Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23755 comp.sys.mac:50936 comp.sys.apple2:272 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors) Message-ID: <10254@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 19 Mar 90 21:33:58 GMT References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Mar17.105403.17776@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 79 In article <1990Mar17.105403.17776@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >It still is. Now that the 20 mhz 65816 is going through debug (heard they got a >few trial chips to work at a paltry 12-13) Apple will have no real excuse not >to make the IIGS into a real Amiga killer. Yeah, right. You're going to grow very old waiting for 65816s that can compete with the latest 680x0s. Way back in '85, when I was looking around for a follow-up for the C128 for Commodore, I looked at 65816 chips. We had actually received specs on them from WDC several years earlier. At that time, they had fully speced 8MHz parts, yet in '85, GTE (the only company actually MAKING 65816s) had all they could do to make enough 4MHz parts. Rumor is that Apple managed get enough for the IIGS by actually having a special 2.8MHz version tested. I needed 4.08MHz parts, but enough of that. It really doesn't matter if WDC eventually comes out with a 20MHz part (neat trick; with a memory cycle time of 60ns, you'll need about 35ns-45ns SRAM to talk to the thing), it's not going to compete with newer machines. It's just going to lose based on architecture -- each instruction does so little work compared to a 680x0. Same reason you aren't seeing serious competition from fast 8088s anymore. >They will need it, because not everyone is going to want a Low Cost Color Mac. >I won't, for example. I want my Apple //f and I know Apple will build it IF we can >convince them there is a market for it. Thing is, it's going to cost more to build your 20MHz Apple //f, significantly more, that the el-cheapo color Mac. Way back in '85, a 4MHz '816 cost noticably more than an 8MHz 68000. Things are going to be even more skewed now. And which direction is Apple really heading, as if I needed to ask? While they certainly aren't moving downscale in either line, yet, they do seem to be spending most if not all their time on their 680x0 lines. Pretty much the same thing that other companies with old 65xx lines and new 680x0 lines are doing. Compatibility is a nice goal, but there are times when it can wind up costing more to stay compatible than to dump all the compatibility and start over fresh. >>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. >The engineering reality of such a board would mean that the card would >either (a) stink, or (b) be EXPENSIVE. Actually, you could build a card to run Apple II software fairly cheaply. A good deal of any machine's cost is for stuff other than the PC board. The problem is that you'd have to stick this in a color Mac with slots, making it a rather silly Apple II-only solution. Though having dealt with a similar 65xx to 680x0 upgrade myself, I found that I really didn't want to run any of the old software once I had new software for the same functions. The most useful thing I found was a way to read the 65xx machine data file on the 680x0 machine. >I, for one, will never want whole Mac, and I don't feel a major need to emulate >one either though I respect the fact that many people do. I do want to see a >IIGS to nuke the Amiga, because I know it can be done. It can't be done. Period. And that has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with what the 65816 is and always will be compared to the 680x0 line. As well as considering that Apple has never shown themselves to be stupid -- any Apple II machine that really looks better than an Amiga will also look better than a Mac. The cost of your //f is going to put you up against the Amiga 2500 and Amiga 3000 lines -- 68030 machines that run about as fast as a Mac IIci. The current //gs already costs more than an equivalently set up Amiga 500. Or a similar low-cost Mac, should Apple want to introduce one. I'm not talking here as some Amiga zealot, either. I actually design the hardware, I know what I'm talking about. >Todd Whitesel -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough