CPU Upgrade / Overclocking Centris 650

[Scott Baret]

Apple should have called the SE/30 Macintosh IIae.

Interesting...I have never heard that suggestion before. Reading into your logic, would that mean "all in one" "extended"?

 

[Cory5412]

That's the thinking, yes. Basically, if Apple was going to apply II-style naming to it, they should have classified it as a tiny II.

In the real world, it is an SE class system with an SE architecture and so it got an SE name, which didn't involve an appended "x." as it was on the '030 IIs.

The "rumor" that it was almost the SE/x basically seems to stem from people making up their own reasons as to why it may have been named as it was. Suggesting the "x" was part of a pattern is sort of disingenuous because the SE/30 was literally the second '030-based computer Apple released. 

• IIx announced in September 1988
  
• SE/30 announced January 1989
  
• IIcx announced March 1989
  

I think a more likely situation is Apple almost never thought about EOL of their products and what introducing similar successor products should look like, so the II and SE and every subsequent member of their family were named semi-randomly.

Folklore doesn't have any relevant stories, so unless someone has a concrete citation other than just that "SEx" would have looked good next to "IIx" in a product stack, for signifying the addition of an '030, I consider all discussion of the "SEx" to be a case of somebody wishing Apple was less competent than they really were.

 

[boitoy1996]

That's the thinking, yes. Basically, if Apple was going to apply II-style naming to it, they should have classified it as a tiny II.

In the real world, it is an SE class system with an SE architecture and so it got an SE name, which didn't involve an appended "x." as it was on the '030 IIs.

The "rumor" that it was almost the SE/x basically seems to stem from people making up their own reasons as to why it may have been named as it was. Suggesting the "x" was part of a pattern is sort of disingenuous because the SE/30 was literally the second '030-based computer Apple released. 

• IIx announced in September 1988
  
• SE/30 announced January 1989
  
• IIcx announced March 1989
  

I think a more likely situation is Apple almost never thought about EOL of their products and what introducing similar successor products should look like, so the II and SE and every subsequent member of their family were named semi-randomly.

Folklore doesn't have any relevant stories, so unless someone has a concrete citation other than just that "SEx" would have looked good next to "IIx" in a product stack, for signifying the addition of an '030, I consider all discussion of the "SEx" to be a case of somebody wishing Apple was less competent than they really were.

I'd normally agree with you, except computer guys aren't known for having a lot of common sense, take myself for example.  

 

[IPalindromeI]

The ones that are successful do.

 

[boitoy1996]

are you trying to emply im not sucessful?  What exactly are you getting at.  I'm PLENTY HAPPY in my life, I'll have you know.  Just because you may be more socially aware doesn't make your life worth more than mine.  So what are you trying to say? I wouldn't die for you, I don't even know you!

 

[Cory5412]

The team in charge at Apple in 1987-1989 when these systems would have been in development had been chosen specifically because of their sense. Mike Markkula, for example, had been brought in for his sales experience. (Granted a lot of the policies set in motion in this era at Apple pretty directly cause some deficiencies we see later on.)

 

[boitoy1996]

The team in charge at Apple in 1987-1989 when these systems would have been in development had been chosen specifically because of their sense. Mike Markkula, for example, had been brought in for his sales experience. (Granted a lot of the policies set in motion in this era at Apple pretty directly cause some deficiencies we see later on.)

If Apple has continued this hiring trend, then could you say Jonny Ive was hired specifically to make iOS and macOS as ugly as possible?

 

[Cory5412]

Ive has been at Apple a pretty long time. It was probably a mistake to put him in charge of software, a decision that has since been reversed, but it's of note that the software hasn't regained its color. I don't think Apple as a whole entirely disagrees with the changes made while he was in that position.

The thing I was referring to, specifically, was so-called Spindler plastics on Macs from when Spindler was CEO in the mid '90s. Most of that is probably driven by attempts at cost reduction (instead of taking a thinner margin) on products in the era of the CEO directly preceding him, I think that was Gasée, but I'd have to look. The phrase "55 or die" was bandied about a lot at Apple in the late '80s and early '90s.

Ironically, this attitude that margins were to be sacrificed under no circumstances whatsoever, during a time prior to Windows 95 when Macs legitimately looked like significantly better choices for less technical people who wanted to have a computer, probably (definitely) lost Apple a few sales. Apple was, generally speaking, price competitive with IBM and Compaq, but almost nobody else in the personal computing industry. This is the time when the Gateways and the Dells were getting their starts selling 286es and 386es cheap.

 

[boitoy1996]

I find it odd that the company Jobs started could legally oust him.  That's what you get when you create a corporation, you have to answer to others. If I ever created a company, I'd make sure it was structured so I reigned Dalek Supreme, yet I was liable for nothing. I would be accountable to nobody and the motto would be Exterminate the competition.