Question: According to Andy Hertzfeld, whose idea is the final Mac design closer to?

Answer: Jobs

<hl> Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs , co-founder of Apple. <hl> Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve <hl> Jobs <hl>, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve <hl> Jobs <hl> , co-founder of Apple.

question: According to Andy Hertzfeld, whose idea is the final Mac design closer to?, context: Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.


Question: What did Steve Jobs offer Xerox to visit and see their latest technology?

Answer: Apple stock options

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. <hl> After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options . <hl> The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for <hl> Apple stock options <hl>. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for <hl> Apple stock options <hl> .

question: What did Steve Jobs offer Xerox to visit and see their latest technology?, context: Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.


Question: Whose technology influenced the user interfaces of the Lisa and Macintosh?

Answer: Xerox PARC

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. <hl> After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC , Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. <hl> The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at <hl> Xerox PARC <hl>, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at <hl> Xerox PARC <hl> , Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options.

question: Whose technology influenced the user interfaces of the Lisa and Macintosh?, context: Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.


Question: What caused Steve Jobs to resign from Apple in 1985?

Answer: an internal power struggle

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. <hl> However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. <hl> He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after <hl> an internal power struggle <hl> with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.

question: What caused Steve Jobs to resign from Apple in 1985?, context: Burrel's innovative design, which combined the low production cost of an Apple II with the computing power of Lisa's CPU, the Motorola 68K, received the attention of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple. Realizing that the Macintosh was more marketable than the Lisa, he began to focus his attention on the project. Raskin left the team in 1981 over a personality conflict with Jobs. Team member Andy Hertzfeld said that the final Macintosh design is closer to Jobs' ideas than Raskin's. After hearing of the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC, Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and its Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces were influenced by technology seen at Xerox PARC and were combined with the Macintosh group's own ideas. Jobs also commissioned industrial designer Hartmut Esslinger to work on the Macintosh line, resulting in the "Snow White" design language; although it came too late for the earliest Macs, it was implemented in most other mid- to late-1980s Apple computers. However, Jobs' leadership at the Macintosh project did not last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs resigned from Apple in 1985. He went on to found NeXT, another computer company targeting the education market, and did not return until 1997, when Apple acquired NeXT.


Question: What did Jobs state that he expected Macintosh to become?

Answer: the third industry standard

<hl> Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard ", after the Apple II and IBM PC. <hl> Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become <hl> the third industry standard <hl>", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become <hl> the third industry standard <hl> ", after the Apple II and IBM PC.

question: What did Jobs state that he expected Macintosh to become?, context: Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.


Question: How many applications were widely available during Macintosh's introduction?

Answer: Only about ten

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. <hl> Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. <hl> After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. <hl> Only about ten <hl> applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

question: How many applications were widely available during Macintosh's introduction?, context: Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.


Question: How many companies did Apple promise were develping products for the new computer?

Answer: 79

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. <hl> Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. <hl> After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that <hl> 79 <hl> companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

question: How many companies did Apple promise were develping products for the new computer?, context: Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.


Question: How many Macintoshes had Apple sold after one year?

Answer: 280,000

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. <hl> After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs. <hl>

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold <hl> 280,000 <hl> Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

question: How many Macintoshes had Apple sold after one year?, context: Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.


Question: How many databases did Apple have available the first year?

Answer: two

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. <hl> After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs. <hl>

Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, <hl> two <hl> databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.

question: How many databases did Apple have available the first year?, context: Jobs stated during the Macintosh's introduction "we expect Macintosh to become the third industry standard", after the Apple II and IBM PC. Although outselling every other computer, it did not meet expectations during the first year, especially among business customers. Only about ten applications including MacWrite and MacPaint were widely available, although many non-Apple software developers participated in the introduction and Apple promised that 79 companies including Lotus, Digital Research, and Ashton-Tate were creating products for the new computer. After one year, it had less than one quarter of the software selection available compared to the IBM PC—including only one word processor, two databases, and one spreadsheet—although Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs.


Question: Whose technology did Apple take advantage of when introducing the Macintosh II?

Answer: Motorola

<hl> Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. <hl> The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated <hl> Motorola <hl> CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

question: Whose technology did Apple take advantage of when introducing the Macintosh II?, context: Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.


Question: What powered the Macintosh II?

Answer: a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor

<hl> Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor . <hl> The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by <hl> a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor <hl>. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by <hl> a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor <hl> .

question: What powered the Macintosh II?, context: Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.


Question: How much did the Macintosh II sell for?

Answer: $5500

<hl> Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500 , powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. <hl> The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at <hl> $5500 <hl>, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at <hl> $5500 <hl> , powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor.

question: How much did the Macintosh II sell for?, context: Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.


Question: What marked the start of a new direction for Macintosh?

Answer: The Macintosh II

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. <hl> The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. <hl> It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. <hl> The Macintosh II <hl> marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

question: What marked the start of a new direction for Macintosh?, context: Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.


Question: What was the Macintosh II's new modular design similar to?

Answer: the IBM PC

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. <hl> The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC . <hl> It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of <hl> the IBM PC <hl>. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.

The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of <hl> the IBM PC <hl> .

question: What was the Macintosh II's new modular design similar to?, context: Updated Motorola CPUs made a faster machine possible, and in 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II at $5500, powered by a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor. The primary improvement in the Macintosh II was Color QuickDraw in ROM, a color version of the graphics language which was the heart of the machine. Among the many innovations in Color QuickDraw were the ability to handle any display size, any color depth, and multiple monitors. The Macintosh II marked the start of a new direction for the Macintosh, as now for the first time it had an open architecture with several NuBus expansion slots, support for color graphics and external monitors, and a modular design similar to that of the IBM PC. It had an internal hard drive and a power supply with a fan, which was initially fairly loud. One third-party developer sold a device to regulate fan speed based on a heat sensor, but it voided the warranty. Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives.


Question: When Microsfot Windows 3.0 was released, what was it commonly said to not be as good as?

Answer: Macintosh

<hl> Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh , but it was good enough for the average user". <hl> Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as <hl> Macintosh <hl>, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as <hl> Macintosh <hl> , but it was good enough for the average user".

question: When Microsfot Windows 3.0 was released, what was it commonly said to not be as good as?, context: Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.


Question: Who was Microsoft Windows 3.0 commonly said to be good enough for?

Answer: the average user

<hl> Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user ". <hl> Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for <hl> the average user <hl>". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for <hl> the average user <hl> ".

question: Who was Microsoft Windows 3.0 commonly said to be good enough for?, context: Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.


Question: What was responsible for the drop in Apple's margins in 1989?

Answer: a component shortage

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. <hl> Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins. <hl>

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was <hl> a component shortage <hl> that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

question: What was responsible for the drop in Apple's margins in 1989?, context: Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.


Question: Who made the decision in 1989 to cut prices on Mac computers?

Answer: Apple USA head Allan Loren

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. <hl> Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins. <hl>

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing <hl> Apple USA head Allan Loren <hl> to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

question: Who made the decision in 1989 to cut prices on Mac computers?, context: Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.


Question: What was Microsoft Windows 3.0's performance comparable to?

Answer: Macintosh platform

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". <hl> Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform . <hl> It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive <hl> Macintosh platform <hl>. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.

Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive <hl> Macintosh platform <hl> .

question: What was Microsoft Windows 3.0's performance comparable to?, context: Microsoft Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, and according to a common saying at the time "Windows was not as good as Macintosh, but it was good enough for the average user". Though still a graphical wrapper that relied upon MS-DOS, 3.0 was the first iteration of Windows which had a feature set and performance comparable to the much more expensive Macintosh platform. It also did not help matters that during the previous year Jean-Louis Gassée had steadfastly refused to lower the profit margins on Mac computers. Finally, there was a component shortage that rocked the exponentially-expanding PC industry in 1989, forcing Apple USA head Allan Loren to cut prices which dropped Apple's margins.


Question: What did Intel unsuccessfully try to push Apple to migrate to?

Answer: Intel chips

<hl> Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips . <hl> Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to <hl> Intel chips <hl>. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to <hl> Intel chips <hl> .

question: What did Intel unsuccessfully try to push Apple to migrate to?, context: Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".


Question: Which platform did Apple choose to use?

Answer: Motorola 68040

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. <hl> While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. <hl> Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the <hl> Motorola 68040 <hl> offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

question: Which platform did Apple choose to use?, context: Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".


Question: Who first rolled out Pentium processors in 1993?

Answer: Intel

<hl> Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. <hl> Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

<hl> Intel <hl> had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

question: Who first rolled out Pentium processors in 1993?, context: Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".


Question: How far behind was Macintosh set back compared to the new IBM compatibles?

Answer: a generation

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. <hl> In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. <hl> In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform <hl> a generation <hl> behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

question: How far behind was Macintosh set back compared to the new IBM compatibles?, context: Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".


Question: When did Apple abandon Motorola CPU's?

Answer: 1994

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. <hl> In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. <hl> In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early <hl> 1994 <hl> with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".

question: When did Apple abandon Motorola CPU's?, context: Intel had tried unsuccessfully to push Apple to migrate the Macintosh platform to Intel chips. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors. While the Motorola 68040 offered the same features as the Intel 80486 and could on a clock-for-clock basis significantly outperform the Intel chip, the 486 had the ability to be clocked significantly faster without suffering from overheating problems, especially the clock-doubled i486DX2 which ran the CPU logic at twice the external bus speed, giving such equipped IBM compatible systems a significant performance lead over their Macintosh equivalents. Apple's product design and engineering didn't help matters as they restricted the use of the '040 to their expensive Quadras for a time while the 486 was readily available to OEMs as well as enthusiasts who put together their own machines. In late 1991, as the higher-end Macintosh desktop lineup transitioned to the '040, Apple was unable to offer the '040 in their top-of-the-line PowerBooks until early 1994 with the PowerBook 500 series, several years after the first 486-powered IBM compatible laptops hit the market which cost Apple considerable sales. In 1993 Intel rolled out the Pentium processors as the successor to the 486, while the Motorola 68050 was never released, leaving the Macintosh platform a generation behind IBM compatibles in the latest CPU technology. In 1994, Apple abandoned Motorola CPUs for the RISC PowerPC architecture developed by the AIM alliance of Apple Computer, IBM, and Motorola. The Power Macintosh line, the first to use the new chips, proved to be highly successful, with over a million PowerPC units sold in nine months. However, in the long run, spurning Intel for the PowerPC was a mistake as the commoditization of Intel-architecture chips meant Apple couldn't compete on price against "the Dells of the world".


Question: What color was Apples new iMac, which was introduced in 1998?

Answer: Bondi blue

In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. <hl> Its translucent plastic case, originally Bondi blue and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. <hl> The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of two USB ports. It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.

In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. Its translucent plastic case, originally <hl> Bondi blue <hl> and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of two USB ports. It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.

question: What color was Apples new iMac, which was introduced in 1998?, context: In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. Its translucent plastic case, originally Bondi blue and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of two USB ports. It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.


Question: What did the iMac replace most of Apple's standard connections with?

Answer: two USB ports

In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. Its translucent plastic case, originally Bondi blue and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. <hl> The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of two USB ports . <hl> It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.

In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. Its translucent plastic case, originally Bondi blue and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of <hl> two USB ports <hl>. It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.

The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of <hl> two USB ports <hl> .

question: What did the iMac replace most of Apple's standard connections with?, context: In 1998, Apple introduced its new iMac which, like the original 128K Mac, was an all-in-one computer. Its translucent plastic case, originally Bondi blue and later various additional colors, is considered an industrial design landmark of the late 1990s. The iMac did away with most of Apple's standard (and usually proprietary) connections, such as SCSI and ADB, in favor of two USB ports. It replaced a floppy disk drive with a CD-ROM drive for installing software, but was incapable of writing to CDs or other media without external third-party hardware. The iMac proved to be phenomenally successful, with 800,000 units sold in 139 days. It made the company an annual profit of US$309 million, Apple's first profitable year since Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1995. This aesthetic was applied to the Power Macintosh and later the iBook, Apple's first consumer-level laptop computer, filling the missing quadrant of Apple's "four-square product matrix" (desktop and portable products for both consumers and professionals). More than 140,000 pre-orders were placed before it started shipping in September, and by October proved to be a large success.