Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!ucbvax!pro-generic.cts.com!sb
From: sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <10967.infoapple.net@pro-generic>
Date: 20 Mar 90 06:21:08 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 46

In-Reply-To: message from keith@Apple.COM

Keith Rollin writes:
>I suppose it's all how you count. You are not counting the fact that since
>September 15, 1986 - when we announced the Apple IIgs - that we've come out
>with several different versions of the GS (new ROMs and RAM configurations),
>the Apple //e (cost reduced, expanded keyboard, more RAM) and Apple //c
>(the //c+ with a faster CPU rate).

Sorry Keith, Flame on.
Rom (and VGC) upgrades were as much to eliminate bugs as they were to improve
performance. That hardly consitutes a new machine, just the same old one with
fewER bugs.
 
I suppose by "new ROMs and RAM configuration" you refer to ROM 3. Well, if it
was a new machine, why is it so close that Apple itself admits that you can
get 90% of the improvements that the machine offers, just by running System
Disk 5.?  Selling the GS with 256K, then with a memory card to bring the
system to 512K, then with a motherboard with 1 meg HARDLY constitutes a new
machine. It shows that Apple is awake to the fact that NO IIGS specific
software can run with a 256K machine, that you can can't even boot GS/OS
without 512K, and that most graphics/sound intensive programs require at least
a megabyte.  Please turn it off. It costs Apple less to make 1 megabyte
motherboards than to make 256K motherboards and throw in a memory card.

The Apple IIe with a new case is not a new CPU. Its functionally identical,
isn't it??? That makes it a new machine in a new case, doesn't it? A new
keyboard is hardly worth writing home about, especially in a machine which is
so pitifully wounded by its speed. And Apple IIe's have been sold with 128K
for quite some time. So what's the diff?

The Apple //c+ is an Apple IIc with a 4 Mhz clock. That *is* a new CPU. But
please tell me why 4 Mhz when 65C02's are available to 16 Mhz? And Rocketchip
and Zipchip technologies (ie. caching) exists to 10 and 8 Mhz, respectively.
But... why are you (ie. Apple) developing 8 bit technology (which is, by
industry standards, obsolete) instead of your 16 bit technology.

This bovine faeces may wash with some people, but it CERTAINLY doesn't wash
with me.

FLAME OFF.
Stephen Brown

UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil
INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com