🚀 go-pugleaf

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac IIv - inexpensive Mac II box
Summary: It may seem like overkill now, but not for long!!
References: <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Sender: Jay Gibson
Reply-To: engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Jay Gibson, x2323)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211
Keywords: Apple, new OS, 68030, brain dead 8086s

In article <Apr.11.01.01.35.1989.22877@topaz.rutgers.edu> witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes:

>I have never liked the standard macs.  I don't like 9" screens, and I
>dont like machines that don't expand easily.  As a result, I am being
>of overkill for my purposes (esp cause Im aiming for a 4/80).  

And 5 years ago, most people thought 10 Meg. hard disks for PCs were overkill!

>THE IDEA:  Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math
>co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required.  Drop
>in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive.  Actually, Apple may
>etc... 

I think staying with the 68000 would be a mistake.  I have no doubts
that Apple's next OS will (or should) require the HW memory management
of the '030 to achieve true multitasking.  The DOS world is stuck
with brain dead 8086s and 80286s, and that has held them back.  Even the
great OS/2 has to pander to the 80286 oddities - it does not take 
advantage of the 80386s memory management features.

Apple is trying to establish the 030 (or 020 with 68551 MMU) as it's 
lowest common denomenator.  What's that you say..."What about the huge
installed base of Mac Plus's and SE's ??"   Well, Apple has always struck
me as a rather ruthless innovator: they dropped the Lisa...then they dropped
the Mac 128k...then out went the 512 group...etc.   Technology is advancing
very rapidly.  Sure owners get pissed off when a product they put good money
into gets dropped - but if Apple didn't keep raising the bottom end of their
line, we would wallow in a DOS/8086 quagmire!  Stuck with a ten year old 
operating system because every machine, even the 386's, have to pretend
they are 8086.   Ask even the truest IBMer about the merits of 640K DOS
or 64k segments - you'll hear lots of cussing and Intel bashing!

So, Apple wants to avoid this.   Todays computing is demanding power and
multitasking (don't say you don't need it untill you try it - you'll get
hooked very quickly!).   You can't do this with a 68000.   However, the 
68000 was designed with 32-bit contiguous addressing, supervisory mode,
and lots of other goodies that will make the transition to multitasking
fairly painless.   The software won't have to be re-written.   DOS programs
are so full of kludges to get around the 8086 stupidities that they all
have to be re-written to go to OS/2 (the 'Compatibility Box' is just a 
kludge to keep users happy..but still in the dark ages).

Granted, the leap to the 030 level is more major than a ROM upgrade.  Apple's
new OS will still have to have a way of running on the 68000,   but the
extra features available in the 030 mode will make it very attractive to
new buyers to stay away from 68000.   MOST of the current S/W will run
under the new OS - so no waiting for applications like the poor OS/2 sods!

>THE RESULT:  A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac.
>Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a
>little less and put it head to head with the SE).  It would lower the
>entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for
>Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx
>production costs through higher volumes (esp if the board remained
>common)  

No, I really think would be a step backwards on Apple's part.  As I said
before, Apple is rather ruthless about advancing the standard.  In the
long run, it works.  I hope they don't forget this.

Please feel free to comment on my comments!  I have been accused of being
over idealistic in the past (check out my 'Apple Laptop - REALITY' messege).
Apple is getting to be a very big company - has or will this change their
past aggressive ways?

        
>paul
>-- 

         Ciao,

           Jay Gibson