Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL
From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re:      Re: Apple II Future
Message-ID: <8812202201.aa08154@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>
Date: 21 Dec 88 02:33:17 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 65

>Please note that GM has been very careful over the years to make
>damned sure that Chevrolet *did not* interfere with other makes in their

The difference between a Chevrolet Vega and a Cadillac Simeron (aside
fromt the "prestige" nameplate) is that about $8,000 worth of Vega options
are "standard equipment" on the Simeron (actually I think the accumulated
cost of the options that turn a Vega into a Simeron is less than the
difference in price between the two "base models," the remaining difference
is, I suppose, the value of the Cadillac nameplate).

I said product interactions are something to be MANAGED; that's what
GM does (P&G too for that matter, although the difference between Tide,
Cheer, and Fab really is more image than substance).

>line.  Some of the suggestions for upgrading the IIGS that I have read
>might very well make it so powerful that it could start to eat out of
>the Mac's sales.  This is speculative, of course, but it's like

As long as the operating systems differ, I doubt that the problem would
be as great as the possiblity that the PS/2 line will erode the sales of
both Apple lines.  I haven't heard of a 6502 family chip (in the foreseeable
future) with a built in memory management capability.  It's possible that
a IIgs could be made that would blow the Mac away one application at a time
(might be fine for some users) but the Mac should be able to out multitask
the IIgs even with the most optimistic of upgrades.

>insurance.  We have insurance "just in case" something bad happens, not
>because we are sure it will happen.

The solution IS to upgrade the Mac (already in the works) NOT retard the
IIgs.  A true multitasking-virtual memory operating system for the Mac should
be along end of '90, early '91 while nothing like it is even on the IIgs
drawing board.  Apple's been fooling around with prototype 68040 chips
for more than a year, and the latest rumors have the Mac migrating to
the 88000 family.  By the time the IIgs has gone 32-bit and has the power
of a (1989) 68030 Mac, the Mac should be a 50 MIP/10 Megaflop workstation
with 32Mbytes of RAM and 2 gigabytes of (fast) disk storage.

In other words, innovation is the only insurance that buys anything in
Apple's business.

>Yes, the two machines have different markets, which is why Apple is
>happy to continue the IIGS.  I still think the end may be near for the
>//e.  If you can buy a IIGS, which is much more powerful than a //e,
>for a little more money, why not go for the better machine?  I can't see
>much reason to continue the //e when the IIGS will do everything the
>//e can do and lots more.

Apple already HAS discontinued //e production once (forced to restart
due to commitments made to school districts).  Tight school budgets that
need to buy roomfulls of computers are sensitive to even a $100 per CPU,
but Apple should be able to switch them to the IIgs or //c+ (with any
kind of effective security device) by next Fall.  You're right that the
//e is a museum piece (so is the Mac Plus, though not all dealers may
realize it).  By Dec '89 the Mac SE will be ready for the Smithsonian.

                                     [The Far Side shall return (I hope)]
Murph Sewall     Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET
Business School  sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu          [INTERNET]
U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax}
                 !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL                        [UUCP]

-+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa!
            (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)

"Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)