Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!das
From: das@Apple.COM (David Shayer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises?
Message-ID: <46970@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 30 Nov 90 05:16:23 GMT
References: <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca>
Organization: The Troll Den
Lines: 66

In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca writes:
>I am puzzled.

   No kidding!

>Take the Classic.  Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000?  Wasn't it
>possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable?

   Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly become self-degreed
   hardware engineers after reading MacWeek? If they knew as much about
   systems as they think they did, then they'd know that CMOS is more
   expensive than TTL, and that you can't just drop in a faster clock without
   upgrading all the supporting circuitry with faster (translation: more 
   expensve) components. For Pete's sake...do you want low cost or high 
   performance? I know...I know...I can hear you now...

   "We want BOTH! We want fx's at Classic prices! 
   No...we want fx's at NINTENDO prices...yeah!"

   Well, sorry, kids. This is the real world. You pay your money, and you
   take your choice. You don't get a discount for whining.

>And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020?  Is a 68030 that
>much more expensive than a 68020? 

   Yes. The name is "LC", for LOW COST COLOR. Why not an 020? It's a
   perfectly good, inexpensive CPU. We have a reduced-cost
   030 machine, called the MacIIsi.

>Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of
>having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture?

   Huh? "New, incompatible architecture"? Incompatible with WHAT?
   InfoWorld, in their reviews of the new machines, said all the
   software they tested worked fine.

>How much more would it have been to support eight bit color on the 13 inch
>monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one?  10$? 20$?  And that would have
>been compatible with the IIsi and the IIci..

   Sigh. If we added support for the 13", you'd whine that you couldn't
   put a 24-bit card in it...
 
>And why does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? 

   The same reason a Volkswagen doesn't have a fuel-injected V-8 engine...

>Finally, the IIsi.  Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one?

   Sigh. If it was 25mhz, you'd be whining that it wasn't 30...

>You see, before I can convince myself, or anyone else, to spend big 
>money on those computers, I need to reasonably understand why they
>are so awkward.

   Sounds to me like you need to understand a helluva lot more that that.

>Oh, and while we're at it, why hasn't Apple come out with a "IIcfx",
>a 3-slot fx?  

   Oh...uh...let's see....what was the reason...OH...yeah...
   the name "Macintosh IIcfx" is too long, and won't fit on the box.
   Besides, we'd charge more for it than a NINTENDO system, so you 
   wouldn't buy it anyway.

David