Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)

[ballweb@PEAK.ORG (Brian Ballweber)]

Eric Dietrich (madscientist@treebranch.com) wrote:
: Thats a good idea, but there are a few good reasons not to...

: A.  How many Firewire devices have you seen?  I'd rather use common IDE
: and SCSI.

This is hardly a point, a new computer design should have compatibility
with older designs, but should also not be bottlenecked by it.  Firewire
is so new exactly how many devices would you expect to see immediately?

: B.  More folks have experience building SCSI and IDE interfaces, and
: using devices for these interfaces.

Most folks also have experience licking stamps and visiting the post office,
but that dosent mean that E-mail is doomed...

: C.  If firewire flops, then the *NEW* machine will be saddled with an
: abandoned 
: technology.  And aren't we, as Apple II Users, kinda tired of being
: abandoned?

I hardly think you can toss out a technology just for being new.  In the
world of cheap, generic, snap-together PC clones the almighty dollar
and the mighty Mhz rules.  Firewire will supposedly deliver both, and
quoting TI:

"The number of gates to implement (1394) is not so great that we (Texas 
Instruments) can't do it for under $10 and make money." referring to
IEEE 1394 aka. Firewire. 

In fact given the rising standard in the mighty Mhz, I expect that soon
neither IDE or SCSI will be able to cut it.

: In line with the interface on a card idea, a firewire card could be made
: in the
: uture, should there be interest.  But for now, lets satay with SCSI or
: IDE.

Your probably right about this, an interface card would be a good idea,
so I would say lets stick with SCSI and its upgraded form Firewire <and I 
won't digress about my opinion of IDE...>

- Brian