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!voder!apple!tecot
From: tecot@apple.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Color for the SE? (Is this a dumb question?)
Message-ID: <6297@apple.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 19:38:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.6297
Posted: Sat Sep 19 19:38:11 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 16:43:52 EDT
References: <1470@ingr.UUCP> <11540017@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> <3905@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Reply-To: tecot@apple.UUCP (Ed Tecot)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 28

In article <3905@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes:
>if you ask why Color QD isn't in the SE ROM's, I would like to
>add two other points to the earlier observations:
>  1) Most (all) of the code was written in 68020 assembler, 
>     so there would be some version control problems if a 68000
>     version were needed for the SE.  That adds more development
>     time.

That's right.  Also, CQD on a 8MHz 68000 would be VERY slow - it takes
advantage of 68020 instructions to do its job faster.  I'm sure most color
users would not put up with the performance.

>  2) The code wasn't finished until April or so.  It would have
>     held up the SE, which instead was available for retail
>     purchase soon after the March announcement.

Absolutely.  The SE ROMs were finished more than two months before the
completion of CQD.  Not a good tradeoff.

My notes:
A reasonable color system requires at least as much power as a Mac II.
The performance considerations are too important.  The Mac SE was designed
to be 99% compatible or better with the Mac Plus, and putting in a
68020 would have made that impossible.  Besides, a color Mac SE would have
to retail for close to $5000.  For that much money, you may as well get
the higher performance machine.

						_emt