Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!lion!nrjwong From: nrjwong@lion.waterloo.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Low-Cost Macintosh Message-ID: <20475@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 2 Feb 90 19:31:46 GMT References: <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <6192@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu Reply-To: jlee4@orchid.waterloo.edu () Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 117 In article <6192@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes: >In article <25c8e25c.62bb@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: >> >>In article <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>>... [Stuff Deleted about using an '030 in a low-cost Mac] [Stuff deleted about why the above isn't possible for Apple] >>... >What Apple and Motorola need to do to tackle this problem is to take >a lesson from the PC world. From a software point of view, the 80286 >became a dead dog (listen to Bill Gates; he's telling PC users what >they are going to get). But it has a 16 bit external bus. A lot of >cheap clones could be made and sold with a chip that had the 386 >architecture, except with a 16 bit, rather than 32 bit, external data bus. >So Intel came out with the 386SX. Another reason is because Intel wanted more profits, so the 386 and 386SX are not second-sourced. Companies like AMD and Harris who are licensed to produce 286's got left out in the cold w.r.t. the 386. I think there were lawsuits pending about this issue. Why do you think Intel has been raving in the mags about the greatness of the 386SX and the death of the 286???? PC magazine (I believe) has shown that a 16MHz 286 and 16MHz 386SX are virtually identical in speed in most cases. OS/2 is still a 286-based operating system. There isn't that much busines software out for 386's especially, and PC clone makers don't have to worry about getting sued from IBM for copying the BIOS. They just get a BIOS from any number of 3rd party sources. > >To a much lesser degree, the 68000 is also a dead dog, with respect to >future directions in Mac OS software. A "low cost", 16 bit external data >bus part, packaged in a cheap plastic DIP, that is software compatible >with the 68030 would make a great platform for a new line of Macs. >Make it a CMOS part and it could be used in a new Portable (it would >also reduce the power requirements or a non-portable, permitting a >cheaper power supply). I think the main reason the 68000 seems like a dead dog is partly due to the Mac's (small macs) design and the lack of a decent IPC. Take a look at the software packages out there today. They try to do everything at once for everyone in one package. Why? Because it's a pain to switch to another program to do stuff like graphics, etc. from, say, a word processor. There's a Scrapbook and Clipboard but as the number of third-party products out there to supplement the functions of these two devices, they just aren't enough. Performance-wise, Apple just places a huge load on the CPU when doing graphics among other things. The Amiga handles this nicely with its 3-chip set to take the load off of the CPU. I don't think you'll get great animation until the hardware changes - either speed up the bus a lot or get some sort of blitter - a real powerful one (YEAH!), just going up to a 25MHz '030 or an '040 will just delay this. Not everyone has a Mac II or higher (who has paid list price for the beast???). I think both Apple and IBM realise they need better performance from their machines if "multi-media" is to be commonplace. In the rumor mill of Amazing Computing magazine, there was a brief description about IBM's new multimedia machine; two things it's got - a blitter and a DSP chip. Meanwhile Commodore is just sitting there trying to get male teenagers to buy Amigas so they can pickup the girls next door. :-) More CMOS 680x0 parts will proliferate as the Mac portable gains market share. Look at the PC portable market these days compared to 2 years ago. > >Apple must be Motorola's largest customer for 68000s. If Apple wanted >to build such a machine, Motorola would sell enough chips to make >it worth their while. Yep. > >So get with it Motorola, and build a MC68HC036 in 8 and 16MHZ parts. >Apple, use the 8MHZ part in a K-12 Mac and an ultra-lite portable; >use the 16MHZ part in a new line of compact, modular Macs. >(Can a MC68HC046 be far behind?) If Motorola is working on such a beast they're being real quiet about it. They've still got an '040 to ship. I remember reading in Microprocessor Report (great newsletter, high price) that Apple was looking into the Motorola 88000. Unfortunately, the 680x0 series and 88K chips aren't binary comaptible so either an emulation would have to be performed of a 680x0 (which would bring the 88K down to about the speed of an 680x0) or Motorola could make a few changes to the 88K chip to allow better performance while emulating the 680x0 series. I believe someone was speculating the latter would happen. [N.B. I read this a couple of months ago so there might be some inaccuracies.] Then there's a question of what will happen to the IIgs. Lots of schools still have Apple II's though software development seems to be grinding to a standstill in most cases (maybe the new rumor about a 32-bit version of the 65816 will help). Schools are just like governments - they move slowly. Teachers are not the technophiles of the land, in general. Most of them are technophobics and are just learning about computers now along with their students. Hey, I would love a fast small Mac (though giving up screen space would be tough) rather than having to lug my Mac II around. Hey if it's cheap, even better. I just don't think that it's going to happen. A cheap Mac will increase market share which Apple needs, now that everyone and his mother has a similar GUI (though actual software is a different matter). Johnny Lee [using nrjwong's account cause my machine doesn't get these newsgroups] jlee4@orchid.waterloo.edu [MAD DOG]