Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!nud!mcdchg!upba!unocss!dent From: dent@unocss.UUCP (Dave Caplinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: New Macs Message-ID: <644@unocss.UUCP> Date: 28 Jan 89 18:16:58 GMT References: <13027@steinmetz.ge.com> Organization: U. of Nebraska at Omaha Lines: 33 From article <13027@steinmetz.ge.com>, by vita@daredevil.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita): > Besides, as I understand it, Apple didn't really have much choice in > the matter. Because of the differences in CPU architecture, forcing > the SE/30 slot to be SE-compatible would have needlessly crippled the > machine. Going with an incompatible slot was done for technical > reasons, not for marketing reasons, as I suspect was the case with > IBM's MCA. Actually, I think the "corporate money" explanation describes it better. Apple apparently has no qualms about intentionally crippling a machine, as can be seen in the Apple //gs. There shouldn't have been any reason (besides not wanting it to compete with Macs) the //gs couldn't have been a speed demon. One thing that I'm amazed about though: The //c+. Apple 1) actually recognized competition, and 2) made a machine that made sense! Now, if they'd get the Mega II chip in there and put in a battery (and flat screen), they'll finally have the //c done. (After what, 5 years? :-) Ah well, I guess I'll wait for "Golden Gate"... (But I'd rather have an SE/30 with an external chasis that takes Mac II nubus cards... :-) Mountain Computer, are you still out there? > ---- > Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA > General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.crd.ge.com > Corporate R & D desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP > Schenectady, NY uunet!steinmetz!desdemona!vita -/ Dave Caplinger /------------------+----------------------------------- Microcomputer Specialist | Internet: unocc07@zeus.unl.edu "Computing and Data Communications" | UUCP: uunet!btni!unocss!dent University of Nebraska at Omaha | Bitnet: UNOCC07@UNOMA1 Omaha, NE 68182 | or dc3a+@andrew.cmu.edu