mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (11/16/89)
I hope this message is premature and that even as I speak somewhere in
the bowels of Apple Cupertino someone is working on an affordable
Macintosh. But, just in case...
I hope we can get some discussion going on what is essential to
people in a CheapMac, and how it could be positioned for maximum
effect.
Background:
I run a small Desktop Publishing/Word Processing shop in the Boston
area, and currently have 4 Mac Pluses for people to come in and use.
I teach beginners how to use all kinds of Mac Software. I like the
Plus. My customers like the idea that the machines only cost 2K
loaded. Six months ago I spent a lot of money upgrading all my
machines (Pluses) to at least 2.5 megs, so I could offer my customers
PageMaker under Multifinder, MacDrawII, Illustrator '88 and other
software.
Worries:
I am getting very nervous about the fact that Apple keeps releasing
these expensive machines. I fear that any day now major software
vendors may stop caring about the Plus, and that I would have to spend
a lot of money to upgrade to more expensive machines. Money I don't
have.
Was I Dreaming?
I thought I heard someone at Apple say that they were going to address
BOTH ends of the product line. Gassee's jokes at press conferences
aside, it's not funny Jean. It hurts to drool at high-end machines,
knowing they're just out of reach and moving away. I have heard rumors
of something called the "headless SE" for under $1000. That would be
nice.
Blue Sky:
Personally I think a lot of people would buy an IchabodMac [sp?]
(headless horseman). 3rd party vendors could do displays for it, and
of course external SCSI folks could build drives for it. I would be a
way to get into the educational market and encourage people to write
educational software. Kids could use Mom and Dad's Mac to do
homework, and mom and dad could help the kids without buying a Mac and
a ][c and learning both. Maybe buy the kids their own for home and
use PublicFolder to transfer files using PhoneNet over the extra phone
wires in the house (but I digress...).
Deep Blue Sky:
The more I think about it the better I like the idea of having machine
in this class. In some ways it would be nice if it used 128k ROMS, to
keep software houses from jumping ship on the Plus, though I imagine
someone at Apple just screamed when I said that. Alright, I know my
plus has to die someday; I could live with 256k ROMS, but of course
should use a 68000. Perhaps the 800k floppy? (saves money, lets
people by Rapports), no ADB so as not to compete with the SE20?
Well, there are some rough ideas. anybody else got an opinion? I
think we really should get Macs into schools soon, and for use people
who can't see spending more than 2K for a machine (CPU, SCREEN, HARD
DRIVE), this would be nice.
Questions:
1. Does anyone have confidence that Apple is going to address the
low-end market anytime soon (< 6 months)?
2. Does anyone care that Mac prices are going to the moon?
3. How many people are excited about the idea of a "headless SE" that
can take a 3rd party monitor and disk, and can sell for <$1000
retail?
4. Since Apple is clearly listening, how about we talk about some of
the things we'd like to see? To give some ideas more than
anything, but also to make sure Macs get into schools where kids
can do neat things with them. (You can't have a top without a bottom.)
Feel free to send mail to me if you don't like to post news. But
posting would be nice too.
Let's get busy. May someone will forward this to people at Apple
who think about these thing? Merci.
--
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training"
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139; (617) 491-6935
mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdcsiegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) (11/16/89)
It's my strong belief that the only really good way to go even for university education is "one student, one computer" -- every student on campus, or at least every engineering and science student, should be able to afford his/her own personal low-end machine, which should be software-compatible with more expensive models found on faculty desks and in university-operated clusters. At Stanford at present, thanks to the Apple Consortium -- Mac Plus's now around $900 plus 5% or 10% tax and handling -- we have something close to that, perhaps not one Mac per student, but pretty close to one Mac per dorm room. The University provides AppleTalk wiring and AppleTalked printers in nearly every dorm, along with one or anther form of tip connection to the campus Ethernet for mainframe and email access. To be really what we want a "bottom of the line" Mac has to be Mathematica-capable (along with other similar future software developments), but I expect that will come. A total capital investment around $1K to maybe $2K (today's dollars) is the absolute maximum we can expect a hard-pressed student (or the university itself) to put into a personal computer -- in fact, that's a lot for many students. If Apple doesn't meet that need, it may or may not hurt Apple, but it certainly will hurt us.
stevem@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Steve Miller) (11/17/89)
>I am getting very nervous about the fact that Apple keeps releasing >these expensive machines. I fear that any day now major software >vendors may stop caring about the Plus, and that I would have to spend >a lot of money to upgrade to more expensive machines. Even today, the most popular Macs sold are the 68000 versions: Mac SE and Mac+ so I don't think you have much to worry about for awhile. You may have to upgrade to 4 Megs of RAM (Getting cheap to do these days), or buy a larger hard disk. Of course some of the high end color/CAD type applications will be out of your league but that doesn't seem to be your business anyway. Now, I'm in trouble: Mac 512KE upgraded to 1 Meg and a SCSI port. I can't upgrad to more RAM without "great pain". "Wow, 1 Meg, I'll never run out of RAM now!" Steven Miller - 1987 Steven Miller Vancouver Division Hewlett Packard
stafford@blanco.cs.uoregon.edu (M.C. Stafford) (11/17/89)
> Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop writes... > I hope we can get some discussion going on what is essential to > people in a CheapMac, and how it could be positioned for maximum > effect. I've been writing software for car-dealers for several years now, software which comes "bundled" with hardware -- PC clone hardware, to be precise. We would JUMP at the chance to start bundling Macs with our software and selling whole packages, but the current pricing scheme makes this impossible. If we could get a mac/monitor/20-meg hard-drive combo for around $1K or so (and remember, we could do some bulk-buying to trim prices a bit) we'd be ready to "go mac". I don't think we're alone on this, either -- the mac makes a GREAT platform for VAR's, but it is too da*n spendy right now. To paraphrase: "Give me a cheap entry-level mac, or give me IBM clones!" Mike Stafford staffomc@cs.uoregon.edu
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/17/89)
In article <254@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > I hope we can get some discussion going on what is essential to > people in a CheapMac, and how it could be positioned for maximum > effect. > > The more I think about it the better I like the idea of having machine > in this class. In some ways it would be nice if it used 128k ROMS, to > keep software houses from jumping ship on the Plus, though I imagine > someone at Apple just screamed when I said that. Alright, I know my > plus has to die someday; I could live with 256k ROMS, but of course > should use a 68000. Why? (Other than the obvious issue of cost, a 68020 or, better, an '030 would give the headless Mac owners(oops...that should be HeadlessMac) more confidence in having their machine be useful for a longer time. This particularly in light of the announced direction that the System/Finder is going. Why make a machine *now* that won't be able to use some of the more desirable features of 7.0, which is already (pre-)announced. > no ADB so as not to compete with the SE20? Unlikely, since Apple committed to the ADB notion a *long* time ago. (Does use of ADB make the //gs compete with the SE more than the Plus?) ------------ "...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_ 275d
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (11/17/89)
stevem@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Steve Miller) writes: } Now, I'm in trouble: Mac 512KE upgraded to 1 Meg and a SCSI port. I can't } upgrad to more RAM without "great pain". I've been looking at something called MacRescue, or RescueMac (my reference is elsewhere). $317, it clips on the motherboard, no mods, and incorporates SCSI port and 6 SIMM slots. With it and 6 256k SIMMs you have a 2Meg 512ke. With combinations of 1 Meg SIMMs and 256k SIMMs you can have up to 4 Meg. Only certain combinations work (1, 2, 2.5, and 4). As far as I can figure this must be 2@256k=1Meg, 6@256k=2Meg, 2@1M=2.5Meg, 4@1M|2@1M+4@256k=4Meg. The last sentence is pure speculation, however they do *not* or the Mac does not support 1.5Meg or 3Meg. It's advertised in the back of MacWorld, and I called them. They are back ordered (as of last Thursday) about two weeks. My choices, as I see them: Dove board ~$180 = 1 Meg, dead end Dove board ~$480 = 2 Meg, dead end MacRescue $317 + 2 256k SIMMS @~$25 ea.= ~$370, no dead end Later: 2 1M SIMMs @ ~$80 ea. = ~$550 total = 2.5Meg, not dead yet or: 4 256k SIMMs @~$25 ea. = ~$470 total = 2Meg, not dead yet Later still: More SIMMS, more $$ = 4Meg. It looks to me like for an extra $190 at the beginning, I will have the opportunity to spend an extra $70, or an -$10 in the middle to retain the opportunity to spend another $$ to get somewhere I can't get with Dove. Given that I don't know either the final allowed mix of chips on the MacRescue, or the actual cost of 256k SIMMs, the ability to go to 4Meg appears to me to outweigh the initial cost delta. Plus a trip to a computer swap might get me 6 256k SIMMs for $60. There are thousands of people out there with 2 256k SIMMs in their desk drawers after upgrading Pluses and SE's to 2.5 Meg. Plus their add says "limited time offer" they will take other upgrade boards as trade in. I doubt they mean my scsi daughter board, but I'll try. } "Wow, 1 Meg, I'll never run out of RAM now!" Steven Miller - 1987 Hey, I thought that when I went from a 64k Apple ][ to a 128k Mac. I knew better in 10 minutes, but was still happy for several months. Thought the Fat Mac (512k for you late comers) was much too late. Upgraded!to it as soon as it was available. Upgraded to the ke 'cause of the 800k drive, later appreciated it even more 'cause of the SCSI. Stalled there. Now: I can't run half the new applications (half? 80%), can't run Hypercard, Multifinder, even print spoolers. Upgrade to a plus? Why? Can't run System 7, costs as much as either of the alternatives I listed above. } Steven Miller } Vancouver Division } Hewlett Packard Thank you HP for the DeskWriter. I don't have one yet, but it looks like (in todays snapshot of the TechWorld) what I'll be replacing my aging Imagewriter I with. jim (late at night) -- Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (11/18/89)
In article <127995@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <254@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >> Marty: >> The more I think about it the better I like the idea of having machine >> in this class. In some ways it would be nice if it used 128k ROMS, to >> keep software houses from jumping ship on the Plus, though I imagine >> someone at Apple just screamed when I said that. Alright, I know my >> plus has to die someday; I could live with 256k ROMS, but of course >> should use a 68000. > Steve: >Why? (Other than the obvious issue of cost, a 68020 or, better, an '030 >would give the headless Mac owners(oops...that should be HeadlessMac) >more confidence in having their machine be useful for a longer time. >This particularly in light of the announced direction that the System/Finder >is going. Why make a machine *now* that won't be able to use some of >the more desirable features of 7.0, which is already (pre-)announced. Compatibility with 7.0: Desirable to who? At what price? Apple has already admitted by creating the SE that not everyone needs virtual memory if it is going to cost over 1K to produce. So other than virtual memory and a few other unix-like features, the SE will support the weight of 7.0 fairly respectably. And people like Ashton-Tate who come out with disgusting ad campaigns that say "finally a machine that can run our pig word processor" notwithstanding, 7.0 *will work* on an SE and the machine we're blackboard-designing would (so far...) have an SE engine. And let's not forget the Portable... No PMMU there; Will run 7.0 with 2 megs... I must just assume 4 meg SIMMS will work with it... Price/Performance: Price is very much an issue for many people. You would seem to to shrug off the fact that not everyone can at the drop of a hat waltz down to their Apple dealer and say: "Money is no object. Make me a Mac system, and deliver it to my office/home, You take Platinum Amex for double warranty, of course." And their dealer says: "Sure. How about a IIcx with 8 meg, and a RasterOps 19" monitor, and a LaserWriter II NTX, and of course all this MicroSoft Office software. All for just $17K. Amex, of course!" (Don't laugh, I have clients who did this just to "check out the technology". >> no ADB so as not to compete with the SE20? >Unlikely, since Apple committed to the ADB notion a *long* time ago. >(Does use of ADB make the //gs compete with the SE more than the Plus?) ADB and other Features: Your point here is will taken. I was attempting to say that this hypothetical machine should not compete with the SE too strongly or the Apple Marketing people will get scared off. Maybe not as Sexy, but fun to be with: Perhaps just having it in parts so it is not even as portable as the SE would be enough. Maybe someone can think of some more ideas to make it attractive to low-end business users and educational users and still keep the managers buying the high margin stuff to keep apple accountants and greedy board members happy. Maybe 800K floppies would do it. Ideas anyone? Middle-Managerial CPU Envy will Prevail: I notice that in the IBM World managers still buy the Compaq '386s with big color screens to run tiny spreadsheets because they can play Leisure Suit Larry games on them behind closed doors. While secretaries and admin assistants just down the hall write 90 page proposals on XT Klones in WordStar [tm]. So maybe Apple shouldn't worry so much about coming out with a low-end "Apple Civic" (sorta like) a Honda Civic or whatever the low-end thing is) kind of machine. People still buy Preludes and the Acuras. But for the low-end there is still something of quality and compatability. Pass it on: Now I hope some of you good Apple folks will slide all these messages under Gassee's door or something (along with a Ramsey Memorial crying towel or something). I mean I hear tell at Apple that even the secretaries have IIs, and almost *nobody* has a plus, and 128s are not spoken of... Just want to make sure y'all remember the millions of plusses that made the R&D money for the IIs and IIcx possible. I write this on a 4meg Mac Plus with 6.0.3. Won't it be nice to say: "Macintosh, the power to be your best. Offerring systems from highly affordable Entry-Level systems to Powerful High-End WorkStations all with an intuitive, consistent user-interface and with Apple Quality backed by a One-Year Warranty." And so it goes... -- Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training" 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139; (617) 491-6935 mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (11/18/89)
In article <127995@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Why? (Other than the obvious issue of cost, a 68020 or, better, an '030 >would give the headless Mac owners(oops...that should be HeadlessMac) >more confidence in having their machine be useful for a longer time. This >particularly in light of the announced direction that the System/Finder >is going. Why make a machine *now* that won't be able to use some of >the more desirable features of 7.0, which is already (pre-)announced. I don't think that this is necessarily the case. Apple knew for a while that System 7.0 was going to provide things like virtual memory and still decided to go with a lower power CMOS 68000 in the Portable. So, if you view the Portable in light of System 7.0, then Apple built an obselescent machine (a view I do not subscribe to). Also, I think Apple realizes that everyone is not going to jump on the System 7.0 bandwagon. Sure, it will provide many new an interesting features. BUT, with it comes the requirement that there be 2 Megs of memory and that you have a 68020 or > to use virtual memory (which is not an inherent limitation of 7.0, but the MC68000 itself). So, building a "new" machine with a 68000 in it will certainly not put it up there with the IIcx and IIci, but it will allow Apple to price it more appropriately with the Plus and SE machines... were you really expecting a 68030 for $999?? Bill Taroli WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (11/18/89)
Sounds like a good time to rehash my ideas for a mac IIv and the
concurrent plans to split the mac line into two distinct lines.
The mac IIv was a IIcx with a 68000 in place of a 68030, and any other
chips that would be unused removed. It would be based on a cx
motherboard to reduce development costs and take advantage of
increased production volume cost per unit drops. The 1-bit video card
needed is already in production, and a standard 800K drive of stock
SE's would be used instead of FDHD drives.
This could allow macintosh to front two lines, a personal oriented
68000 line started by the plus, and with the IIv as a top o the heap
machine. the 68030 line could be pushed for buisness applications,
begining with SE/30's and with the ci at the top.
Advantages: The mac keeps the large installked base a machines it
will lose if it continues to push the machine upwards, while allowing
them to continue pushing the line upwards. the 68000 line could be
allowed to languish Apple ][ style, with only occassional updates.
The 68030 users benefit by the large software pool allowed by the huge
installed base. Power programs could be optimized to 68030's to take
advantage of its supperior design...
Any questrion, holes in my reasoning? Job offers?
paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graphiti on the wall of civil rights organization in the sixties
"There is a town in Mississippi named Liberty
There is a Department in Washington called Justice"
A more socially aware sort of .sig witting@topaz.rutgers.edufiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/21/89)
In article <1384@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: > > I don't think that this is necessarily the case. Apple knew for a while > that System 7.0 was going to provide things like virtual memory and still > decided to go with a lower power CMOS 68000 in the Portable. In the case of the portable, *not* going with the CMOS 68000 left them with *no* processor, given constraints of power consumption. They could have done it, maybe, but you'd kiss 8hrs+/charge goodbye. > So, if you view > the Portable in light of System 7.0, then Apple built an obselescent machine > (a view I do not subscribe to). Also, I think Apple realizes that everyone > is not going to jump on the System 7.0 bandwagon. I agree, S7 isn't going to buy *me* that much...at least as long as my Mac+'s are still running. I can live with it. (And I don't think that the Portable is obsolete on intro.) But if you *don't* have other major constraints, such as power consumption, there seems to be little reason for not putting a 68020/030 in newer machines, other than the obvious one of cost. Competition with current higher-end machines shouldn't be a problem, particularly if you restrict expandability of the base-level machine. > Sure, it will provide many > new an interesting features. BUT, with it comes the requirement that there > be 2 Megs of memory and that you have a 68020 or > to use virtual memory (which > is not an inherent limitation of 7.0, but the MC68000 itself). Since you also need to get a 68851 with your '020 to get virtual memory (and Motorola may be dumping the '851 completely), you could make a case for going directly to the '030 and ignoring the '020 completely. ------------ "...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_ 275d