🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43100015@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> andrews@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>
>I think that the best chip to use for a low-cost mac is
>a 16 MHz 68000.  This should be configured (if possible)
>in the same manner that the 68000 is set up in the SE (i.e.
>it runs 30% faster than the 68000 in the Plus).  Thus, such
>a machine would be twice as fast as the SE, which is a
>quite respectable speed.  Note that this should allow a 1-1
>interleave (I think) for disk drives.  If so, then disk I/O would
>be as fast as any '030 machine.
>

Come on!  I was always told that the SE (Slightly Enhanced) was only
10-14% faster than the Plus.  That was the main reason I elected to
buy a Plus in the first place.  Rather than spend an extra $500 (in
1988) for an extra 14% of speed, I chose to spend that extra money
on a hard drive for my Plus.  Have I been totally mistaken these last
few years?  Or are people trying to boost the performance of the SE
in their minds to save the machine?

>I have noticed a consistent bias among most writers on
>the net towards:
>
>1) Really fast CPUs.
>2) Gobs of memory.
>3) Huge disk drives.
>4) Lots of bits of color.
>
>This is probably because most net people are developing large programs, doing
>large technical documents, using large spread sheets.  These people get
>frustrated when the mac is slower than the Sun Sparcstation that they
>use at their office.  There are many
>people who don't need a super fast, super powerful machine.  These people
>might prefer to have the list price of a machine reduced by, say, $500
>by an attention to cost-cutting measures.  

An excellent point.  This is why I am taking the trouble to post a reply.
I think a number of the starving graduate students on this planet would
like the most powerful Mac they can get for $1000.  But "most powerful"
means a lot of different things to different people.  There are a lot of
"net people" who are just looking for a versatile machine that will help
them write their thesis (i.e. word processing), do simple data processing, 
and graphics.  I ,myself, am almost completely content with my Plus.  However,
I do long for a little more speed.  I think the CMOS 68000, a Screen
Management chip, and 2 Megabytes of memory would be the average users
dream.  So I have to agree with Mr. Andrews that it seems a lot of people
on the net want a Mac IIci for a $1000.  It's not going to happen.
Apple wants to produce a basic machine for people with basic needs.  They
certainly are not going to destroy the market for the SE/30, Mac IIcx, or
Mac IIci (or would Apple cut their own throats?  Interesting thought! :-) ).
Sure, I love using an SE/30 just as much as anyone else, but when it comes
to my pocketbook I have to be a little more realistic.


Brian M. Patten
"A starving grad student who wouldn't trade his Mac for even a Sun"
"(well, maybe a Sun)"
patten@hubble.ifa.hawaii.edu