Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!pasteur!agate!shelby!neon!Kermit.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: New Macs
Message-ID: <1990Jun3.224250.7731@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 3 Jun 90 22:42:50 GMT
References: <25411@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <90150.063514DANSEGLI@UCF1VM.BITNET> <1990May31.164019.28906@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 26

In article <25411@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, thwang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (HWANG
TSONG-WEN) writes:
> Actually, a MacWEEK a couple weeks ago mentioned 3 new Macs:
> 
> 1: 8 Mhz 68k w/ 256k ROMS and b/w screen.  Memory to be increased
> using memory card, NOT SIMM (BOO! HISS!).  Compact Mac, so looks
> like SE.  How this is an improvement, I dunno.

Well, I agree. And as long as there is no low-cost alternative to
the 68030, Apple is limited to rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. What happened to the rumour (?) that
Motorola were bringing out a low-cost processor called the 68025?
Having a PMMU on board doesn't matter yet, but if Apple ever gets round
to doing a REAL virtual memory system, which avoids the current multi-
Finder fragmentation and does protection...

> 2: 20 Mhz 68020 with limited color and (I think) 1 slot which can
> be Processor Direct Slot or NuBus.

Not yet another slot not compatible with anything else?

Just in case someone thinks this is Apple bashing, it's not - it's
rumour bashing.

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu