Re: IIgs kills ARM-A2 prototype! Film at 11.

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes:

>This was the Mac 128 at the time...now along comes an
>ARM-A2 prototype.

Your assumption that Apple had pre-release ARM's needs supporting.
Just because it was physically possible does not mean that Apple
automatically knew about and obtained samples. Your historical
extrapolation depends heavily on this and many other assumptions.

> Look at what you said about the Archimedes
>above...floating point or not, an ARM1 is more powerful than a 68k
>...much more powerful.  Why not ditch the unsuccessful Mac 128
>and go with the ARM-A2?

For this to hold water, you must establish that the ARM-A2 was proven
before the 68020 (much more comparable to the ARM in performance) was
being demo'd by Motorola. Once the 68k Mac had a proven performance
road map, no one in his right mind would continue to consider the ARM,
which would have looked like a dark horse candidate until much later.

> The computer was more powerful...it
>could run Apple II software through emulation much as the PMac
>runs 68k Mac software today (in fact, the Archimedes can run
>6502 based BBC software)...

When was this emulation available? Your assumption that the emulation
was available at the introduction of ARM silicon needs supporting.

>and it was powerful enough to handle
>the Apple "Mac" GUI like OS no problem (the Archimedes had an
>GUI OS similar to this).

When was this GUI first known to be working? Your assumption that it
was known to everyone at the introduction of ARM silicon needs supporting.

> Answer is again Steve Jobs, his ego, and
>his need to make himself look better than his partner, Woz...

Steve Jobs is a certified psychopath -- give him more credit than this.
You keep ignoring the incredible hype surrounding the Mac and its new-
ness. The prospect of a true "blank slate" machine really captured a lot
of hearts and minds. Then the evolving PC market crushed all opposition
and the cold necessity for backwards compatibility forced itself on
anyone who still cared about survival.

>assuming first ARM1 in 1985 as you claim from
>your source (I am still suspicious of your dates,

Try looking up the American RISCs, they didn't hit commercial silicon
until 1986 or later. ARM holds the legitimate title as first commercial
RISC. First commercial American RISC is the Fairchild Clipper (1986),
followed closely by MIPS and HP-PA. Those dates I got from the Berkeley
CPU Info Center, which lists ARM's introduction date as 1986, so maybe
that first silicon wasn't quite ready for prime time and needed work...

http://infopad.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/archive/cpu_history.html

>Did Steve Jobs decision to sever the old Apple II line from the
>later Apple computers hurt Apple?  I think so...I truely think the
>shafting of 10-11 million users hurt Apple more than we can ever
>know...

Your assumption that the decision to be totally incompatible was purely
Steve Jobs' also needs supporting. Are you going to try to argue that
the Apple III and Lisa contained incompatibilities only because Jobs
wanted it that way? Would you really ignore all the other people at
Apple who felt as Jobs did that clean breaks were worth the trouble?

>A strong continuous ARM-A2 "Mac" line (an ARM based line
>continuous from Apple II to "Mac"...in quotes because these Macs
>would run on ARMs)...would have sent a clear signal to the
>industry that Apple was serious about continuity.  More clones
>could have appeared...think fifty to one hundred companies like
>Laser...it could have shifted the balance from IBM clone world
>domination to one in which Apple and company actually had a
>chance...

You're ignoring the benefits of 20/20 hindsight again. I'd love
that scenario just as much as the next AII user, but be realistic!
It didn't happen. There was a hell of a lot more going on than
sibling rivalry between the Steves.

Steve Jobs is not Darth Vader. He's just a certified psychopath
who actually seems to be saving Apple's butt right now because
Apple kept digging itself deeper and deeper trying to be nice
to everyone when it really did not have the luxury of doing that.

I'm sorry, but if Apple has a chance at recovery, its name is Steve Jobs.
GET USED TO IT.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu