Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ncr
Subject: Re: Tower Alternative
Message-ID: <96@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 9 Oct 90 16:46:51 GMT
References: <314@gandp> <6087@plains.NoDak.edu> <1487@ukpoit.co.uk> <1484@toro.MTS.ML.COM>
Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch
Lines: 13

nick@toro.MTS.ML.COM (Nicholas Jacobs) writes:

>I can't comment on the suitability of 68000 chips in a MP environment, but the
>Tower 32 line (the 600 and 650) is definitely showing its age. These machines
>just don't have the raw horsepower to sustain a windowed environment such as
>X. Of course, not every customer needs these capabilities, so NCR is bound to
>lose a certain portion of its customer base with a move like this. I'm sure

	Considering the advanced platforms available from Hewlett/Packard
and NeXT based on the 68040 chipset (now only at the beginning of its
development cycle) I doubt that potential horsepower had anything to do
with the decision. More likely, the decision to make OS/2 and DOS strategic
components of its system plans made the decision to go Intel inevitable.