🚀 go-pugleaf

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>The PowerPC chip will be used for personal, office level computers by
>Apple, and in high end workstations by IBM. This is a nice and clear
>separation, and it's actually a win-win situation for both parts.

       There is no such 'clear separation'.  Sun workstations now start
at prices well below high-end Macs.  If there is a real separation in
future, it's going to be between portables and desktop machines.
It's a classic IBM ploy to try to make such distinctions stick by
marketing means and by crippling the low-end machines.  When I hear something
like the above, I expect to see "low end" machines crippled by limited
expansion capability.  

>PowerOpen is for the 'Open Systems People', while MacOS for PowerPC
>is for the rest of us :-). Another win-win, if you think open systems
>is the way to go, go for PowerOpen. If you like the MacOS environment,
>you got it.

        Using software emulation.  Right.  As Kent has previously admitted,
the new machines will run the Mac OS in a software emulator, something like
Soft PC, and the "real PowerPC environment" will have a different 
API and GUI.  Sounds like A/UX.

        It's sad.  If Apple had come out with a protected-mode MacOS with
multiprocessor support (difficult, but possible) kicked Motorola into 
building faster M68xxx CPUs and saturated the educational market with 
low-end Macs equipped with built-in CD-ROM drives, Apple could have 
retained its leadership position.  But, with top management choosing a 
"strategic alliance" with IBM, a classic tar pit, as Apple's future, one can 
only expect decline.
 
					John Nagle