Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  The 68050 - end of the 680x0? (was Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <50863@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 19 Jun 91 18:29:41 GMT
References: <5171@orbit.cts.com>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 20

In article <5171@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:

>year later, still a 16 Mhz machine) then FINALLY comes the IIci which is 25
>Mhz, the speed at which their machines SHOULD have been clocked for to begin
>with).  then comes the IIfx which uses a 50 Mhz 030 chip clocked at 40 Mhz(!)

Really?  Were those 25Mhz chips being produced in the quantities Apple would
need?

>designed, and when sales slack, they pump up the power.  (forcing you to
>continually upgrade if you want the best performance).  is it any wonder why i
>believe the first 040 mac will be 16 Mhz?  

Hmm, sound like that same argument could be applied to the Amiga.  3rd 
parties almost always have a faster processor available for a given machine.

It isn't any wonder to me that you think the first Apple-produced 040 Mac would
be a 16Mhz machine.  If I didn't know anything about a machine or the company
that produced it, or the business realities of the situation, I could imagine
all sorts of absurd things as well.