Re: Apple II suicide--a sermon...

[jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong)]

revry@pen.k12.va.us (Ronald A. Evry) writes:
>There is no reason a compatible 32 bit 6502 compatible chip
>couldn't have been built.

Really?  Why hasn't one been built then?  Do you think that if
only Apple had better supported the II that chip architects would
have come out of the woodwork to design a next-generation 6502?

Believe it or not, there are plenty of good reasons not to consider
a 6502 variant if you're building a 32-bit machine.

>Nor was there any reason that full
>Apple II and IIGS couldn't have been built into the Mac rom,
>either.

It seems pretty clear doing so would have been in direct conflict with
the philosphy behind the original Mac.

You may or may not like said philosophy, but you can't deny that
hardware level Apple II compatibility didn't fit into it.

>Nobody at Apple has ever thought of going after the "low end"
>market at any time.
>When it comes to the educational market, the first manufacturer
>who comes up with a $200 - $300 machine will have one on every
>public school child's desk within a couple of years.

Commodore went for the low-end market and sold machines in that
price range.  Look what happened to them.

Besides, when your processors cost $50 - $300 alone, it's pretty
hard to sell a machine for $300 or less.
-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)