Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!srcsip!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!agnes.acc.stolaf.edu!sobiloff
From: sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: A low-end Mac
Summary: My dead-horse kick...
Message-ID: <11221@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 90 06:22:16 GMT
Sender: news@thor.acc.stolaf.edu
Reply-To: sobiloff@agnes.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy)
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN
Lines: 52

Well, I just got back from vacation and waded through the almost 700 messages
that accumulated while I was gone... :-(

One thing that interested me the most, though, concerning a low-cost Mac was
the lack of discussion concerning the low-ender that Apple has supposedly
already developed (as reported in MacLEAK)--is this a "headless SE" that
folks have been clamoring for?  Is this what Apple is pushing through the
channels?

Anyway, I cast my vote against the 68000 as the central processor in any 
future Mac.  My reasons?  First and foremost is that the system software
of the future is going to require at least a 68020 with a 68882 to be fully
utilized.  Secondly, until Apple gets away from the single-chip architecture,
more muscle is going to be needed to handle both the expanded capabilities of
the system and the expanded powers of newer programs.  There is no reason
Apple should sell a computer that won't run the latest software!

Now, I know that there are a lot of people out there who have spoken up and
said that they don't need all this power, all they want to do is to write
papers, etc.  If this is *all* they want to do, there is already a very
large number of used Macs that can be bought for very little and can do
simple tasks like this.

So what do I want in a bottom-end Mac?  I'm not an architecture expert, but
here it goes: a "headless" Mac that is about the size of the IIcx with a
68020, built-in 4 bit color/grey, one NuBus and one DPS slot.  Most importantly:
sell it *at cost or below*!  Sounds rediculous?  Not really...

The Japanese have done it for years in order to establish a market presence
and to get folks "hooked" on their particular equipment (be it cars, stereos,
or whatever).  Apple makes more than enough profit from the other platforms
(especially if they dump the costly Plus, and to a lesser extent the SE)
to cover their losses by selling so low.  They'll dramatically expand their
base and start looking attractive to many market segments that they fail to 
hit presently.

This platform would allow folks to inexpensively expand to things like 
virtual memory, etc., that require more hardware.  It also gives a much
better "minimum equipment base" for developers to work with--a la our
discussions concerning the NeXT-ish interface variations that we are
seeing now.  Finally, I don't know if this Mac could be priced at approx.
$1000 (including a monitor capable of handling 4-bit greys), but maybe that
is the cost for being on the forefront of ease-of-use computing.  More price
speculation would be appreciated...

Oh, and lastly, Apple should remember that it is first and foremost a 
*software* company, not a hardware one.  I think Apple makes some good
hardware, but it is the user interface that really makes the difference.
I would suggest that Apple license out its interface for other platforms,
but I'd probably get nuked to a crisp... :-)

						-CCb