as a "micro-tower", or may be placed under a monitor. The monitor, which can be a TV, or something like the Multisync GS for high-resolution, is external. There is room for the one floppy drive and one 1" high 3.5" hard drive in the box. There is no external floppy port, but there is an external SCSI port. There is one ADB port, in the front, which can use any of the ADB keyboards and mice. A keyboard/trackball combination, like that in the portable, will be sold. -- steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu or ...!dartvax!steve.ligett
stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) (02/15/90)
In article <1478@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> rcstse@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) writes: >sklein@cdp.UUCP writes: >If you want a low cost mac, you are not going to use any SIMM's. >Slots are more expensive than just soldering them on the PCB >Instead you use 4 bit wide 1M4 ram chips, 4 for a 2 megabyte 68000 machine, >or (I would like that) 8 for a 4 megabyte 68030/40 machine. This might be true if 1meg x 4 chips were inexpensive or plentiful. The Japanese hope that they won't be cheap for quite a while. Right now, 1 meg chips are the ones to use, if low-cost is important. It's cheaper to build a motherboard with only 30 holes in it, plug a SIMM socket into it, and pop a SIMM into that than to put 160 holes in the motherboard, and plug 8 DIPs and 8 caps in. And saves space too. And can be designed to take 4 meg SIMMs later. -- steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu or ...!dartvax!steve.ligett
leburg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Pierson) (02/15/90)
In article <1981@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >In article <6793@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> larryh@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Larry Hutchinson) writes: >>There exists a growing body of programs that will only run on 68020/'881 >>level machines. This is particularly true in science and engineering. >> >Yes, but how many people that are interested in $1000 machine are going >to be buying Spice or Mathematica at $800 a shot?? You coudn't possibly >imagine that "borrowing" of programs such as these could ever occur? > >-- >Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE It is true that getting a low-cost machine wouldn't stop people from hijacking software but you do have an excellent point. If you were interested in a low end Mac then why are you trying to use high end software? There is a whole world out there that doesn't need or want high end computing. The number of xt clones on the market shows that. Microsoft is also aware of this with their watered down version of Word.(MS Write) The low cost mac needs to have a upgrade path that is reasonable but when the user grows beyond the need to do just simple word processing or spread sheets. All of us on the net are more the high end users, we will not benefit from that low-cost Mac much. Some of us will be able to acquire one for home finally but we won't be happy until it does every thing that our machine at work does. Well the only way to do that is to get one like we have at work. Apple does need to get one out on the market so they can get the user base back up where it deserves to be. If Apple has all the troubles that the business rags say they do it will a needed boost. Well enough of me running off at the fingertips. Coming down off of my soapbox Brian Pierson pierson@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu Disclaimer: What I say is What I say. Ignore it my bosses do
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (02/16/90)
In article <7504@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, leburg@mentor (Brian Pierson) writes: >need to do just simple word processing or spread sheets. All of us on the net >are more the high end users, we will not benefit from that low-cost >Mac much. Wrong, some of us on the Net are Mac+ users because Apple's stupid pricing policy for Europe means we can't afford anything else. >Brian Pierson pierson@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ...als das Kind, Kind war...