witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (04/11/89)
This idea recently struck me, so I thought Id throw it out on the net
to see what others thought, and with the hope that Apple might pick up
on it (or better yet, "we were about to release it...")
I have never liked the standard macs. I don't like 9" screens, and I
dont like machines that don't expand easily. As a result, I am being
pushed into a Mac IIcx. Granted it a lovely machine, but it is a bit
of overkill for my purposes (esp cause Im aiming for a 4/80).
THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math
co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop
in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may
prefer to do a complete board revision to prevent quick and dirty
upgrades, but you get the picture. We could call it a Mac IIv (for
value or some such nonsense).
THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac.
Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a
little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the
entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for
Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx
production costs through higher volumes (esp if the board remained
common)
Personally Id pay the extra just for the larger screen. Does anybody
else have comments on this?
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.educhow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) (04/12/89)
In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: . .THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math .co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop .in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may . .THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac. .Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a .little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the .entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for .Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx Won't work...Color QuickDraw requires instructions which the 68000 dosen't have. Anyway, the expense of any Mac II series of computer is based more on its value than its production costs. (This also applies to the "compact" Mac line: The SE is less expensive to produce than the Plus) Christopher Chow /---------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | | Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | | US Mail: 202C Grenadier Drive, Liverpool, NY 13090 | | Phone: Work: 1-315-456-0412, Home: 1-315-622-0362 | | Delphi: chow2 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (04/12/89)
In article <7718@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) writes: > In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: > . > .THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math > .co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop > .in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may > . > .THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac. > .Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a > .little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the > .entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for > .Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx > > Won't work...Color QuickDraw requires instructions which the 68000 > dosen't have. Anyway, the expense of any Mac II series of computer is based > more on its value than its production costs. (This also applies to the > "compact" Mac line: The SE is less expensive to produce than the Plus) > > Christopher Chow Ive wondered about the logic behind continuing the mac plus production. Keeping an anachronistic modter in the product line that had little in common with the rest. (different keyboard, mouse, case, at least!) I sorta hoped it was an attempt to remove old stock (Guys, we got .5 million of the stupid cases/mice that nobody in their right mind would want!) I would rather see them take marginal profit than try to write the stuff off. But to continue to produce it when it has reached the end of its productive life is silly. Why not eliminate the plus, lower the price on the Se, and lure thousands of IBM clone buyers to the Mac camp? As for the IIv, if the mac archetecture made support of color difficult, then they could still sell a cheap video card that could drive a standard B&W monitor. give people a choice of displays, etc. Apple probably fears doing so because the might loose the exclusive on mac monitors, but I think the lost market would be minimal. Just think how much nice a 12"-14" screen would be than that tiny little thing you have now. Or Publishers could get a page displays w/o wasting money on the silly little nine incher. You could reduce the clutter on your desk using the IIv's remote abilities. I could go on, but I don't want to bore you... 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.edu
swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) (04/13/89)
In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: > >THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math >co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop >in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may >prefer to do a complete board revision to prevent quick and dirty >upgrades, but you get the picture. We could call it a Mac IIv (for >value or some such nonsense). > >THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac. >Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a >little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the >entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for >Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx >production costs through higher volumes (esp if the board remained >common) > >paul witting@topaz.rutgers.edu The only thing that ocurrs to me about this is that the current Mac II's have trouble keeping up with all of the processing necessary for 8-bit color. It takes lots of RAM and processing power just to keep this system barely afloat many times. I don't think that it's possible to get the power necessary for this task out of a 68000. People are hungry for more power and despite the cost advantage, I think that people are going to buy more rather than less powerful Macs, especially as the OS requires it. People will still buy 68000 based Macs for a while just as people bought 8088 and 8086 based PCs for a while after the AT was introduced. Actually, they bought them for years because there was no reason to change. But the Mac market moves faster, and a powerful processor will be more and more necessary in the near future. I don't think that Apple will want to introduce a crippled machine and be blamer years down the road for doing just that when they knew it was going to be obsolete in a very short period of time. Beside that, by the time they got it out, I don't think *anybody* would want it. It would be a bad marketing move all the way around. Nice idea though. -Ace University of the National Champion Wolverines
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (04/13/89)
In article <42977063.1a7ab@cumin.engin.umich.edu> swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) writes: > In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: > > > >THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math > >co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop > >in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may > >prefer to do a complete board revision to prevent quick and dirty > >upgrades, but you get the picture. We could call it a Mac IIv (for > >value or some such nonsense). > > > The only thing that ocurrs to me about this is that the current Mac II's have > trouble keeping up with all of the processing necessary for 8-bit color. It > takes lots of RAM and processing power just to keep this system barely afloat > many times. I don't think that it's possible to get the power necessary for > this task out of a 68000. People are hungry for more power and despite the > cost advantage, I think that people are going to buy more rather than less > powerful Macs, especially as the OS requires it. People will still buy 68000 > based Macs for a while just as people bought 8088 and 8086 based PCs for a > while after the AT was introduced. Actually, they bought them for years because > there was no reason to change. But the Mac market moves faster, and a powerful > processor will be more and more necessary in the near future. I don't think > that Apple will want to introduce a crippled machine and be blamer years down > the road for doing just that when they knew it was going to be obsolete in a > very short period of time. Beside that, by the time they got it out, I don't > think *anybody* would want it. It would be a bad marketing move all the way > around. > > Nice idea though. > > -Ace > University of the National Champion Wolverines Actually, the idea was to try to use the cx board as much as is as possible. Later expansion could be as simple as dropping in a new clock and 68030. MMU's or FDHD drives could also be added as one saw fit. If Apple objected to making upgrades so easy, a simple scheme for crippling the board could be devised (omit certain wire paths on the board, a simple jumper could be added/removed, etc). For Christ sake, they are still producing Mac plusses! Also, I question whether everyone will follow the upward path. IBM clones still use 8088's, they are cheap to design and build. The new PS/2 line still uses them. (the Model 30 has a 286 option) 68030 will not push the 68000 machines out for a long time, since even if the costs are equal, the existance of a 68000 machine will allow them to charge more for a 68030. Anyway, you are the second to mention that color might be difficult on the Mac IIv. Given this, we could elimenate it, and produce a cheap B&W video card to be connected to a 12"-14" monitor. I personally hate the 9" things in most macs. Or simply drop to a 68020, instead of all the way down to a 68000. They would probably want to call that a Mac IIc (but I hope not. Ugly flashbacks to a Apple IIc, which they still sell, completely trashing your idea that they would be outdated) Maybe do both, calling the upgraded IIv a IIv 020 (aka the SE 030). Heck, we could continue this and sell a IIv 030, which would still be cheaper because it lacks a coprocessor, MMU, and FDHD drive. Also, from the demo given at the IIcx's introduction, board swaps to upgrade the machine should be VERY easy. 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.edu
engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Engineering Society, CPH 1327, x2323) (04/13/89)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac IIv - inexpensive Mac II box Summary: It may seem like overkill now, but not for long!! References: <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> Sender: Jay Gibson Reply-To: engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Jay Gibson, x2323) Followup-To: comp.sys.mac Distribution: na Organization: University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211 Keywords: Apple, new OS, 68030, brain dead 8086s In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: >I have never liked the standard macs. I don't like 9" screens, and I >dont like machines that don't expand easily. As a result, I am being >of overkill for my purposes (esp cause Im aiming for a 4/80). And 5 years ago, most people thought 10 Meg. hard disks for PCs were overkill! >THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math >co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop >in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may >etc... I think staying with the 68000 would be a mistake. I have no doubts that Apple's next OS will (or should) require the HW memory management of the '030 to achieve true multitasking. The DOS world is stuck with brain dead 8086s and 80286s, and that has held them back. Even the great OS/2 has to pander to the 80286 oddities - it does not take advantage of the 80386s memory management features. Apple is trying to establish the 030 (or 020 with 68551 MMU) as it's lowest common denomenator. What's that you say..."What about the huge installed base of Mac Plus's and SE's ??" Well, Apple has always struck me as a rather ruthless innovator: they dropped the Lisa...then they dropped the Mac 128k...then out went the 512 group...etc. Technology is advancing very rapidly. Sure owners get pissed off when a product they put good money into gets dropped - but if Apple didn't keep raising the bottom end of their line, we would wallow in a DOS/8086 quagmire! Stuck with a ten year old operating system because every machine, even the 386's, have to pretend they are 8086. Ask even the truest IBMer about the merits of 640K DOS or 64k segments - you'll hear lots of cussing and Intel bashing! So, Apple wants to avoid this. Todays computing is demanding power and multitasking (don't say you don't need it untill you try it - you'll get hooked very quickly!). You can't do this with a 68000. However, the 68000 was designed with 32-bit contiguous addressing, supervisory mode, and lots of other goodies that will make the transition to multitasking fairly painless. The software won't have to be re-written. DOS programs are so full of kludges to get around the 8086 stupidities that they all have to be re-written to go to OS/2 (the 'Compatibility Box' is just a kludge to keep users happy..but still in the dark ages). Granted, the leap to the 030 level is more major than a ROM upgrade. Apple's new OS will still have to have a way of running on the 68000, but the extra features available in the 030 mode will make it very attractive to new buyers to stay away from 68000. MOST of the current S/W will run under the new OS - so no waiting for applications like the poor OS/2 sods! >THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac. >Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a >little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the >entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for >Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx >production costs through higher volumes (esp if the board remained >common) No, I really think would be a step backwards on Apple's part. As I said before, Apple is rather ruthless about advancing the standard. In the long run, it works. I hope they don't forget this. Please feel free to comment on my comments! I have been accused of being over idealistic in the past (check out my 'Apple Laptop - REALITY' messege). Apple is getting to be a very big company - has or will this change their past aggressive ways? >paul >-- Ciao, Jay Gibson
jcocon%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (James C O'Connor III, 2846) (04/13/89)
> still sell, completely trashing your idea that they would be outdated) > Maybe do both, calling the upgraded IIv a IIv 020 (aka the SE 030). > Heck, we could continue this and sell a IIv 030, which would still be > cheaper because it lacks a coprocessor, MMU, and FDHD drive. > > Also, from the demo given at the IIcx's introduction, board swaps to > upgrade the machine should be VERY easy. > > paul > -- Kind of hard to have a 68030 without an MMU, since it is built into the chip. 68882's at 16MHz are available to the public at round $250. You have to know that Apple gets better prices than that. FDHD shouldn't cost to much more than the normal drive. It wouldn't be so profitable to market a machine that cost Apple almost as much as a IIcx but not be able to charge so much for it. Also, I understand that Apple gets their 030's at '020 prices through a special deal with Motorola. Warning - everything after the second line is pure supposition.
idsardi@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Bill Idsardi) (04/13/89)
>> But the Mac market moves faster, and a powerful >> processor will be more and more necessary in the near future. > >Also, I question whether everyone will follow the upward path. 68030 will >not push the 68000 machines out for a long time, since even if the >costs are equal, the existance of a 68000 machine will allow them to >charge more for a 68030. I expect that it will be obsolete sooner than might be expected, due to the 030's integral memory management.
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (04/14/89)
In article <3122@watale.waterloo.edu> engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Engineering Society, CPH 1327, x2323) writes: > In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> > witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: > >THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math > >co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop > >in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may > >etc... > I think staying with the 68000 would be a mistake. I have no doubts > that Apple's next OS will (or should) require the HW memory management > of the '030 to achieve true multitasking. The DOS world is stuck > with brain dead 8086s and 80286s, and that has held them back. Even the > great OS/2 has to pander to the 80286 oddities - it does not take > advantage of the 80386s memory management features. No, it doesn't. The Amiga has had true multitasking for almost 4 years using a 68000 and no MMU. While I don't insist that apple do it the way Amiga does, an 030 definately isnt neccessary. > Apple is trying to establish the 030 (or 020 with 68551 MMU) as it's > lowest common denomenator. What's that you say..."What about the huge > installed base of Mac Plus's and SE's ??" Well, Apple has always struck > me as a rather ruthless innovator: they dropped the Lisa...then they dropped > the Mac 128k... [etc.. stuff deleted about MSDOS and OS/2 The Lisa was dumped because there was no installed base. They were horrendously overpriced and didn't do much. the 128k macs are still out there, and are still running software. Many publishers go out of their way to try to make a program fit on the smallest possible mac. But yeah, Apple has always been assholes that way. Makes me wanna buy Amiga... > > So, Apple wants to avoid this. Todays computing is demanding power and > multitasking (don't say you don't need it untill you try it - you'll get > hooked very quickly!). You can't do this with a 68000. However,the I WANT MULTI TASKING!! NOW!! see above comment about Amiga > 68000 was designed with 32-bit contiguous addressing, supervisory mode, > and lots of other goodies that will make the transition to multitasking > fairly painless. The software won't have to be re-written. DOS programs > are so full of kludges to get around the 8086 stupidities that they all > have to be re-written to go to OS/2 (the 'Compatibility Box' is just a > kludge to keep users happy..but still in the dark ages). > > Granted, the leap to the 030 level is more major than a ROM upgrade. Apple's > new OS will still have to have a way of running on the 68000, but the > extra features available in the 030 mode will make it very attractive to > new buyers to stay away from 68000. MOST of the current S/W will run > under the new OS - so no waiting for applications like the poor OS/2 sods! Seems you just argued my case for me. A 030/020 is not neccessary. Multitasking, if it requires an 030/020, will be a reason to buy a better machine, but not everyone is going to be willing to pay $1000 dollars for it. (secrataries, poor college students, etc. You want them to buy IBMs?! Or worse, Amigas? If they go Amiga they may not want to go to macs, esp if they get hooked on multitasking. Aftyer all, a multitasking Amiga box goes for as little as $650 + monitor. IBMers would upgrade to 386 machines. Once a system is decided on, people tend to stick with it, which is the reason for student purchase programs. > No, I really think would be a step backwards on Apple's part. As I said > before, Apple is rather ruthless about advancing the standard. In the > long run, it works. I hope they don't forget this. They still sell Mac plusses. They Sell Apple //gses. how can that be advancing the standard? The original mac was in this mold. Heck, the IIcx hasn't advanced any standards. > >paul > Ciao, > Jay Gibson At least, IMHO paul *Big Smile* PS Anyone want to give me a job? Math/CompSci major! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.edu
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (04/14/89)
In article <5102@hubcap.clemson.edu> jcocon%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (James C O'Connor III, 2846) writes: > > still sell, completely trashing your idea that they would be outdated) > > Maybe do both, calling the upgraded IIv a IIv 020 (aka the SE 030). > > Heck, we could continue this and sell a IIv 030, which would still be > > cheaper because it lacks a coprocessor, MMU, and FDHD drive. > > > > Also, from the demo given at the IIcx's introduction, board swaps to > > upgrade the machine should be VERY easy. > > > > paul > > -- > > Kind of hard to have a 68030 without an MMU, since it is built into the > chip. 68882's at 16MHz are available to the public at round $250. You > have to know that Apple gets better prices than that. FDHD shouldn't cost > to much more than the normal drive. It wouldn't be so profitable to > market a machine that cost Apple almost as much as a IIcx but not be able > to charge so much for it. Also, I understand that Apple gets their 030's > at '020 prices through a special deal with Motorola. > > Warning - everything after the second line is pure supposition. The way I understand it, computers tend to be a percieved value thing. Its less how much the parts cost, and more what you can get away with. By increasing volume, we bring down the cost of manufactering the thing in the first place, increasing margins on on the IIcx. Example I am familar with. Materials to make a large pizza cost about $1.50. We charge $8.00. Toppings cost us $.15, we charge $1.50. Most of our costs are set, employee wages, power & gas, etc. So we pull a $.15 topping off our large deluxe, but we subtract $1.50 from the price. But more people are willing to buy it. no? 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.edu