Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ll-xn!mit-eddie!zrm From: zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac II (really SE: A letdown?) Message-ID: <5083@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Sun, 8-Mar-87 15:28:10 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5083 Posted: Sun Mar 8 15:28:10 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 04:02:05 EST References: <422@yabbie.rmit.oz> <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> Reply-To: zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) Organization: MURSU Corporation, (617) 522-9035 Lines: 64 In article <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > > Concerning the SE, > > [[*IGNITE*]] > > * Why wasn't the SE based on the 68020? > [Still working on the ROM/Finder/System? In essence, still > working on the Mac II] > * Is it true that there are 2 clock rates available on the SE? > (8 and 16Mhz) > [If so then one assumes this is for a 68020. By 3rd > parties or Apple or Both] > * How wide is the Data Path on the SE [16 bits?] > > What I am getting down to is... > Did Apple intend the SE to be a 68020 machine in the first place? > That's a good question! Software developers received prototype machines from Apple which were Mac Pluses with a 68020 processor replacing the 68000, but running at the same speed as the 68000. What was the purpose of these machines, really? Were they Mac SE prototypes, or were they just for debugging software for the Mac II? My guess is that Motorola can't make the 300,000 or more 68020s that Apple might need if the SE were based on the 020, and that Apple knew this early in the product development cycle. Moto would be loath to second-source licence their premier processor while lesser 68000s are available from second sources, ergo Apple (and Commodore, for that matter) are stuck with the 68000 as the processor for really high-volume production machines. Both Apple and Commodore have machines out that can be upgraded from 68000 to 68020 in a fairly clean way. Apple, in addition, has a high-end machine that may be upgradable (via a NuBus card) to the 68030, further stretching its product lifespan. Apple has, in my opinion, hit the product planning nail right on the head, given not only consumer demand (pull) but technology (push) as well. The SE (Somewhat Expandable?) will compete against PC/XTs and in some cases PC/ATs, while the Macintosh II will compete against high-end PC/AT configurations, the 386 machines, and mid-range 68020 workstations such as Apollo. Sun will rise above the fray with 25Mhz 68020 machines and other high-end hardware and software, and other Unix boxes will get trampled in the fight between 386 Unix systems, Macintosh IIs, and cheap VAXes. The Macintosh II will be fierce competeition for everyone except Sun (because Sun customers want Sun's Unix, not some "with Berkeley enhancements" bogosity). The 68020 system vendors who went with the PC/AT bus will regret that decision because the Mac IIs NuBus will yield much better overall system performance (i.e. two disk controllers running at once will both get adequate bus bandwidth). Corporate buyers will begin to fall in love with Apple because Apple will have a wide, compatible range of products that won't soon be obsolete. Meanwhile IBM thrashes around with the 286 vs. 386 operating system decision, the window system problem, and the 386 vs. PC/RT product planning problem. But hey, NeXT Inc. could turn the world upside down next week. Have fun, -Zigurd