Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!evax!utacfd!letni!texsun!convex!ewright
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions to APPLE
Message-ID: <108807@convex.convex.com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 20:08:29 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu>
Sender: usenet@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 59

In article <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu> mings@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes:

>   1. Why did they make the IIsi so small so that only third-height
>      internal harddisk could be used...?  But
>      cares about that 200 dollars when your investment is about $3,000.

By the same logic, there are a lot of nice things Apple *could* have
added which would have cost only $200 apiece.  Adding all of them
probably would have resulted in a $20,000 machine.  (In the computer
industry, this is known as "creeping featurism.")  You have to stop
somewhere.

>   3. APPLE said that one reason why they decided not to put an expansion
>      slot in the new MacClassic as they do in the SE is becuase they
>      found that less than 10% of the SE have make use of the slot.  But
>      why don't APPLE make the survey after they have officially released
>      system 7.0 ?  Bare in mind that, if you want to take the advantages
>      (TrueType, virtual memory) of 7.0, you must have a fast Mac, and
>      have an MMU in the Mac, but since 7.0 hasn't officially released yet,

The MMU is required only for virtual memory. True Type and all other
features of System 7 will run on any Mac that has at least 2M of RAM.

As far as waiting until System 7 was out to conduct the survey on the
Mac Classic, *ARE YOU CRAZY?*!  Apple waited too long to introduce a
low-priced Mac as it is. 

>      all of the users, as well as the third-party hardware manufacturers,
>      do not know if any accelerator card is compatible with 7.0 or not.

Third-party developers will know if their hardware is compatible
if they have received the beta version from Apple.


>   4. Why did APPLE cut the IIcx line ?  The IIcx is the only '030 Mac II
>      which does not cause so many problems as the IIci and IIfx do,
>      especially in software incompatiblilty.  

The IIsi is the replacement for the IIcx.  As far as compatability
problems go, you can expect that manufacturers will fix any problems
that do arise pretty quickly, because the si will now become *the*
Mac II.

>      Futhermore, it is the only
>      not-so-expensive Mac II which gives you a lot of expandablilty: it
>      has 3 NuBus slots, the IIsi only has 1 (optional), that means you
>      cannot add an accelerator to the IIsi if you want to use it with a
>      third-party monitor while it is possible on a IIcx and still 1 more
>      NuBus left unused.  

At least one third-party developer is planning a NuBus expansion 
box that will allow you to add additional cards to the IIsi. See
my comment above about creeping featurism.

>      So, APPLE, is this how you force people who want a Mac II but does
>      not have too much money to buy a new yet but not-so-good IIsi ?

Huh?  Apple is handicapping people without much money by *forcing*
them to buy a less expensive machine with a faster CPU?