Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: My decision for the LC
Message-ID: <44109@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 13 Feb 91 00:07:56 GMT
References: <44069@ut-emx.uucp> <477@generic.UUCP> <361@alchemy.UUCP> <366@alchemy.UUCP>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 56

In article <366@alchemy.UUCP> hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes:
>Apple, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that you could upgrade the Mac LC to 
>another Mac.  It is *usually* apple policy to allow users to upgrade from one 

Yes, but the original poster (youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu) said:

>Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything.  But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be
>upgradable to SOMETHING someday.  And it has new software coming out for it.
>
>Ben Youngdahl

>Mac platform to the same within the same family, i.e. it is that policy that 
>allows meek Macintosh II owners to upgrade to the Macintosh IIfx (for a price -
>which is nevertheless significantly less than buyng a full IIfx system).  

Yes, that's true...

>SImilarly, I envision that it might be possible to upgrade the LC to a possible
>future LC+ - just as it was possible to do so with the Apple II line for a 
>while.
>
>The LC might only have a single slot, but that slot will allow you to later (or
>even right now) upgrade your LC with a 68040 accelerator that gives it 2-3 
>times the performance of a IIfx!  As a sidenote, acceleration technology is 

That's also true, but many former II users (I'm not sure about Mr. Youngdahl)
would like to have the //e emulation card, will fill that only slot.

>very easy and very available on the LC, while the same, unfortunately can not 
>be said for the Apple IIgs 9no thanks to Bill Mensch being incapable to built a
>CPU able to go at decent speeds.  One wonders why it seems so difficult in an 
>age when 32-bit architectures are getting CPUs rated at 50 and 100 MHz, why is 
>it so difficult to WDC to manufacture a measly 16-bit processor at 20-25 MHz?).

I agree with that... I don't know much about chip architecture and design,
but it would seem that making a 25Mhz 65816 would be easier than making a 50
MHz 68040 or a 100Mhz 80486. My guess is that the money goes to the Motorola
and Intel chips, not to WDC.

>Granted, though, the single slot inhibits more complex expansion, but if you 
>want more slots, all you need to do si get a Mac that has more.  There are 
>choices, you know!

Yes, but Mr. Youngdahl seemed to be stating that he was getting a Mac LC
because it was upgradable, whereas the GS was not.
I think the LC would be the perfect computer for some people, but upgradability
shouldn't be the main reason for getting one.

>Harry


-- 
David Huang                                 |
Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu          | "Slight accidents with funny rays
UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh   |   can have serious consequences"
America Online: DrWho29                     |