Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:5175 comp.sys.mac.misc:2964
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Apple's New Direction
Message-ID: <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 5 Sep 90 22:40:18 GMT
Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 63

From article <6897.26e532e9@umiami.miami.edu>, by gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144):

> (stuff deleted)
> 
> Now, armed with this knowledge, I would like to offer my solution to this
> dilemma: Completely redesign the Mac.
> 
> "But wait!  This will make it incompatible with the other Macs!"  Possibly..
> but I believe it is high time that Apple stop trying to push it's now 6-year
> old technology (albeit they have done an admirable job doing it!) and come
> up with something brand new.
> 
> Y'see, many of the Macs performance problems comes from the fact that Apple
> forces the poor CPU to do everything.  The sound chip and the IIfx's DMA
> chips are the only separate processors available to do asych tasks.  And even
> then, disk I/O will cause the sound chip to halt its execution.
> 
> When Apple is designing its '040 Macs, they should strongly consider giving
> it the capabilities that would allow it to overcome the processing bottlenecks
> imposed by the hardware and OS.  The Mac could easily do everything that
> is touted as being only capable on an Amiga if these bottlenecks are
> removed.
> 

Yes, I, in theory, agree.  But, I don't think the new Macs would have to
be incompatible.  The beauty of the Mac's design is the wealth of routines
built in to ROM (well, if you're not a programmer it's beautiful). By
using this technique, Apple can change the underlying process for how
these routines work, without affecting their results.  Thus, Apple can
develop improved hardware which distribute tasks to slave-processors,
but still have the same functionality.  The jump from IIci to IIfx
wouldn't have been possible without this ability.  While the hardware
hasn't been fully exploited yet on the IIfx, future Systems will be
able to, while not giving up compatibilty.  I think this is the right
direction for Apple to continue.

One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology.  Object
Oriented Prorgramming, 32-Bit clean programs, the new RISC based
graphic cards etc. are all examples where Apple has moved forward
without giving up the base behind it.  (As a side note: would this be
possible if the market were taken by Mac clones?)

At the same time, old technology can be slowly let go without anyone
having to suddenly make great new investments.

> Well, it's just my opinion.  If you really need to flame me...go ahead.

Just mine too.

> Have a nice day. :)

Thanks, I will!  :-)

> 
> -- 
> Jason Gross     Comp Sci Ugrad     University of Miami     Class of '91 (?)

__________________________________________________________________         
Jason W. Anthony         anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu      ////  /|         
Computer Engineering                                       /   / |         
Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y.                       / /   /--|         
____________________________________________________   ///.  /   |.