🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <430095@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM
(Teriann Wakeman) writes:
>Anyone know why Apple is bothering with 16Meg 68030s?????????
>The result is essentually a MacII with a cheaper upgrade path. [etc]

>With all this high sales profit $$$ alledgedly going into R&D, why are we
>seeing machines that basically behave like the now ageing MacII?????  [etc.]

>Why in the world didn't the SE/30 & IIcx come out with 33Mhz 68030s??????
>What about a second processor to handle the screen?? Third party
>manufacturers seem to be able to build 33Mhz 68030 accellerator boards that
>work with the newer Macs using Mac software. Why does Apple's R&D hesitate
>where companies with comparitively pico R&D budgets can do it?????

Good question. There are two answers. The first can be found in a flame/article
I posted about two-three weeks ago. To summarize, it said that while Apple's
technical people are generally very good to great, Apple marketing (and thus
Apple as a whole) is run by idiots. Rarely has a corporation coasted so long
on its past achievements (except, hmm, IBM in the mid-80's). Would you believe
that things like (for example) HyperCard updates and host adaptor cards
have sat around for months because Apple Marketing didn't know what the hell
to do with them? (Or maybe they didn't understand what they were. How do you
explain MacAPPC to idiots?)

Enough frothing about the mouth. The other answer only applies to the CPUs,
but it does excuse Apple for the slow processor speeds (though not anything
else). It turns out that Motorola is having a bitch of a time getting the
'20 and '30 out in quantity at high speeds. It appears that they can't
supply enough to Apple to meet the demand.

Actually, I take it back. This doesn't excuse anything. When IBM couldn't
get a million '386s at 25MHz, they just announced the machine and shipped
what they could. They also introduced a range of machines which were basically
identical except for clock speed. Why hasn't Apple done this? (Hint: look
at answer #1...)

This whole issue has worried me quite a bit lately. In 1986, just three
short years ago, you could get a motorola '020 at 16 MHz that would blow
away the fastest Intel processor money could buy (a '286 at 10 MHz?). There
was simply no comparison. Now Motorola can barely keep up with Intel- yes,
they're shipping a 33MHz '030, but in what quantity? And what will it be like
in a year, with 40 MHz '486s? Will the '040 be able to keep up? Motorola says
so, but they can't even get the 030 out in quantity!

The point is not that I want Macs to be superior to IBMs in raw speed. I do.
And they're not, thanks to lazyness on Apple's part. The point IS that the
architecture we're bound to may, in the end, be a disaster for us. Just two
short years ago, things looked very different.

There is one bright spot. I heard recently that Apple is delaying the "Four-
Square" machine past the original intro date. The reason, I hear, is that
Motorola is suddenly giving them very encouraging news about high-speed
parts in quantity. If this is true, things will suddenly be looking a lot
better. So we may get a 33 MHz '030 in October, instead of a 25 MHz '030 in
August.

If so, that'll be the first smart move out of Apple in a long time...

(BTW, watch for the announcement on the '040 later this week. I hear they
say they'll have quantity 25MHz parts late this year, turning in about
**10 MIPS**. We'll see...)

Skeptical but hopeful,
Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.uucp

P.S. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. I've trashed Apple more
than once on this net, but I'm NOT talking about technical people. I know
a number of people at Apple, and all the tech-types are top-notch. It's the
sales&marketing types (none of whom I know) that I don't care for...