Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:11444 comp.sys.mac.system:6046 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj From: chrisj@ut-emx.uucp (Chris Johnson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: A Classic Dead End? Keywords: Classic,System 7.0 Message-ID: <49371@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 22 May 91 20:03:31 GMT References: <53050@apple.Apple.COM> <28625@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <53169@apple.Apple.COM> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.hardware Distribution: usa Organization: U.T. Austin Computation Center Lines: 80 >In article <28625@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) writes: [David points out that a lot of old personal computers can be considered "viable" depending on your definition of "viable". He goes on to discuss some of the improvements in PC hardware specs. that have helped to increase baseline performance on that side of the industry over the years.] >>The point here is that Apple has stagnated by stomping on all >>competition. If you compare the advances made on the IBM-side of the >>house as compared to the Apple side, this is obvious. In article <53169@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > >Oh, yeah? Let me know when the IBM side of the house releases anything >closely resembling System 7.0. And I don't just mean something that's >got overlapping windows; I mean everything that contributes to >useability. [Discussion of the virtues of consistent software design, and illustrative story removed.] I think this amounts to changing the subject - it's a valid subject, but not the one that David Hightower was discussing. His concern was with hardware - particularly with processors and their clock speeds - not software. This is a point I've wondered about myself: why didn't Apple take advantage of the Classic as an opportunity to increase baseline Macintosh performance? There'll be a lot of Classics (and even Mac Pluses, I expect) still running in 5 or 6 years, and I wonder whether we really want to find ourselves in 1996-97 till trying to create software that (a) delivers all the wonderful features people will have come to expect and (b) can do so effectively on Macs still based on 8Mhz 68000s just like original 128K Mac of 1984. (Of course the Classic, like the SE, offers a 15-30% performance improvement over its predecessors, but is that enough?) Things like the System 7.0 Finder operate slugishly on my trusty old Mac Plus even though it has 4MB of RAM and a fast 100MB hard disk. I understand this. After all, features cost. In fact I'm impressed by just how well it does work. But if delivering the features Mac users expect in '91 means that software begins to get a little slugish on our 8MHz friends today, what are things going to be like in '96 or '97? These long-term issues worry me. Of course, there may be hardware upgrades for Classic owners at some point, but what about Mac Plus owners? Will there at least be a formal trade-up policy for them? By the way, does Apple have a formal upgrade policy for the Macintosh line, or is the decision made on a case by case basis? A formal policy would be preferable since owners would know what they could expect from Apple from day one. Even if there are upgrades to low-end machines will they be priced such that people who needed a low cost Mac to begin with can really afford them? [Personally, I'd keep my Plus even if there were an upgrade, because I'd still need it for software compatibility and performance testing in my own develop- ment work, but I expect that my interests here are somewhat unusual.] Simply sticking with old hardware and limiting oneself to running old software that still performs reasonably well, as has been suggested by others earlier in this discussion, doesn't seem like a good solution in most cases because that software is generally unsupported by its publishers. If you need a bug fix, for instance, you'll have no choice but to live with it or upgrade to that newer version that you were trying to avoid or (perhaps) can't run at all. I don't necessarily claim to have good answers, but I think these are all good questions. I hope this hasn't come off as some sort of drawn-out flame. It certainly wasn't intended as anything more than a way of bringing up some of my PERSONAL* concerns for the future of the Macintosh and the industry that surrounds it -- as a member of that community since 1984 (yes, I saved my money and bought a 128K Mac when they were the only kind of Mac there was) I care a lot. Cheers, ----Chris ----chrisj@emx.utexas.edu *DISCLAIMER: I'm sure my employer wants nothing to do with my opinions.