Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!maytag!watvlsi!watale!engsoc From: engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Engineering Society, CPH 1327, x2323) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac IIv - inexpensive Mac II box Message-ID: <3122@watale.waterloo.edu> Date: 12 Apr 89 23:22:41 GMT References: Reply-To: engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Engineering Society, CPH 1327, x2323) Organization: University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211 Lines: 83 Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac IIv - inexpensive Mac II box Summary: It may seem like overkill now, but not for long!! References: Sender: Jay Gibson Reply-To: engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Jay Gibson, x2323) Followup-To: comp.sys.mac Distribution: na Organization: University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211 Keywords: Apple, new OS, 68030, brain dead 8086s In article witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) writes: >I have never liked the standard macs. I don't like 9" screens, and I >dont like machines that don't expand easily. As a result, I am being >of overkill for my purposes (esp cause Im aiming for a 4/80). And 5 years ago, most people thought 10 Meg. hard disks for PCs were overkill! >THE IDEA: Take a Mac IIcx box, pull out the 68030, the MMU, the math >co-processor, and any other expensive bits that aren't required. Drop >in the standard 6800 and a regular Floppy drive. Actually, Apple may >etc... I think staying with the 68000 would be a mistake. I have no doubts that Apple's next OS will (or should) require the HW memory management of the '030 to achieve true multitasking. The DOS world is stuck with brain dead 8086s and 80286s, and that has held them back. Even the great OS/2 has to pander to the 80286 oddities - it does not take advantage of the 80386s memory management features. Apple is trying to establish the 030 (or 020 with 68551 MMU) as it's lowest common denomenator. What's that you say..."What about the huge installed base of Mac Plus's and SE's ??" Well, Apple has always struck me as a rather ruthless innovator: they dropped the Lisa...then they dropped the Mac 128k...then out went the 512 group...etc. Technology is advancing very rapidly. Sure owners get pissed off when a product they put good money into gets dropped - but if Apple didn't keep raising the bottom end of their line, we would wallow in a DOS/8086 quagmire! Stuck with a ten year old operating system because every machine, even the 386's, have to pretend they are 8086. Ask even the truest IBMer about the merits of 640K DOS or 64k segments - you'll hear lots of cussing and Intel bashing! So, Apple wants to avoid this. Todays computing is demanding power and multitasking (don't say you don't need it untill you try it - you'll get hooked very quickly!). You can't do this with a 68000. However, the 68000 was designed with 32-bit contiguous addressing, supervisory mode, and lots of other goodies that will make the transition to multitasking fairly painless. The software won't have to be re-written. DOS programs are so full of kludges to get around the 8086 stupidities that they all have to be re-written to go to OS/2 (the 'Compatibility Box' is just a kludge to keep users happy..but still in the dark ages). Granted, the leap to the 030 level is more major than a ROM upgrade. Apple's new OS will still have to have a way of running on the 68000, but the extra features available in the 030 mode will make it very attractive to new buyers to stay away from 68000. MOST of the current S/W will run under the new OS - so no waiting for applications like the poor OS/2 sods! >THE RESULT: A low cost (chuckle, ok, less expensive) expandable Mac. >Idealy this sucker would sell for about what an SE does (maybe a >little less and put it head to head with the SE). It would lower the >entry level for color/greyscale Mac's, increase the market size for >Mac II series expansion cards, and maybe help lower Mac IIcx >production costs through higher volumes (esp if the board remained >common) No, I really think would be a step backwards on Apple's part. As I said before, Apple is rather ruthless about advancing the standard. In the long run, it works. I hope they don't forget this. Please feel free to comment on my comments! I have been accused of being over idealistic in the past (check out my 'Apple Laptop - REALITY' messege). Apple is getting to be a very big company - has or will this change their past aggressive ways? >paul >-- Ciao, Jay Gibson