Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!prls!gardner
From: gardner@prls.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Color for the SE? (Is this a dumb question?)
Message-ID: <6275@prls.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Sep-87 12:43:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: prls.6275
Posted: Fri Sep 18 12:43:35 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 02:13:15 EDT
References: <1470@ingr.UUCP> <11540017@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Reply-To: gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner)
Organization: Philips Research Labs, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 27

In article <11540017@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> david@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes:
>Can you say MARKETING DECISION?  
>
>1) The ROMS in the SE are not the same as those in the MAC II, and only the
>   Mac II Roms support Color!
>
>   So, my guess is that Apple wanted to force those who want color to spring for a Mac II or they were WAY OFF BASE about the number of people out there who ant <-WANT COLOR on their Mac be it a II or an SE.
>

This is sure generating a lot of net traffic! MacUser or MacWorld ran an 
article awhile back about this issue. They claim that it was simply a
time/technology issue -- when development on the SE started there was no
way that color could be added inexpensively (or a 68020 used) and Apple
decided to release the machine this year without rather than delay its
introduction another year. The Mac II was seen from the start as a more
expensive, lower volume machine that could afford to use color/68020.

Anyway, by the time it became clear that color and 68020's could be added
at reasonable cost to the SE the project was too far along. They
obviously made a good choice since the SE has been a big factor in
selling Macs to businesses (a good business choice, that is -- maybe not
so good for those of us who want color/68020 at SE prices).

This is based on my memory of that article and therefore not necessarily
on anything factual!

Robert Gardner