Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!gould9!joel
From: joel@gould9.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac II
Message-ID: <1035@gould9.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Feb-87 04:47:15 EST
Article-I.D.: gould9.1035
Posted: Fri Feb 13 04:47:15 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Feb-87 15:15:53 EST
References: <949@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Western Software Technology, Vista, CA
Lines: 28

Did anyone read this Macintouch article (also posted to n.s.m. or 
mod.mac.binaries??) called 'Mac II First Look'?  Wow!

If it's true, it's pretty specific -- incredibly so, in fact.
They claim to have run a lot of sample programs.

We knew that MacWrite bombs on a 68020 (see MacTutor, 11/85
I believe) due to the TRAP instruction.  In fact, Levco includes
a special DA (or INIT?) to catch the TRAP's and fool MacWrite
into thinking the exception frame is the same size as a 68000.

What about MacTerminal and MS-Works?  Why should they bomb?

If the report is accurate (and, according to it, we should know
soon) I'd say Apple has a problem with secrecy.  Are there too many
developers with advance machines?  Too many magazine reporters
who claim a tight deadline and get a look 3 months in advance?
Or does the informal corporate culture at Apple make it difficult
to enforce restrictions on employees?

People spend even more time trying to guess what IBM's going to
do, but so far a lot of those predictions (like the PC II) have
failed to come true.
-- 
	Joel West			     MCI Mail: 282-8879
	Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA  92083
	{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
	joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA