Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: IIci 5/160 configuration
Message-ID: <1991Jun8.080103.1106@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Keywords: Mac IIci
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
References: <1991May25.043909.765@world.std.com> <1991Jun7.125253.10301@cbnewsc.att.com> <1991Jun7.231510.16985@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun8.054444.24285@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 08:01:03 GMT
Lines: 30

philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes:

>Who knows? Has anyone read the story in Wall Street Journal about
>Apple considering IBM's RISC processor for its future machine?

>Any thoughts on this? Could it be that IBM is getting tired of
>Microsoft?

  I think IBM got tired of Microsoft quite a while ago.

>I hope Apple will make a technically reasonable
>decision (as I believe they did in going for the Motorola
>for the original Mac) if they are chosing a new CPU.

  So do I.  IBM's RS/6000 is very good, as are the MIPS R4000 and
of course Motorola's 88110, all of which Apple is rumoured to be
"considering".  
  I guess there's sentimental value attached to going with Motorola,
but there must be some doubts after the slow delivery of the 68040,
and the technical complexity of the 88110.

>As with CISC, there are some dud RISC architectures.

  Like the SPARC for example.  I would be extremely surprised (and
disappointed) if Apple went with SPARC.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu   
"And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"