Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Low-Cost Macintosh
Message-ID: <126900171@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 90 17:39:50 GMT
References: <126900165@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:p.cs.uiuc.edu:126900165:p.cs.uiuc.edu:126900171:000:1103
Nf-From: p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Feb  3 14:02:00 1990


I didn't say *retire* the 68000.  I said *retire* the 8Mhz 68000, and
suggested replacing it with an 8Mhz 68030.

Someone said that Motorola doesn't make 8Mhz 68030's.  That's bunk.
Apple is Motorola's BIGGEST MICROPROCESSOR CUSTOMER.  If Apple said,
"Gee, could you take some rejected 16Mhz 68030's and relabel them 8Mhz
for our new low-cost macintosh, and we'll buy a quarter of a million
in the next year.", you can bet your bippy Motorola would be in the
8Mhz 68030 market, I'm guessing for < $50/each.

Other people have been complaining that a low-cost macintosh would
wipe out the SE and Plus.  What are you, Apple employees?  Have you been
reading MacWorld?  The low-cost macintosh is SUPPOSED to replace the
SE and Plus.  They can't lower the price of the SE or plus because the
profit margin will be too slim.  A total redesign is needed.

The reason I came up with the 8Mhz 68030 is because it would
standardize macintoshes on 32-bit busses with virtual memory and color
quickdraw.  This would save THE ENTIRE WORLD a lot of pain in software
development, and expansion grief, in the long run.