From: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: New LC: faster than 25MHz?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 17:21:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) says:

>seanmcd@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>I read in the Mac the Knife column of MacWeek that the rumoured LCIII
>>(sorry travis) might be faster than the 25MHz that's been talked about
>>so far -- any ideas?
>
 Oh well, everyone is wrong ONCE! :-) Actually, I still doubt Apple will
call it the LC III. Personally, I think it should be something else, but
then again, remember that a year ago MacWeek also said the Quadra 900 was
to be called "THe Macintosh IIex" (I LIKED the name IIex, why not introduce
a model called the IIex...Apple had also planned a IIvm, err...not as good)

>>Won't this new LC along with the Centris machines squeeze out the IIvx?
>>If the LC is any faster than 25, it's going to beat the IIvx for
>>performance, and the rumoured price is pretty low. Either the new lc
>>is going to be more expensive than projected, or the IIvx/vi are going
>>to drop considerably, like 25%...opinions on how the new lineup will
>>shape up pricewise, where adjustments will have to take place?
>
>Just my opinion: The LC III *needs* to be at least 25 MHz, that is, on
>par with the IIvx, to be competitive for some time (considering PC prices),
>and it has to be cheap. The 68040 must become normal in the mid-level
>range, and the 68030 must go low-cost.
>
 Agreed- entirely. The NEW LC needs to be a 25mhz if not better than that
machine. Fact is, today's LC doesn't have the "oomph" that many home users
want. A fast "LC" system would be great. As a matter of fact, what Apple
should do is reposition a "IIvx/Performa 600" model as their consumer
market computer at the price range of today's current LCII. Even at
$1199-$1299 (slightly higher than what LCIIs are going for today) a
computer with a 25-33mhz chip (even without mathchip), even just 2 NuBus
slots and RAM expansion to maybe just 24 megabytes instead of the
ridiculous 68 megabytes (how many home users need 68 megs of RAM?), keep
the video support the same (as not to compete with high-end models as
much), give it 5-6 megs of RAM standard instead of today's whimpy 4 megs,
give it a 160 megabyte HD and get rid of 40 meg models. Make the keyboard
(extended) come standard and ditch the 'standard' keyboard entirely. THIS
would be a computer which will entice the masses. Figure it this way:

How many home users need 3+ NuBus Slots?
How many home users expand to 68 megs of RAM?
How many home users need accelerated 24-bit color?

 Right there you can save a lot of money on the computer. Make sure it has
the new accelerator slot- this outta be a big selling item I think.

 As far as "Killing" the IIvx then, no problem. Here's how to solve that.
Make the IIvx a $2000-$2499 model ($2499 w/CD-ROM). Beef up its video a
bit, give it the full expansion of today's IIvx, and give it the new
low-cost 040 chip or a 40mhz 030. Okay, so now we're conflicting with the
so called "Centris" line. So- ditch the IIvx altogether and re-incarnate it
as the Centris line priced between $2199-$3599. Next step up should be the
Quadras with some serious power packed into them at current or lower than
current prices. Hopefully Apple will move the entire product line to the
040 chip and (obviously) the eventual PowerPC chipset.

>The IIvx will most likely drop some, but it can still be a lot more
>expensive than a LC II, since the LC III will not have more than one slot,
>which will probably not be NuBus.
>
 Good "Low Cost" Machine- but it really should have NuBus...give the New LC
a IIsi style case. 

>The future should be the LC III and a comparable Color Classic in the
>bottom line - fast enough to run System 7, which the current low-cost
>Macs aren't - and 040 Macs above that, where the IIvx and IIsi are today,
>price-wise. That's what we should expect, considering what has happened
>on the PC side. Apple has won some percent of the market recently, but
>they must improve price/performance to win more. I bet they are doing that
>gradually, to avoid making old customers too pissed by making their fine Macs
>worthless over night - and to keep the margins up for a little while.
>
 I agree here to an extent- but take a look at the stuff above...I think
its a bit better positioning of the product line (albeit confusing!)

>I hope the LC III and Color Classic will be as fast as the rumors say, and
>especially that video access is fast. Lots of users will run games on them.
>
 Personally I think the "Color Classic" project is a big waste of money and
time. I think the "Classic Design" is more or less dead. I do think its a
good design for cramped places, semi-portability, and a good all-in one
"Aplicance" setup...but a "Color Classic" should, if released, be sold for
$799-$899, completely unrealistic unfortunately.

>-- 
>Ingemar Ragnemalm
>Dept. of Electrical Engineering	     ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar
>                  ..
>University of Linkoping, Sweden	     ingemar@isy.liu.se
>
-- 
Travis Grundke	 	    |  For More information about MacGames Digest,
Contributing Editor-        |  The First Publication Dedicated to Macintosh
MacGames Digest		    |  Gaming, Please contact us at the previous 
an780@cleveland.freenet.Edu |  E-mail address. (c) 1992 Travis Grundke/MGD