Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!north From: north@apple.UUCP (Donald N. North) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac II (really SE: A letdown?) Message-ID: <520@apple.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 00:01:06 EST Article-I.D.: apple.520 Posted: Mon Mar 9 00:01:06 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 20:25:44 EST References: <422@yabbie.rmit.oz> <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> Reply-To: north@apple.UUCP (Donald N. North) Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 61 In article <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > Concerning the SE, > * Why wasn't the SE based on the 68020? > [Still working on the ROM/Finder/System? In essence, still > working on the Mac II] Compatibility and cost, simply put. Like it or not, the '020 is NOT directly compatible with the '000, and is substantially more expensive. See below. > * 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?] There is one clock rate (same as the MAC,MAC+) - 7.8336 MHz for the onboard '000 processor. Twice this (15.6672 MHz) probably goes to the connector, but I'm not 100% sure. The processor is a 68000, so the memory datapath is 16 bits. A better scheme for refreshing the screen from memory resulted in a 15%-20% effective performance increase overall (fewer CPU - display refresh collisions). > What I am getting down to is... > Did Apple intend the SE to be a 68020 machine in the first place? Not directly, but there is this slot, you see... > Are we going to see an SE+, with the obvious upgrade path. [Please > don't have the same logic board if it currently has a 16 Bit Data > Path]. We don't comment on future product plans. > Was Apple pressured into getting the SE (or for that matter - any > new machine) out? Or this another money making ploy. We always want to get new products out to the world. We need to make money to keep our jobs and continue developing new products. > My own feeling [hope] is that they were pressured into getting > something out - not by competition (there isn't any), but by... > * Us. > * Miscalculating the 68k/68020 changeover. > (ROM's, logic board, whatever) What did we miscalculate? > This isn't so much a flame - it is disappointment in sticking with a CPU > from the 70's. Sure it can hold it's ground with rivals, but there is > something better - much better! Maybe the corporate sector don't need > brute strengh, but there are a few of us who cannot afford a Mac II yet > still want a bit more grunt. I guess the money is in business eh? The slot in the SE will allow for expansion to an '020 or other processor - if you want it. Most people probably don't need its capabilities right now. Like it or not, there is a substantial cost premium for an '020 based system over an '000 (not only the CPU, but 32-bit vs 16-bit wide memory). If you want a V8, you can get the *option* yourself. (Watch for 3rd party blurbs). 100% (not 99%+) software compatibility was also a design goal. There are enough 'minor' differences between the '000 and '020 (esp. stack format) to break or disable many applications (FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN I.M. ...). Hopefully, in the future, we won't have to worry about this as much (FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN I.M. ...), but for now it is a reality. Facts are facts; but the opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent any official position of Apple Computer, Inc. -- Donald North Apple Computer, Inc. Advanced Development Group UUCP: {voder,nsc,dual,sun,well,idi}!apple!north CSNET: north@apple.CSNET, north%apple@CSNET-RELAY