sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (02/09/90)
Well, I just got back from vacation and waded through the almost 700 messages that accumulated while I was gone... :-( One thing that interested me the most, though, concerning a low-cost Mac was the lack of discussion concerning the low-ender that Apple has supposedly already developed (as reported in MacLEAK)--is this a "headless SE" that folks have been clamoring for? Is this what Apple is pushing through the channels? Anyway, I cast my vote against the 68000 as the central processor in any future Mac. My reasons? First and foremost is that the system software of the future is going to require at least a 68020 with a 68882 to be fully utilized. Secondly, until Apple gets away from the single-chip architecture, more muscle is going to be needed to handle both the expanded capabilities of the system and the expanded powers of newer programs. There is no reason Apple should sell a computer that won't run the latest software! Now, I know that there are a lot of people out there who have spoken up and said that they don't need all this power, all they want to do is to write papers, etc. If this is *all* they want to do, there is already a very large number of used Macs that can be bought for very little and can do simple tasks like this. So what do I want in a bottom-end Mac? I'm not an architecture expert, but here it goes: a "headless" Mac that is about the size of the IIcx with a 68020, built-in 4 bit color/grey, one NuBus and one DPS slot. Most importantly: sell it *at cost or below*! Sounds rediculous? Not really... The Japanese have done it for years in order to establish a market presence and to get folks "hooked" on their particular equipment (be it cars, stereos, or whatever). Apple makes more than enough profit from the other platforms (especially if they dump the costly Plus, and to a lesser extent the SE) to cover their losses by selling so low. They'll dramatically expand their base and start looking attractive to many market segments that they fail to hit presently. This platform would allow folks to inexpensively expand to things like virtual memory, etc., that require more hardware. It also gives a much better "minimum equipment base" for developers to work with--a la our discussions concerning the NeXT-ish interface variations that we are seeing now. Finally, I don't know if this Mac could be priced at approx. $1000 (including a monitor capable of handling 4-bit greys), but maybe that is the cost for being on the forefront of ease-of-use computing. More price speculation would be appreciated... Oh, and lastly, Apple should remember that it is first and foremost a *software* company, not a hardware one. I think Apple makes some good hardware, but it is the user interface that really makes the difference. I would suggest that Apple license out its interface for other platforms, but I'd probably get nuked to a crisp... :-) -CCb
jh0576@leah.Albany.Edu (Joe Houghtaling) (02/12/90)
It would seem to me that one of apple's primary considerations in building their new low-end mac would be its ability to perhaps eventually replace the apple II. An ability to run Apple II software plus some kind of color capability would be necessary. Fully integrating their product line must be a big worry to apple. Any comments? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | joe houghtaling | "In my opinion television | computer science dept.| | jh0576@leah.albany.edu | validates existence." | suny at albany | | | -calvin | albany, ny 12222 usa | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
melling@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (02/12/90)
In article <2529@leah.Albany.Edu> jh0576@leah.Albany.Edu (Joe Houghtaling) writes:
It would seem to me that one of apple's primary considerations in
building their new low-end mac would be its ability to perhaps
eventually replace the apple II. An ability to run Apple II software
plus some kind of color capability would be necessary. Fully integrating
their product line must be a big worry to apple.
Any comments?
I read in a recent issue of InfoWorld that a new Apple IIgs is due out in
the fall. The main difference b/w the old machine and the new machine will
be that the newer one will be faster. But I wouldn't count on it being too
much faster. Can't have the II series cutting into the sales of low end
Macs; machines that should have been upgraded a year ago!
Which is going to happen first: Apple finally decides to give more bang for
the buck (faster processor, graphics support), or Sun gets some major software
companies to port their Mac and IBM software to their machines? The PC and
workstation markets are colliding. Which group is going to be first to get
what the other has now?
-Mikesobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (02/13/90)
In article <2529@leah.Albany.Edu> jh0576@leah.Albany.Edu (Joe Houghtaling) writes: >It would seem to me that one of apple's primary considerations in >building their new low-end mac would be its ability to perhaps >eventually replace the apple II. An ability to run Apple II software >plus some kind of color capability would be necessary. Fully integrating >their product line must be a big worry to apple. I've heard rumors that Apple is wanting to spin off the Apple // division, a la Claris, but I'm not too convinced that this will really happen. I think a more likely possibility is one of the following: 1) // in a Mac: an Apple // emulator on a NuBus card, phase-out of the Apple // line 2) Mac in a //: an "upgrade" sold (at a loss? nahhhh... :-) board of some sort that fits in an Apple // and gives Mac Plus performance while keeping the Apple // mother board 3) Give is your Apple // and we'll give you $500 towards a Mac Anyone else think of any other ideas? I don't think that Apple would leave the entire Apple // market stranded, but #'s 1 & 2 don't seem like great (or even feasable) alternatives... :-( -CCb