Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!think.com!masscomp!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!silvlis.com!jimb From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Some questions to APPLE Message-ID: <1990Nov17.185122.7100@silvlis.com> Date: 17 Nov 90 18:51:22 GMT References: <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu> <108807@convex.convex.com> <1467@carol.fwi.uva.nl> Sender: usenet@silvlis.com (USENET news maint) Reply-To: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Lines: 35 In article <1467@carol.fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>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. > >How long will it take, before Apple introduces yet-another-Mac-II? >Will that new Mac II also become *the* Mac II. Somehow, every time I >expect a Mac to become the "standard" machine, another Mac comes along >that takes over that position. > But in this case the 'change' is to eliminate non-32bit Quickdraw color machines. In other words the incompatibility is not a new one, the IIci had it. And since this new machine is a much higher volume machine than the IIci was, and the LC will probably have even higher volume, means that manufacturers who didn't fix their 32bit Quickdraw combatibility will be doing so this time. I don't think it's really a question of 'standard' or not, it's the old "are their enough effected to make it worth while for me to fix it". During the last year it's obvious a lot of people said no for the IIci. I don't think they'll be saying no for the new machines. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner