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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) wrote:

>Sources:
>http://www.acorn.com/acorn/company/technology/history/technical.html
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201624109/002-5028283-3601025
>http://www.uce.com/machist.html
>http://www.hypermall.com/History/AH10.html
>http://www.hypermall.com/History/AH11.html
>http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~dangermo/IAUG/TECH/system.html
>http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~amigatec/library/amiga_history.html

Timeline snipped...

>(a) Note that the first ARM CPU's became available halfway through the
>Mac128's product cycle, but very early in the IIgs' development cycle.
>According to the Apple II history, the "Golden Gate" processor card projects
>had been cancelled before the IIgs project was begun (the IIgs project was
>even code named "phoenix" after the ashes of the "Golden Gate" project).

What you are neglecting is the fact that your timeline is only relevant
when refering to the Archimedes PC.  That's because Archimedes
was the first computer to use the ARM.  If the Mac (or ARM A2 or
whatever you want to call the transitional prototype) ARM computer
had been produced, the first ARM based unit would have shipped
earlier accordingly.

The prototype ARM A2 was probably using a "developer release"
chip. Rhapsody is not released yet, for example, but developers
have had copies of it for months...

>This raises two questions:
>
>    1. Why would _anyone_ want to kill the Macintosh a year after its
>	introduction in order to replace it with an ARM-A2 ?

The ARM A2 was there.  The ARM chip was available.  Just because
the Archimedes had not yet been released does not mean that the
ARM chip was not available!

>    2. Why would _anyone_ within Apple be working on an ARM-A2 prototype
>	six months after the IIgs project was started ?

Again, you are thinking of the Archimedes intro as the ARM chip
intro...the chip was available earlier and Apple was probably given
the first batch of samples (much like WDC did with the IIgs)!

>(b) Note that the history of hardware floating point heavily favored the
>_Mac_, with the Amiga and Archimedes both waiting until 1989/1990. I have
>only cited machines which were "top of their line" at their introduction.

Apple can do no wrong?

Mac 128 was NOT strong in floating point!

>Supertimer, the Amiga vs. Archimedes contest you saw was rigged against the
>Amiga somehow. Both machines had various speed options, so unless you can
>remember a lot about them, we'll never know why the Archimedes did so well.

It was not rigged, but it did use the 8Mhz model of the Archimedes
vs. the Amiga 1000.