Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!usc!apple!agate!shelby!neon!torrie From: torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k Subject: Re: 88k Macintoshes? / New 88k family member Message-ID: <1990Oct24.043647.26050@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 24 Oct 90 04:36:47 GMT References: <1990Oct22.021837.26420@dg-rtp.dg.com> <42311@mips.mips.COM> Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 24 tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it >ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet >:-), but it would be just like Apple to produce an 88k box and then screw >around with the software architecture so you couldn't possibly run anything >but Apple software on it. If they don't follow the 88open standards, I think >the entire 88k community should stand ready to pelt Apple with rotten >tomatoes lobbed from a great height. I agree completely. I have no idea of what Apple plans to do, if indeed they intend to do anything. However, a cynic could suggest that if (as some doomsayers have suggested here) the 88K market is dead apart from Apple, then Apple can probably do as they want. (e.g. if Apple is selling 100 88K machines for all other vendors 1 88K machine, then who cares if Apple is off on its own... it's defining the 88K market by its sheer numbers.) -- just another random thought -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - sleepwalking to victory