🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <13027@steinmetz.ge.com>, by vita@daredevil.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita):
> Besides, as I understand it, Apple didn't really have much choice in
> the matter.  Because of the differences in CPU architecture, forcing
> the SE/30 slot to be SE-compatible would have needlessly crippled the
> machine.  Going with an incompatible slot was done for technical
> reasons, not for marketing reasons, as I suspect was the case with
> IBM's MCA.

Actually, I think the "corporate money" explanation describes it better.  Apple
apparently has no qualms about intentionally crippling a machine, as can be
seen in the Apple //gs.  There shouldn't have been any reason (besides not
wanting it to compete with Macs) the //gs couldn't have been a speed demon.

One thing that I'm amazed about though: The //c+.  Apple 1) actually recognized
competition, and 2) made a machine that made sense!  Now, if they'd get the 
Mega II chip in there and put in a battery (and flat screen), they'll finally
have the //c done.  (After what, 5 years? :-)

Ah well, I guess I'll wait for "Golden Gate"...  (But I'd rather have an
SE/30 with an external chasis that takes Mac II nubus cards... :-)
Mountain Computer, are you still out there?

> ----
> Mark Vita                              ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA
> General Electric Company               UUCP: vita@desdemona.crd.ge.com
> Corporate R & D                              desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
> Schenectady, NY                              uunet!steinmetz!desdemona!vita

-/ Dave Caplinger /------------------+-----------------------------------
 Microcomputer Specialist            |  Internet: unocc07@zeus.unl.edu
 "Computing and Data Communications" |  UUCP:     uunet!btni!unocss!dent
 University of Nebraska at Omaha     |  Bitnet:   UNOCC07@UNOMA1
 Omaha, NE 68182                     |    or      dc3a+@andrew.cmu.edu