Re: Apple //f...

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

pmd@NOescape.ca (Perry Dueck) wrote:

>supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>> Intel wasn't the company it is until IBM "discovered" it.
>
>Oh really? So then why was A.C. Mike Markula able to retire in his early
>'30s back in the 1970's due to his financial fortune made because of the
>Intel stock he held after Intel went public? (and this was long before IBM
>even considered getting into the microcomputer marketplace)

And Bill Mensch has made a pretty buck on the 65C816 too as an
embedded processor.  But embedded processors do not drive
the design cycles that generate super-new architectures that
personal computers do.  If IBM had not "discovered" Intel, the
clones would not have followed, Intel would probably have turned
to the embedded controller market as its primary target.  If that
had happened, we might have eventually seen a 14Mhz 80286
here and there but the Pentium III would have been a dream for
another universe.

Profit is not the only measure of a microprocessor company.  We
think of Intel as a giant not only because it generates revenue but
also because it is an industry computer CPU leader and that
would not have been the case had the IBM not chosen the 8088.

>> Why would WDC
>> gear up to produce large volumes of fast 65C816 chips if Apple couldn't
>> make a commitment to the IIGS and moved toward placing an order?
>
>Ummm...perhaps Apple couldn't move towared placing an order simply because
>they realized that the time frame needed in order for WDC to "tool up" a
>given production plant in order to produce the large volumes of reliable
>production chips that Apple would have desired would simply take too
>long...

WDC, like every other company, is out to make a profit.  The
people behind WDC have to measure the market before committing
risky moves.  I'm sure that if Apple really did want to make a faster
IIGS, they would have sent "feelers" out to WDC to at least let
them know they were interested in eventually making a faster IIGS.
There has to be enough benefit for WDC to take the chance at
tooling up.

>> The chips he had proves that Mesch could deliver fast chips.
>
>Well, no one is disputing that Mensch (sp?) could deliver fast chips...
>what they are trying to point out to you is that Apple needed those fast
>chips delivered to them in large reliable quantities...fast.

That's what I mean.  Look at the way Apple was treating the IIGS,
cutting off all advertising and most R&D.  Now if you were sitting
at a board meeting at WDC, what would you think?  Would you
vote to tool up thinking to embrace Apple when it decides to make
a faster IIGS?  Or would you conclude that they were not interested.

That's the point.  Greg and I agree that even if the faster chips
WERE available, Apple would not want to come out with a faster
IIGS for fear of competing against their precious Mac.

>what they are trying to point out to you

Let's not sound like Nathan now.  Who are the "they" who are all
trying to point out to me?  Greg voiced one opinion.  Dennis voiced
a different opinion.  We are all spectators and simply voicing are
observations.  If you want to make a point, fine, but don't do like
what Nathan used to do.  He used to have an opinion and then
slam everyone else who had a different opinion by saying that
"everyone" agrees with him and disagrees with the person that
he is flaming.