Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!wam!nebel
From: nebel@wam.umd.edu (Chris D. Nebel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Low-Cost Macintosh
Message-ID: <1990Feb1.185328.19467@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 90 18:53:28 GMT
References: <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Reply-To: nebel@cscwam.umd.edu (Chris D. Nebel)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 36

In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>MacWorld last week said that the low-cost macintosh will have the same
>8Mhz 68000 as the original Mac 128k.  It will have enhanced ROMs
>(compared to the SE).
Also the same processor as the Plus and SE, which people still use...

>The time has come to bury the 8Mhz 68000.  Apple should use an 8Mhz
>68030.  I am astounded that they are still trying to dump 8Mhz 68000's
>on consumers -- the chip is more than a decade old.  A japanese
>businessman would hang his head in shame.

First, there's no such thing as an 8MHz 68030.  The slowest Motorola
makes them is 16MHz.  Second, while it would be real nice to have
an '030 machine for <$1000, Apple couldn't produce such a thing
without instantly killing the Plus, SE, SE/30, and really, most of
the rest of their product line.  The IIci is the only machine they
have that runs faster than 16MHz.  The 68000 isn't nearly as
obsolete as you seem to think, and it's much cheaper than the '030
(by about a factor of ten, last I heard).
>
>It has been almost 3 years and there has been no improvement in
>macintosh price/performance.  I think the low-cost machine will go
>the way of the edsel, if there is no dramatic price/performance change.

I think not.  If they came out with a machine that gave the same
functionality as a Plus or SE, but listed for under $1000, then that's
an instant price/performance change of about 2x.  While it does bother
me that the low-cost machine is almost guaranteed not to have a real
memory manager, thus cutting it off from several highly nifty OS
features (virtual memory and process protection, to be specific),
it would be far from "obsolete on arrival".


Chris Nebel
nebel@cscwam.umd.edu