Re: Randy, wake up!

[shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

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

: I don't like what's happened either, but I have to agree that Apple needs
: that revenue a hell of a lot more than Motorola or even Power Computing.
: Assuming Apple pulls through, I expect them to be real nice to everyone
: they have snubbed during these dark hours.

Last I saw PCC was selling off its assets. Seems their plans to enter the
WinNT market went south. No surprise, the company was run by a bunch of
pissants who wouldn't play by Apple's rules. They made a stink about the
clone arrangement and Apple told 'em to get lost.

: Except for one thing: WDC couldn't make a fast 65816 in decent quantities,
: and ultimately they didn't need to. They are still around today, selling to
: the 8-bit and 16-bit microcontroller markets. They were not responsive to
: Apple when the IIgs/Mac decision was being considered. At least one
: interview of old Apple employees uncovered the nugget "if the 68K had been
: a year later or the 65816 had been a year earlier, then there quite possibly
: would never have been a Mac". Sorry, but I don't remember the source. Argh.

I saw something saying that 68000 chips came out in '79. Apple ][ pluses
came out that year.

: The point I'm getting at here is, had Apple gone with the "IIx" instead of
: the Mac, they almost definitely would have been creamed by the rise of
: Wintel. (I say almost because they could have bought WDC, licensed the 65816,
: or bought CPU design expertise to make the 65032 real. Who knows?)

Man I'm glad someone else is saying this. You see what happens when I point
out the stark reality that Apple would have folded long ago with 6500 based
boxes as its only products.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.