Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!qmw-dcs!liam From: liam@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts;) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux Subject: Re: A/UX on new 030 notebooks? Message-ID: <3388@redstar.dcs.qmw.ac.uk> Date: 19 Jun 91 10:44:52 GMT References: <64631@bbn.BBN.COM> Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Lines: 31 Nntp-Posting-Host: whitesand.dcs.qmw.ac.uk In <64631@bbn.BBN.COM> jjd@bbn.com (James J Dempsey) writes: >If Apple were to introduce a 68030 based portable, assuming one >had a sufficiently large disk (perhaps external), would it be safe for >one to assume that A/UX would most likely run on such a computer? It will be illuminating to find out, won't it... Looking at the recent record of Apple CPUs, software and peripherals, it seems that A/UX wasn't important enough to bother supporting it on the existing Mac portable, or on the LC, it wasn't important enough to alpha test HyperCard 2.0 with, it wasn't important enough to bother having the Personal LaserWriter work with it (alas, SCSI problems). Things evidently are changing: the new style Ethernet cards even come with an A/UX driver when you don't ask for one. I guess the big question for Apple would be "is it worth the extra cost to have an A/UX capable machine?" - who is going to buy an Apple portable to run A/UX that wouldn't buy an Apple portable which didn't run A?UX? Will the UNIX laptop marketplace be completely swamped by the SPARC-based machines? If it we me, I'd have to say that A/UX on an Apple portable isn't worth raising the price for. If there is a low power 68030 which gives decent battery life in a small lightweight unit then fine, lets run A/UX on it. If the battery life is significantly longer for a 68020 machine then it's a much tougher question. -- % William Roberts Internet: liam@dcs.qmw.ac.uk % Queen Mary & Westfield College UUCP: liam@qmw-dcs.UUCP % Mile End Road Telephone: +44 71 975 5234 % LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81-980 6533