Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!van-bc!tardis.wimsey.bc.ca!andyb
From: andyb@tardis.wimsey.bc.ca (Andy Babinszki)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac LC or NEXT & Apple Should Move On...
Message-ID: <0101001C.2o6zkr@tardis.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 6 Feb 91 14:53:47 GMT
Reply-To: andyb@tardis.wimsey.bc.ca
Organization: The Mining Ship, Red Dwarf
Lines: 21
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.3


> Lots of things said ...


Well as long as we're all talking about what we want in a new Mac or entirly new "Apple
Fuzzbutt" computer, I want a system bus that can keep up with changes in system requirements.
I'll elaborate.  When the Mac II first came out @ 16 MHz, a 10MHz bus didn't sound
unreasonable.  Now, however, when we're seeing top end Macs running at 40MHz ( and
beyond -> rumors... ) isn't 10MHz becoming a bottleneck esp. for graphics?  Now I'm
reading in MacWEEK that Apple is planning some kind of ROM U/G to up the bus speed
to 20MHz.  Isn't this too little too late?  Rather than thinking about the minimum
that they can get away with shouldn't they be thinking of the future?  Shouldn't Apple
be using the 10MHz example as an indicator of how quickly a carved in silicon limit
can become a hinderance?

Just my two bits worth.

Ahh!  With that off my chest I feel much better! :-)

Andy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Babinszki - andyb@tardis.wimsey.bc.ca