🚀 go-pugleaf

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.]