Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jm7e+ From: jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: New Macs (was:Re: surprise for apple II) Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 90 20:48:30 GMT References: <7814@darkstar.ucsc.edu> , <1990Oct21.031236.6259@utstat.uucp> Distribution: comp Organization: Computing Systems, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 65 In-Reply-To: <1990Oct21.031236.6259@utstat.uucp> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 21-Oct-90 Re: New Macs (was:Re: surpr.. Philip McDunnough@utstat (4945) > >The Mac LC, the cheap-color thing that's supposed to get the //e > >emulation board, is basically a $2500 Mac // without NuBus slots. It > >also has no math-coprocessor, something that some vendor-code takes for > >granted. That's a lose. > I asume people will come out with PDS boards that add a 6881. They already > have 030 PDS boards ready to go from dayStar I belive. Well, throwing in the math-chip would not have been any trouble (I gotta ask why they decided to take it out when they have been building them in for so long, even as an option), and anyone who is going to do any numerics, even spreadsheet users, are going to miss the 68881. A third party card is an idea, but that kills your only slot. > The IIe board is > strictly to allow a better bridge between the Mac line and the II() line. > I still can't see what is wrong with that. The strategy makes sense if > Apple lowers the GS price and brings out the ROM04. The LC will sell well. > Not much software requires a math coprocessor. Well, I would love for ROM04 to appear, but I am no longer holding my breath, or even speculating. I don't like the LC because it looks too trimmed down, like when Ford introduced Mustangs years back with 4-cylinder engines. But I agree it will sell well, and it was a needed product. > >The Mac //si is intended for the Low-end Unix workstation market. I based this information on Unix Today, who was reviewing the thing. Apple targeted this toward the low-end '386-Unix market, or atleast that's what they told the Unix market. Anyway, I don't see where this fits in with the //ci, unless the //cx (being fazed out) needs an immediate replacement. The bottom line is, though, Apple's price-per-MIP figure is making no sizeable improvement. One still must pay through the nose for an Apple product, when the market price for these things is going down. If Apple would price competitively with the '386 market, even at a premium, the business world would not be as lop-sided against macs as it is. In a university environment where special price discounts apply, the Mac virtually takes over. But in the real world, its still MS-DOS. I can only attribute this to Apple's sky-high prices. > I'd rather be in a stable market than one that requires upgrades every > 6 months. There is an advantage to not having new GS's appearing every > other day. I can only assume that Apple will now lower the price of the > current GS and produce their ROM04. Agreed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software| opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U.| | Ya Gotta Love It. | -----------------------------------------------------------------------