Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!vax5!pv9y From: pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ? Message-ID: <5118.26d10b0b@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Date: 21 Aug 90 14:20:59 GMT References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU> Distribution: comp Lines: 124 In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > In article <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... > VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally > agreed to be good. > Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? > > I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the > most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely > readable; I agree). Number of pixels is not everything. The graphic capabilities in Hercules mode are extremely limited, which makes the abilities of WordPerfect to display correct font sizes and graphics useless except in Preview mode. I would disagree that the SE resolution is barely usable for text processing. First of all, it depends what font you use - New York 10 pt is perfectly readable for me and my vision isn't wonderful. You get the same amount of text on the screen and the sharper characters make it equally as easy to read. And it's not green or amber. > BTW, sounds like the PC Today database is a bit steep. I've seen 386 sx and > dx machines with monitor, 66 Mb 23 ms hard disks, 1 meg, and so for for > about $1000--in places I'd gladly to business with (and have, too). > Certainly possible. It was just an easy way to find a list of prices, which is fairly hard to do in a systematic format elsewhere. They also list clearly what you get, which is hard to figure out sometime with the ads. > It's not good to write off all smaller clone shops in such a wholesale > way. I've dealt with a number of them that are extremely knowledgable > and helpful--more so than most salespeople I've found in ComputerLand-type > places. Salespeople are just that--they sell things, and may have sold cars > or aluminum siding a few weeks before pushing computers. Many of the people > selling computers in clone shops also are the technical support, and many > have been assembling systems for years. Many have, but a buyer has no way of knowing which have and which haven't, particularly if he or she is not particularly knowledgeable. I won't defend the big dealers like COmputerLand, because all the ones I've talked to have been notably dumb (what's a DRAM?). You simply have no way of knowing whether or not a small no-name shop (of any sort) is good without risking it a few times. >>Basically the issue is you get what you pay for. I'm perfectly willing >>to buy a PC clone from someone like Dell, but there's no way I would >>buy one from Joe's No-Name Computer Store, especially mail order. I'm >>a consultant and don't need much in the way of tech support, but I do >>like to think that the company will be around as long as I own the >>computer. > > While this is nice, it is not essential--most parts are under guarantee > by their makers (Seagate, Samsung, Teac, whomever)... But it is often hard to get in touch with the part manufacturers for one (since the documentation with clones is often terrible and incomplete), and who wants to call a different company each time something different breaks. Not mention the problem of what happens when one of the part manufactures blames the dealer or another manufacturer and refuses to help. >> The other thing you have to realize about the mega-low cost >>PC clone is that they use junk parts. > > Again, this may be true for a few shops, but in general I've found the same > quality of parts in low-end clones and ALR/Dell-type machines. And some > things like floppy and hard disks are always from a big-name maker. As > can be seen in the PC Mag system comparisons, the name-branders and no-namers > frequently use a lot of common parts (hard drives, controllers, monitors, > moptherboards/BIOSs, etc.) Not my experience, but not really worth arguing. I don't get PC Magazine, but do they really review every no name clone maker's machine and check what's inside? PC World certainly doesn't. > The fx in the back room here doesn't work like the SE--a lot of our disk > recovery stuff crashes on it... Haven't even touched the ci... But it is consistent with the other fx's on the market. In a few months the problems will be ironed out, just like they were for the II, the SE/30, the IIx, etc. The IIci is almost to that point now, but not quite. You never hear of compability complaints from SE/30 or Mac II owners any more, do you? >>This is not true with PCs any more. Just ask the people whose >>hard disks were trashed by Windows 3.0 because they used a >>non-standard, but popular partioning scheme. > > FYI, *very* few people had such a problem--Microsoft confirmed only 12 or so > cases (not that they're unbiased, but the conditions that create the problem > are very unlikely.) True, but there are a number of other problems with Windows and PC compatibilities. Everyone and their brother has a slightly different version of DOS, which makes a difference if you want the clock to work, for instance. Windows merely brings out the hardware incompatibilities because it does so much to the system. > I will: > $30-50 for a mouse, $75 for a meg upgrade, $100 for Windows 3.0, and for the > speed hungry, $125-$350 for a fast 286 or 386sx motherboard upgrade. This > is assuming an upgrade from a c.1984 AT-class machine... This is a minimum Windows system. Try a Logitech mouse for &75, four meg of RAM, a bigger hard disk (gotta have swap space for the virtual memory and it should be a fast disk to boot), and at least a 25 Mhz 386 motherboard with VGA display. That's a tad more expensive than your $300-$600 upgrade cost. Also, upgrades tend to bring out compatibility problems becuase the BIOS is an older version etc. > > Aaron Wallace No offense meant or taken, the issues are simply not clear-cut and opinions on both sides deserve to be heard. -- Adam C. Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I ain't worried and I ain't scurried and I'm having a good time" -Paul Simon