es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward John Sabol) (09/13/90)
Anybody have any info on when the '040 Macs will be coming out? I'm thinking of upgrading to the IIfx, but I don't want to waste money if the '040s are coming out in less than say 6 months. Any info would be welcome. Thanks. +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Edward J. Sabol | Arpa: es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu | | Carnegie Mellon University | Bitnet: R746ES2J@CMCCVB | +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | "The streets that Balboa walked were his own private ocean and Balboa | | was drowning." - August Wilson | +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
sohn@Apple.COM (a phil sohn) (09/26/90)
es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward John Sabol) writes: >Anybody have any info on when the '040 Macs will be coming out? I'm thinking >of upgrading to the IIfx, but I don't want to waste money if the '040s are >coming out in less than say 6 months. Any info would be welcome. Thanks. Applying a little common sense: I think NeXT ships about 5,000 machines a month. Next will be coming out with the 040 in November. It does not take Apple any longer to develop a machine than NeXT. If Apple only shipped 5,000 fxs a month, the fx would probably be dropped from the product line. Plus before Apple announces the product Apple needs about 10,000 just sitting around. So Apple really can not ship an 040 machine until April or so. Of course, my logic has several hugh flaws in it, but you get the general idea. As an added disclaimer, I don't work in Apple products and I only know what I read in MacWeek about an 040 Mac. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ a phil sohn sohn@apple.com <- ARPA phil@ems.media.mit.edu sohn <- AppleLink Since I am self employeed, I hope that my opinion and that of my employeer are one and the same. ------------------------------------------------------------
brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian S. Schang) (09/27/90)
From article <QavlBjq00awBE123ka@andrew.cmu.edu>, by es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu > Anybody have any info on when the '040 Macs will be coming out? I'm thinking of > upgrading to the IIfx, but I don't want to waste money if the '040s are coming > out in less than say 6 months. Any info would be welcome. Thanks. As far as I know, this is all still rumor, but I will take a stab in the dark anyway. Can anyone *guess* upon whether the '40 machines will be in a II size or a IIc size case? I'd *love* to see one of the more powerful machines in the compact size. -- Brian S. Schang N8FOG brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us 46131 Academy Drive schang@caen.engin.umich.edu Plymouth, MI 48170-3519
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (09/27/90)
In article <1990Sep26.181933.239@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us> brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian S. Schang) writes: > >As far as I know, this is all still rumor, but I will take a stab in the >dark anyway. Can anyone *guess* upon whether the '40 machines will be in >a II size or a IIc size case? I'd *love* to see one of the more powerful >machines in the compact size. >-- Interestingly, a friend of mine (who owns a IIfx, and so must be a power user in the minds of marketing folks) was recently called by someone at Apple Marketing, who were conducting a customer survey. The question: "If you were to purchase an 040 machine, would you rather it were housed in a IIcx/ci box, or in a tower configuration (which would allow multiple cards, SCSI drives, etc.)?" He opted for the cx/ci form factor... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep26.181933.239@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us> brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian S. Schang) writes: >As far as I know, this is all still rumor, but I will take a stab in the >dark anyway. Can anyone *guess* upon whether the '40 machines will be in >a II size or a IIc size case? I'd *love* to see one of the more powerful >machines in the compact size. Eventually, I'd bet, both. Initially, probably only in the II case because the power-hungry people who would buy such a beast while it was still list price would probably want all the slots. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
dan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dan Schwarz) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep26.181933.239@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us> brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian S. Schang) writes: >From article <QavlBjq00awBE123ka@andrew.cmu.edu>, by es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu >As far as I know, this is all still rumor, but I will take a stab in the >dark anyway. Can anyone *guess* upon whether the '40 machines will be in >a II size or a IIc size case? I'd *love* to see one of the more powerful >machines in the compact size. >Brian S. Schang N8FOG brian@fog.ann-arbor.mi.us My guesses: (NOT based on any advanced info; this is pure speculation...) The '040 Mac will not be introduced for at least one year. Apple's got to get things straightened out with their System 7.0 first, and there are a lot more projects which need to be tackled before the '040 can be rolled out successfully. The '040 Mac will come in some modified version of the Mac II case; it'll be a complete redesign of the case most likely, but with similar dimensions. Why? For the same reason that Honda doesn't put a V-8 in a compact car. If you're spending the bucks on the performance of an '040, chances are you will be using it for some major power applications... often these applications will require many slots. Also there is a problem with product differentiation. With only a few exceptions, Apple has put its most powerful CPUs in chassis with more slots. As ethernet connections, DSP cards, and other devices become more common, the need for slots among power users will increase. My suggestion? If you're going to get the '040 Mac, just put it on its side, on the floor. It'll probably come with a tower-stand anyway. -Dan -- | Same as it ever was | Dan Schwarz, MB 2926 Brandeis U. | RECYCLE YOUR JUNK| | Same as it ever was | I'NET dan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu |------------------| | Same as it ever was |----------------------------------| tradetapes?mailme| | Same as it ever was...TALKING HEADS "Once in a Lifetime"| FloydRushDeadEtc.|
dan@s3sol.scubed (Dan Peterka) (09/28/90)
>Eventually, I'd bet, both. Initially, probably only in the II case because >the power-hungry people who would buy such a beast while it was still >list price would probably want all the slots. >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Speaking of slots - how many of you have ever seen someone use more than 3 slots? Enough to make it worth Apple's while to sell a big box like the IIx and IIfx? Seems like an Nubus expansion cabinet concept would be a better idea to reduce manufacturing and inventory costs - or does this only make sense to non-marketing types? -- _________________________________________________________________________ Dan Peterka S-CUBED 3398 Carmel Mtn Rd. dan@scubed.scubed.com (619) 587-8338 San Diego, CA 92121 _________________________________________________________________________
tempest@walleye.uucp (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (09/28/90)
In article <DAN.90Sep27150240@s3sol.scubed> dan@s3sol.scubed (Dan Peterka) writes: >Speaking of slots - how many of you have ever seen someone use more >than 3 slots? Enough to make it worth Apple's while to sell a big box If I were to buy an '040 Macintosh, it better have more than 3 slots. Here's what I would have in the slots: Video (Accelerator for video--depends if video board has accelerator already.) RadiusTV Multiple comm ports Probably GPIB or some such interface for a scanner Three is too limiting, IMO; and unless I were really low on cash and desperately needed a II, I would never get a IIc*. >like the IIx and IIfx? Seems like an Nubus expansion cabinet concept >would be a better idea to reduce manufacturing and inventory costs - >or does this only make sense to non-marketing types? I think the above is a _great_ idea. Instead of an ugly box that looks like a major kludge, it should slip and lock against the cpu and the whole thing movable as one unit. None of this "place on the side, bottom, or top of the Mac as a separate unit." If this expansion box were available, I don't have any problems buying a IIc*. Ken .............................................................________________. tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep27.184128.22227@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> dan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dan Schwarz) writes: >My suggestion? If you're going to get the '040 Mac, just put it on its side, >on the floor. It'll probably come with a tower-stand anyway. Here's food for thought: If Apple finds that people are using the larger CPUs in a tower fashion (kind of like CPU tipping), then might they redesign the case of the larger systems so that it naturally stands on its side? In other words, rotate the drive slots 90 degrees.... Any speculation? (Perhaps they'd worry about them looking too much like the '386 towers.) Regards, -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/28/90)
In article <DAN.90Sep27150240@s3sol.scubed> dan@s3sol.scubed (Dan Peterka) writes: > >Speaking of slots - how many of you have ever seen someone use more >than 3 slots? Enough to make it worth Apple's while to sell a big box >like the IIx and IIfx? Seems like an Nubus expansion cabinet concept >would be a better idea to reduce manufacturing and inventory costs - >or does this only make sense to non-marketing types? Never seen one, but I have heard of them-- generally 1 Ethernet card 1-2 video cards 1 frame-grabber type thing or 1 data-sampling thing. 1 controller type thing (Videodisk, other equipment, whatever). and maybe 1 Piece of custom hardware. Also, in the II and IIx-- 1 Really mega-fast 50MHZ 68030. (All I use is one slot) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
dan@s3sol.scubed (Dan Peterka) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep27.184128.22227@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> dan@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Dan Schwarz) writes:
My guesses: (NOT based on any advanced info; this is pure speculation...)
The '040 Mac will not be introduced for at least one year. Apple's got to
get things straightened out with their System 7.0 first, and there are a lot
more projects which need to be tackled before the '040 can be rolled out
successfully.
The '040 Mac will come in some modified version of the Mac II case; it'll
be a complete redesign of the case most likely, but with similar dimensions.
Why? For the same reason that Honda doesn't put a V-8 in a compact car.
If you're spending the bucks on the performance of an '040, chances are
you will be using it for some major power applications... often these
applications will require many slots. Also there is a problem with product
differentiation. With only a few exceptions, Apple has put its most powerful
CPUs in chassis with more slots. As ethernet connections, DSP cards, and
other devices become more common, the need for slots among power users will
increase.
I'd like to disagree with this assessment. I think it would be a big
mistake for Apple to ignore the NeXT and come out with an expensive,
large chassis '040 Mac. I think that one effect of the new NeXT
machines (I don't own one, but they look damn good at this point), is
that Apple runs the risk of losing a good portion of it's high-end
user base. These users are the most capable of abandoning ship for
another platform simply because they are more adaptable than the
average user. They also tend to be the leading edge users, so where
they go, others follow.
Carrying the above analogy even further... If Mitsubishi puts a V-8 in
an inexpensive compact car, Honda had better follow suit or face
erosion of market share - assuming consumers want V-8's in compact
cars (this may not be the case for compact cars, but I think it is
with computers).
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Dan Peterka S-CUBED 3398 Carmel Mtn Rd.
dan@scubed.scubed.com (619) 587-8338 San Diego, CA 92121
_________________________________________________________________________epan@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Eric C. Pan) (09/29/90)
I don't know if people's been paying attention to the rumor on MacWeek. But according to the article, Apple's going to include 8 bit color expandable to 24 bit, ethernet, sound digitizer ( like the ones on IIsi ) , and DMA. If there's allthat, How many more slots do most people need? 6 or 3 ? Personally, I really LIKE the IIcx, IIci form factor.
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (09/29/90)
In article <8726@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> epan@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Eric C. Pan) writes: > I don't know if people's been paying attention to the rumor on MacWeek. Actually, no I haven't. > But according to the article, Apple's going to include 8 bit color expandable > to 24 bit, ethernet, sound digitizer ( like the ones on IIsi ) , and DMA. I assume you're talking about all this being on the motherboard? If so, how much would you expect Apple would charge, as if they aren't already charging to much for the general purpose machines out there as it is! And besides that, aren't we being a bit optimistic about the features of the IIsi?? I think I'm going to wait until it shows its face (in October, Apple?????) before I start making comparisons to it and other as yet unannounced machines. Oh, and while we're on the subject... what good is having any sort of DMA available going to do if it isn't implemented in the system softare?!?!? Or didn't you hear about the IIfx (and System 7.0)? > If there's all that, How many more slots do most people need? 6 or 3? Think about this a minute. The whole purpose of slots is that people will find hardware applications (RadiusTV is a prime example) that were either forgotten when designing the machine (a 50 MHz '030) or simply aren't appropriate for everybody (an Ethernet card, 24 bit video, OR a sound digitizer). And because people will sometimes develop innovative ideas or the hardware manufacturer doesn't want to inflate the already (cough!) inflated price, the need for slots will be there. If you give them three, they'll use them. If you give them six, those will go, too. Hell! If you gave them twenty, they'd end up finding a way to use them... Thus, such determinations are simply not called for. In fact, if presented with such a question my only answer would be: "as many as they can fit!" > Personally, I really LIKE the IIcx, IIci form factor. I like the _FORM_, too. I'm just not completely thrilled by what they did inside. Regards, -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
epan@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Eric C. Pan) (09/30/90)
In regards to Bill's article, I am sorry to point out that whatever the new '040 will be... It will not be "a computer for everybody"... I am sorry, but I can't imagine everybody having either an '040 machine or a i486, i960 machine in the next 2 years.... Just like not every person on this network work with a IIfx... some of us simply don't use that much.... the fx and the '040 is clearly intended to compete with the workstation class machines... If I buy a IIfx or an '040, I will definitely make sure I have System 7.0 or A/UX to take advantage of the proc. power and its subsystems.... if you are not going to do some high power computing or have loads of money to spend, why would you be getting an '040 or i486, i960?
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (09/30/90)
In article <8745@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> epan@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Eric C. Pan) writes: > I am sorry to point out that whatever the new '040 will be... It will not be > "a computer for everybody"... I am sorry, but I can't imagine everybody > having either an '040 machine or a i486, i960 machine in the next 2 > years.... I agree that we're not going to see fx's on every desk in the short term, but don't appologize for Apple's lack of support for a general purpose machine. We saw the Mac move from general purpose to much-much too specific. Now, I'm no marketing wizard, but if you try to introduce TOO many specific models, you're only going to create problems for yourself. The one specific feature discussed in my reply was slots. Slots are a GREAT way to provide a level of generality to a system. As had been evidenced by not only Macs but much older systems as well, slots can add an order of usefulness to a computer as long as someone doesn't pay through the nose to get them. I think, also, that Apple, in its attempts to get more and more specific machines our in a short period of time, is allowing much needed features to slip through the cracks in order to get them out ASAP (especially after the deadlines have been moved back a dozen times). Perhaps a reorg should occur at Apple that REDUCES the amount of upper management so that the engineering and useful marketing types can take the reigns of what is a declining company, IMHO. Regards, -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (10/01/90)
Kenneth K.f. Lui writes in a message on 28 Sep 90: >like the IIx and IIfx? Seems like an Nubus expansion cabinet concept >would be a better idea to reduce manufacturing and inventory costs - >or does this only make sense to non-marketing types? KKL> I think the above is a _great_ idea. Instead of an ugly box KKL> that looks like a major kludge, it should slip and lock against KKL> the cpu and the whole thing movable as one unit. None of this KKL> "place on the side, bottom, or top of the Mac as a separate KKL> unit." If this expansion box were available, I don't have any KKL> problems buying a IIc*. ... Funny you should mention that--IBM has pioneered this strategy on, of all machines, their new PS/1. I think it's a good idea, too. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
a544@mindlink.UUCP (Rick McCormack) (10/01/90)
If we are gonna start expansion boxes, how about: the expansion chassis can be fitted to either or both sides of the original box, and held on by clips, so no cables are needed. If space is tight, place the expansion chassis to one side, and use an extension cable. Make expansion chassis available in both 3 and 5 slot versions, giving expansion capabilities of 3, 5,6,8, and 10 slots. Option of plexi front and/or top panels so we can check the contents easily. Maybe the chassis has a place to put a paper identifying the contents of the slot, so we can assess the chassis used by others quickly. The idea is very appealing, but lets think it through for user compatability before we get some plain metal box with limited usefulness foisted on us, AS WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST!!!
lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) (10/01/90)
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: >Perhaps a reorg should occur at Apple that REDUCES the >amount of upper management so that the engineering and >useful marketing types can take the reigns of what is a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >declining company, IMHO. I just _had_ to point out this interesting quote, just in case anyone out there missed it... Does anyone else see anything slightly funny here?? :-) :-) :-) :-) (please note the smileys!!) :-) :-) -- ----- Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose ----- ----- Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) -----
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/02/90)
In article <8745@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, epan@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Eric C. Pan) writes: > > In regards to Bill's article, I am sorry to point out that whatever the new > '040 will be... It will not be "a computer for everybody"... I am sorry, but > I can't imagine everybody having either an '040 machine or a i486, i960 machine > in the next 2 years.... This will probably turn out to be more a lack of your imagination than a reflection of future trends. (On the other hand, maybe we'll see a world-wide economic crash and *nobody* will be buying anything...) > Just like not every person on this network work with a IIfx... some of > us simply don't use that much.... the fx and the '040 is clearly intended to > compete with the workstation class machines... If I buy a IIfx or an '040, I > will definitely make sure I have System 7.0 or A/UX to take advantage of the > proc. power and its subsystems.... if you are not going to do some high power > computing or have loads of money to spend, why would you be getting an '040 or > i486, i960? Silliest thing I've ever heard of. Current '030 machines are faster and have more internal memory (and often mass storage) than most workstations did just five years ago. Don't see that these machines are causing anyone undue hardship because of their blazing performance. It's not like they operate so fast that you can't keep up with the keyboard, or screen displays are becoming unreadable for everyone but the fastest speed readers. New, faster, processors just mean that the same work you're doing now will get done faster...if you're having to wait for any process to complete, certainly you could deal with less waiting. (Multitasking, async I/O and all the rest would be nice, but I can wait for it to appear on my home machine.) Just because a processor has so much more power, it doesn't mean that you have to wait until you have reached a higher moral plane before you can use it. That sort of thinking came about when hardware was *really* expensive, and users wanted to avoid "wasting cycles". I'm working now with a 15MIPs (whatever that is) workstation. I wouldn't mind using a 30 or 50 or 100MIPs workstation..and all I do is write manuals. Go a head and wait until you're "ready" for a faster machine, we'll just go on ahead a bit. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
billj@b11.ingr.com (Bill Jones) (10/02/90)
lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) writes: >wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: >>Perhaps a reorg should occur at Apple that REDUCES the >>amount of upper management so that the engineering and >>useful marketing types can take the reigns of what is a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>declining company, IMHO. >I just _had_ to point out this interesting quote, just in case anyone out >there missed it... Does anyone else see anything slightly funny here?? :-) Gotta be the oxymoron underlined. :) Bill Jones ..!uunet!ingr!billj