Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23700 comp.sys.mac:50823 comp.sys.apple2:216
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar17.112032.18069@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 90 11:20:32 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <39559@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 51

keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes:

[ about lack of new Apple II's versus the Mac ]

>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). 

The //c+ was the only truly new machine. The //e and IIGS updates were ok but
the GS still needs major work. Scrapping the Mega II and redoing most of the
chip set (heck, ALL of the chip set) to take over for it, not to mention
KILLING THE BOTTLENECKS, would do wonders for the machine. It might even get
some real software support from the big names! How about that.

And tell Marketing to advertise the //c+. Nobody knows it exists and that's a
real shame, because it's a great machine. Now if it were portable... we might
have a REAL notebook computer, and afforable too.

>However, many of the Macintoshes you mention above fall into the same category
>In March of 1987, we came out with the Mac SE and Mac II. I would consider the 
>Mac II to be different enough to be considered a major new machine. However, 
>the SE is just a faster Mac Plus. As is the SE/30. And the Mac IIx, IIcx, and 
>IIci are just minor modifications to the Mac II.

I beg to differ again. The Mac SE had many major redesigns, not the least of
which was Mac II-style disk options and a CPU direct slot which the IIGS really
needed. The Mac IIx is more of a CPU upgrade that takes the whole motherboard,
true, and the IIcx has only three slots, but the IIci is a completely new board
with integrated video (they should have used VRAMs though, DMA video at that
resolution is murder on a ci's Bank A) and the SE/30 is also a completely
different board.

While your perspective has merit, the examples you've given don't proven your
point when you really look at the motherboards. A more accurate list would
be: Apple II, one machine and two logic board improvements; Macintosh, four
machines and two logic board improvements.

I personally don't care about the difference, it's just that Apple could have
done wonders to the IIGS years ago but they haven't invested the money to
fix the now-archaic and ill-fitting chip set. The Mega II was not originally
designed for the IIGS and its presence is the root cause of many common
complaints about the IIGS as a product, especially in comparison to simlarly
priced machines from Amiga and Tandy. Unless Apple addresses this specific
problem soon -- and the Low Cost Mac will NOT be enough -- they will lose
a permanent share of the low end market to the IIGS's competitors, most of
whom are not quite in the Low Cost Mac's league anyway.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu