Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
From: ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: 16Mhz  why in the world....
Message-ID: <2464@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 89 19:04:08 GMT
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 27

In article <20788@santra.UUCP>, jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) writes...
[...]
>I don't want a Macintosh model designed to be a NeXT-killer. The Macintosh
>architecture simply wasn't designed to kill NeXT.


Ah, right, that's the official Next reason why Next will succeed the Mac.  I
talked with someone at Next about it: yeah, he said, the Mac architecture just
can't compete with Next's.  I disagree, but I guess we'll see.  I reckon a lot
of software's gonna break in the interim, but I reckon Apple's engineer's are
going to revamp the architecture for the '90's.  And then there's always the
88k Mac (which I guess you could claim is a separate machine).  Apple's also
going to be going (according to them) much further in the direction of
graphic and other co-processors, etc., offloading a lot of work off the CPU
(Finally! :->).

By the way, I think it will be interesting to see how Next is doing a year from
now.  Between Apple's future stuff, Sun's "Campus", and Dec's new stuff,
there's a lot of competition. A beta Next at Businessland?  Sounds kinda of odd
to me.  Apple's Next-Killer may never get a chance to go up against its target. 
But...we'll see.
               
Robert
------
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
------
generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine