Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: A low blow from Apple
Message-ID: <13835@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Sep 90 20:08:37 GMT
References: <150@alchemy.UUCP> <44737@apple.Apple.COM> <35793@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 32

In article <35793@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) writes:
>    Any line of computers that doesn't have a new CPU in 4 years in dead
>or nearly so. The PDP-11 series has had a new CPU in the last 4 years.
>The Apple hasn't. Apple's Apple II "plan" has fermented anger among it's
>user base. It is very well deserved anger.

I for one have been mystified by the constant flux of new computer models
that offer no apparent advantage over others than merely a more recent
date of introduction into the market.  In fact, some (like the PCjr) have
flopped; newer does not mean better.

Wasn't the Apple //c+ introduced more recently than 4 years ago?  (I
honestly don't recall when it was.)  A fundamental problem with the Apple
II line is that its instruction set architecture depends on the 65xxx
series microprocessor, and to put it mildly there hasn't been much
improvement in that technology in recent years.  WDC has made claims
about what COULD be done, but what they HAVE done has not been very
impressive.  On the other hand, the 68xxx and xxx86 microprocessor
families have been in a race for improved speed and capability that have
at this point left the 65xxx architecture way behind.  Thus, there really
isn't a strong competitive position for the 65xxx family now.  The main
selling point is binary compatibility with existing software, but even
that is becoming less of an advantage as less and less commercial
software has been produced for the 65xxx family systems in recent years.

That is not to say that improved systems using the current 65816 are not
possible; they are.  However, they're not likely to compete with systems
based on more highly developed CPU architectures, and as time goes on the
competitive situation will become even worse for the 65xxx machines.

(I don't think in the long run the 68xxx and xxx86 architectures are
going to win, either, but they certainly dominate the market today.)