wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (03/09/89)
Apparently, the IIcx will be priced slightly lower than the Mac II. This makes the machine a very tempting upgrade path. Beyond that-- a person should be able to sell a Mac II, and buy a IIcx with very little loss of $$$ on the deal. First time I have ever heard of being able to do such a feat in the computer industry! A Thought: What is the point of the Mac II? Other than having more slots, there is no advantage to paying extra money to have a slower processor that doesn't directly support the super drives... But even the reason of having more slots isn't even valid-- The only people I could think of who need more than three slots are those doing some very elaborate data gathering or using some sort of parallel processing system. For the 'average' or even the 'super' user, there is no point in having more than three slots... Did Apple just kill that Mac II? If so, does it really matter? b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu
phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott R. Anderson) (03/09/89)
In article <QY5TLHy00WBVM34Hga@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: >Apparently, the IIcx will be priced slightly lower than the Mac II. This >makes the machine a very tempting upgrade path. > >Beyond that-- a person should be able to sell a Mac II, and buy a IIcx with >very little loss of $$$ on the deal. First time I have ever heard of being >able to do such a feat in the computer industry! Some estimates I have made recently (based on selling prices for Mac IIs I have seen here and elsewhere) suggest that you will have to spend something on the order of $1000 to take this upgrade path. That's cheaper than upgrading your Mac II, though (if I'm going to take the latter course, I'd just as soon wait for a faster CPU/bus). >A Thought: What is the point of the Mac II? >Did Apple just kill that Mac II? If so, does it really matter? I believe they did. It looks like they are now trying to clear out their inventory of both II's and SE's; look at the "Apple Pays Half" promotion, which applies to these two, but not to the SE/30 or the IIcx. * * ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra * * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (03/09/89)
In article <3794@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> phssra@emory.UUCP (Scott Robert Anderson) writes: >In article <QY5TLHy00WBVM34Hga@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: >>A Thought: What is the point of the Mac II? >>Did Apple just kill that Mac II? If so, does it really matter? > >I believe they did. Not if you're gonna need, e.g. a MacIvory system with tons o' memory. It's my understanding that the IIcx has 3 card slots vs. the II's 6. I'm working on two projects now where we'll be installing more than 3 cards. -- unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); MESARD@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz) (03/10/89)
Did Apple just kill the Mac II? I believe so. In fact I would venture to
say that they did so with the introduction of the Mac IIx. It is obvious
that Apple (and users) see some benefit in the '030, if for nothing other
than the on-board cache and the memory management instructions, especially
for a new operating system. Thus I imagine that Mac II owners will need
at least a PMMU. It would be best if Apple just came out in the open
and announced their plans and how the Mac II would fit in, IMHO.
Robert Lentz
Internet: lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu
616 Noyes Street Bitnet: lentz@nuacc
Evanston, Illinois 60201-2814 UUCP: {gargoyle,chinet}!nucsrl!accuvax!lentz
Academic Computing and Network Services Student Consultant
Macintosh Public Domain Administrator
Northwestern University
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How can you be a man, til you see beyond the life you live?"
-Boston, "What Does It Take To Be a Man?", _Third Stage_lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz) (03/10/89)
Excuse, I forgot to add a congratulations to Apple on their new products which seem to reflect some careful thought behind their design. The speaker in the middle front, the moveable feet, and the built-in programmer's switch are all quite nice. (When will we get a mechanical volume control, a la Apple IIc, no more waiting for the control panel and finer volume increments? :-) ) Does Jean-Louis Gassee's(sp?) demo mean that we can save some money and buy the IIcx in a kit and assemble it ourselves? :-) Robert Lentz
t-jacobs@wasatch.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (03/10/89)
I believe that Apple will wait until the demand for the Mac II will die down, then quit making them, drop the price of the IIx down in the II's slot, introduce the "Tower" at some where close to where the IIx was. It's going to take a little while until the market discovers that the IIcx exists and that it is cheaper. Until that happens, Apple is wise to continue on with business as usual with the II. Since nobody has mentioned prices yet: 1 Meg Mac IIx $4,669 (retail) 1 Meg/40 Meg IIx $5,369 4 Meg/80 Meg IIx $7,069 " wit Aux IIx $7,552 Available today (only the rep says it may be a couple of months before volume) Consortium prices are tipically 60-65% of retail. -- Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu
t-jacobs@wasatch.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (03/10/89)
In article <1269@wasatch.UUCP> t-jacobs@wasatch.utah.edu.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) writes: >Since nobody has mentioned prices yet: > >1 Meg Mac IIx $4,669 (retail) >1 Meg/40 Meg IIx $5,369 >4 Meg/80 Meg IIx $7,069 > " wit Aux IIx $7,552 > OOOOOPS!!! These are all IIcx prices!!! Sorry. By the way, the code name for the cx was COBRA. Quite appropriate, a lean, mean, killing machine. Carrol Shelbys COBRA sports car proved what American technology can do. In the LaMans of (64 or 65?) the outcome was: 1st Cobra 2nd Cobra 3rd Cobra 4th Ferrari (sp?) 5th Cobra and a few more Ferrari's after that! -- Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (03/10/89)
In article <QY5TLHy00WBVM34Hga@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: > Did Apple just kill that Mac II? If so, does it really matter? I don't think the Mac II is suddenly obsolete. The "average" user has no need for six slots, true. The "average" user really needs only one, for the monitor. But a lot of us developers need the extra slots, for ethernet boards, co-processors, multiple monitors, and products under development that run on NuBus cards. We don't necessarily need the extra speed or the fancy floppy drive, so we can save the extra bucks that the IIx costs over the II. ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 27-O | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) (03/10/89)
In article <1269@wasatch.UUCP> t-jacobs@wasatch.utah.edu.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) writes: >I believe that Apple will wait until the demand for the Mac II will die down, >then quit making them, drop the price of the IIx down in the II's slot, >introduce the "Tower" at some where close to where the IIx was. >-- >Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu MacWeek has reported that the tower configuration is dead and has been buried. The reason given for this is that there was some cable from the cover on the case to the mother board. When you opened the case, you were supposed to disconnect the case. The Apple people decided that it was too easy to forget to disconnect the cable. If you do that and open the cover too quickly, it was really easy to rip components off the board. This is obviously not acceptable for a consumer product. So, the plan is to put the tower mother board in a desktop case. -Ace I only read this stuff in MacWeek. Kill them if it's wrong.
ching@pepsi.amd.com (Mike Ching) (03/10/89)
In article <1270@wasatch.UUCP> t-jacobs@wasatch.utah.edu.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) writes: > >By the way, the code name for the cx was COBRA. Quite appropriate, a lean, >mean, killing machine. Carrol Shelbys COBRA sports car proved what American >technology can do. >-- >Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu Interesting. I heard the SE/30's code name was Mongoose. Some internal competition perhaps?
esf00@uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) (03/10/89)
In article <897@internal.Apple.COM> rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: >In article <QY5TLHy00WBVM34Hga@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu >(William M. Bumgarner) writes: >> Did Apple just kill that Mac II? If so, does it really matter? > >I don't think the Mac II is suddenly obsolete. IMHO, it isn't [yet], but it will be in 1991. Since computers bought for business must be depreciated over a five year period (says the IRS), the iron that Apple is selling now to the business community must be viable in 1994. Otherwise the bean counters will require the purchase of MicroChannel boxes in the name of financial conservatism. R&D costs can be expensed, so a 6-slot box that's needed to get product out in 1989 can be written off in 1989. If it's still viable in 1994, that's four years of free usage. An '030 based box that can take 8 4M simms will be a bit dated (and probably slow relative to 1994 offerings), but still capable of running 1994 software. I suspect that some system version to come will require at least an '030. Users with the 1989 products will have the normal disruption any new system version causes, and those of us with Pluses, SEs, and IIs will face the same dilemma that owners of the original Thin and Fat Macs faced when the system stopped supporting the 64k ROMs. -- Elliott Frank ...!{hplabs,ames,sun}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 or ....!{bnrmtv,drivax,hoptoad}!amdahl!esf00 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.] [the above signature may or may not be repeated, depending upon some inscrutable property of the mailer-of-the-week.]
mystone@sol.engin.umich.edu (Dean Yu) (03/10/89)
In article <10330147@accuvax.nwu.edu> lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz) writes: > >Did Apple just kill the Mac II? I believe so. In fact I would venture to >say that they did so with the introduction of the Mac IIx. It is obvious >that Apple (and users) see some benefit in the '030, if for nothing other >than the on-board cache and the memory management instructions, especially >for a new operating system. Thus I imagine that Mac II owners will need >at least a PMMU. It would be best if Apple just came out in the open >and announced their plans and how the Mac II would fit in, IMHO. > OK, the truth of the matter, so we can settle this once and for all. The official word from Apple: They will continue making Mac II's and Mac Plusses as long as people continue to buy them. The reason why Apple went to the '030 in their new machines is becaus Motorola sold them the 030s for the same price as the 020 if Apple would stop work on their custom RISC and use the 88000 when they come out with a RISC machine. ______________________________________________________________________________ Dean Yu | E-mail: mystone@caen.engin.umich.edu University of Michigan | Real-mail: Dean Yu Computer Aided Engineering Network | 2413 Kelsey House ===================================| 600 E Madison "These are MY opinions." (My | Ann Arbor, MI 48109 employer doesn't want them. |========================================== Actually, they don't really care | what I think. But President | This space intentionally left blank. Duderstadt does...) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (03/10/89)
It has been mentioned that the II is a cost effective alternative to the IIx for people who need the extra slots. Consider this: Cards for the Mac are expensive-- most projects that would involve more than 3 cards in development will probably deem the extra $500 that the IIx costs over the II as a reasonable investment. b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu
js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) (03/10/89)
Yessir, they did just kill it off. The Computer Store here is telling people "Don't bother with a II; its slower and more expensive (relativly) than the others." They are also phoning up anyone who has a II order not yet completed and asking if this is what they REALLY want to do (ie wanna get a IIcx instead?). Lets see: we have: 1) Mac Plus 2) Mac SE 3) Mac SE/30 4) Mac IIx 5) Mac IIcx What is next? I have been reading about the soonish to be line of Macs with faster processors, 32 bit quick draw etc. When will they come out, and what will they do to everything? Every time I think about getting a computer (Mac) I then tell myself,"Well, I want colors (artist type here) so I will wait for 32 bit" or whatever... It is difficult to take a stand when technology is flying on by, never taking a stable position. Look at the II - how long has it been it out and it obsolete. Same with original Amiga (1000) and numberous other systems. Sincerely, Jon Slenk / js9b CMU.
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (03/12/89)
In article <41ed43da.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu>, mystone@sol.engin.umich.edu (Dean Yu) writes... >In article <10330147@accuvax.nwu.edu> lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz) writes: >> >> It is obvious >>that Apple (and users) see some benefit in the '030, if for nothing other >>than the on-board cache and the memory management instructions, especially >>for a new operating system. > The reason why Apple went >to the '030 in their new machines is becaus Motorola sold them the 030s for >the same price as the 020 if Apple would stop work on their custom RISC >and use the 88000 when they come out with a RISC machine. Yes, true, but from what I've heard Apple will almost certainly make use of the PMM capabilities of the '030 (and for // owners, the 68851) in their new OS. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) (03/14/89)
On the subject of the IIxc intro, I think it was Scully who said that a new version of MacOS would be out by the end of the year. My sources inside Apple say that the next version of the OS will have virtual memory. Of course it may not be true. rob
hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert J. Hammen) (03/15/89)
>Yes, true, but from what I've heard Apple will almost certainly make use of the >PMM capabilities of the '030 (and for // owners, the 68851) in their new OS. There is a lot of confusion over the Mac's "New OS". I hope someone from Apple can straighten this out. The way I understood it, System 7.xx will come out "later this year" and support the new 32-bit QuickDraw, as well as a "clone" of the Virtual INIT to support virtual memory. This OS version should run on 68000 based Macs. Sometime next year, Apple will release System 8.xx which will be the total OS rewrite we've all heard about, will do true multitasking and interprocess communication, and more, but will require a PMMU to run. Or is this information outdated? If anyone has more info, please post. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen | hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu | uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!hammen / / Delphi: HAMMEN | GEnie: R.Hammen | CI$: 70701,2104 | MacNet: HAMMEN / / Bulfin Printers | 1887 N. Water | Milwaukee WI 53202 | (414) 271-1887 / / 3839 N. Humboldt #204 | Milwaukee WI 53212 | (414) 961-0715 (h) / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////