From: mpd@unccvax.uncc.edu (Michael Parker Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: There is a crippled  LC II because ...
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:04:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: unccvax.4563
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte


Why would Apple Computer limit the LC's 68030 upgrade?

  When IBM brought out the PS/2 line, most PS/2's provided only a marginal
improvement over an AT. IBM felt it could string consumers along with marginal
feedings of technological advancement.  This resulted in a loss of loyalty from
traditionally IBM customers of the past, because these people realized clones
were cheaper, and that clone 286-12 and 286-16's with 0 wait states could out-
perform PS/2-25's,30's,30-286's,50's, and 60's.  These were people who had
loyally waited for PS/2's to come out so they could buy IBM.
  Today the clone market is STRONG.  A really well designed PS/2 would have
stomped the clones I feel because IBM could have had all the advantages
that clone manufacturers had, and then some.
  IBM was, and surprisingly is happy with it's PS/2 product line.  Why?  Is
it because sales are so miraculous? I doubt it.  Is it because the current
PS/2 line provides them with astronomical profits? I dont think so.  Is it
because IBM has become so big that the individual members of the company do
not feel a personal stake in the companies future? I think so.  When large
groups like NASA(remember them ignoring the Challenger O ring problem), and
IBM(remember them ignoring the PC-jr and PS/2's dismal success) begin to 
rationalize why a sub-standard decision is fine, they have lost their 
effectiveness as a decision making group.
  Where am I going with this.  Well..... Here it is. The LC as originally
introduced was a great niche filler.  I would bet that the design group
took it upon themselves to make it the best machine it could be, given the
marketing purpose and limitation statement they were given.  I became an 
LC champion, championing it's virtue when asked for a recommendation.  When
news of the same unit with an '030' leaked I was tickled pink.  The Karman-
Ghia of macs was getting a porsche engine.
  Then the LC II came out.  It now seems Apple is becoming as effective as IBM
at making decisions.  Such a pity!  I am not sure what the real reason is for
using the same memory management chip and bus structure as the LC, but I can't
help but feel it was improperly made.
  Speculated limitations that led to this decision have included...

    ROMS are located at 10 Meg -- so still use a 32 bit data path
    Apple 2e card needed it    -- so release LC II as an additional model
                                  after all we can now buy the classic and the
                                  classic II.  Those that neede 2e emulation
                                  could make their decision to get an LC not 
                                  an LC II
  Whatever the reason, it was obviously a result of groupthink, and not of a
thinking group.
  Would you have paid $20 more and waited an extra month for a coprocessor 
socket on the motherboard?  I think so.  Would you have paid $20 more for a
32 bit data path?   I think so.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc