jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/14/88)
Why not a Mac based on the 386 family? There's a 386-based Sun, after
all. Byte order would be a problem, but it can be overcome. And the 386
has a built-in segmented MMU, which would provide a path to the protected
mode operating system Scully's been talking about.
It would then be possible to offer the Mac environment on the PS/2 line
and other 386 machines. This would open up a big market for Claris. It
might even end up as the replacement for OS/2.
John Naglechari@killer.UUCP (Chris Whatley) (07/15/88)
In article <17556@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>, jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes: > > Why not a Mac based on the 386 family? There's a 386-based Sun, after > all. Byte order would be a problem, but it can be overcome. And the 386 > has a built-in segmented MMU, which would provide a path to the protected > mode operating system Scully's been talking about. Big deal, so does the 68030. > > It would then be possible to offer the Mac environment on the PS/2 line > and other 386 machines. This would open up a big market for Claris. It > might even end up as the replacement for OS/2. > > John Nagle I'm sure Apple is going to leave themselves wide open to being swallowed by the clone makers in the PC world. This has got to be the last thing on Apple's mind right now becuase they would be signing their death sentence. Do you think that they will just offer IBM a license on their ROM code or something to make it compatible? Apple will probably do fine with their own OS on their own machines. Chris ****************************************************************************** *******************************Flame End************************************** ****************************************************************************** -- ___________________________________________________________ "Henry, have you and Mary had sexual intercourse?" -Mrs. X chari@killer.UUCP CI$:71370,1654
heuring@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Vincent Heuring) (07/15/88)
In article <17556@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > > Why not a Mac based on the 386 family? There's a 386-based Sun, after Can you say, "Software compatibility?" I knew you could. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Vince Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering | | University of Colorado - Boulder heuring@colorado.EDU | -----------------------------------------------------------------
dxjsb@dcatla.UUCP (Jack S. Brindle) (07/15/88)
jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > Why not a Mac based on the 386 family? There's a 386-based Sun, after > all. Byte order would be a problem, but it can be overcome. And the 386 Every try running 68XXX binaries on a Sun (or any other) 386 machine? I hope Apple stays with the current brain-smart architecture! Jack Brindle Hmmm... Wonder if John really was making a BIG joke???
mattb@microsoft.UUCP (Matt Bamberger) (07/16/88)
A couple of reasons:
1) The 80386 is simply not a very good microprocessor. It doesn't clean
up a lot of the junk left over by the original 8086 design, and it
has little to offer that the 680x0 doesn't already have. It's no
faster than the 68020, and it's a lot slower than the 68030 and the
88000. The 68030 includes some mmu functions, and offers a good deal
of function that isn't available on the 80x86. In addition, the
68881/68882 are substantially more powerful than their 80x86
equivalents.
2) One of the cornerstones of the Macintosh philosophy has been
compatibility: everything works with everything else. Bringing out
an 80386 Macintosh would at the very least require two versions of
all software, and would very likely cause major problems with
even data portability. Add to this the almost certain problems
that would arise with Nubus cards designed for one processor or
the other, and you're looking at total chaos.
3) Macintosh software doesn't run on IBM architectures. Never has,
never will. Even if it were written in 80386 native code, the PS/2
is missing a couple hundred K of ROM. And IBM software already
runs on the Macintosh, under either software or hardware emulation,
so what's the point?
The point is, the 80386 has nothing to offer the Macintosh that it
doesn't already have, and it would destroy the universal compatibility
that Apple has struggled so hard to achieve over the last few years.
-mattb
DISCLAIMER: my opinions are my own, not Microsoft's.
Matt Bamberger "And priests in black gowns
(206) 882-8080 were walking their rounds
...uw-beaver!microsoft!mattb And binding with briars
my joys and desires"