Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies From: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Loss of Mac's 20%... the Mac's Message-ID: <70400050@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 15 Jul 90 20:04:00 GMT References: <52331@<1990Jul8> Lines: 82 Nf-ID: #R:<1990Jul8:52331:m.cs.uiuc.edu:70400050:000:3649 Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies Jul 15 15:04:00 1990 > I'd like to take issue with this, too. I don't know of any other > system that allows for the use of multiple montiors with different bit > depths, I saw it in Xerox PARC's Cedar system in 1985, and assumed that it existed in other graphics-based computer systems. Maybe not. > or systems that allow you to change the bit depth or colors on > the fly. Ooops, you're probably right here. I forgot to count this feature. This apparently requires a device-independent (or intensity- independent) PICTure language such as the mac's to make it work, so it is much easier to check if it existed in another system prior to the macintosh. ------------------ It's easy to attack my message as it stands, but recall it was in response to the following quote: by doner@aerospace.aero.org (John Doner): | Do that, and they won't be around for the long run, or if they are, we won't | care. The money for all that R&D, developing and improving user interfaces, | innovative software like Hypercard, etc., let alone the hardware, has to come | from somewhere. Let's try it again. What are the results of all this "R&D spending" recently? (1) Apple hasn't released a new machine under $3000 since the SE in 1987. When was the last change in the Imagewriter II price or performance? The mind boggles. (2) With the exception of tear-off menues Apple hasn't produced its own user interface innovation on *all* macintoshes since 1985 (remember, color does not come cheap). The other menu improvements were cheap (i.e. little R & D) ripoffs of existing systems. (3) The only improvements Apple has released (after a moment's thought) are Macromaker and Hypercard. What percentage of the Macintosh markup did this cost, over the multi-year period before its release? Why not improve some existing system software like the klugey backup program or the oh-so-limited DiskFirstAid facility? (4) I happen to know Apple has some *appletalk* (not localtalk) products in the wings -- products in an area I worked on while at Xerox. I'm guessing that these products will be of little use to home users, unless they contain major industry-wide technical innovations. Now, people chime in, "Just wait until system 7.0 comes out!!!" Well, four years is an eternity in the PC business. I'd like to see Apple improve things more than token amounts for mainstream users, rather than splurging on specialty markets such as - color processing, - scanning - appletalk - CAD - A/UX for government - astronomically expensive platforms such as the IIfx etc. How long will it be before QUICKDRAW will know how to rotate objects on the screen and in printouts, for example? How long before Apple gets the flakiness out of the (currently broken) 3rd-party printing architecture? How long before the macintosh has a sound language to complement its picture language? Maybe forever because system software innovation does not pay. To an outsider like myself, Apple seems to use the CPU markup to capitalize other hardware and software projects, some of them flops (Laserwriter SC, Imagewriter LQ, Apple Hard Disks, Apple Modems), or narrow specialty items (IIfx, $2000 color acceleration systems, Apple scanners, 32-bit quickdraw). Where is the mainstream innovation, Apple? If Apple can't afford to fund major improvements from CPU sales, then they should charge for system 7.0. At least then, Apple would find out whether it was earning its keep among mainstream users. Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies