Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug22.164847.7912@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 22 Aug 90 16:48:47 GMT
References: <66968.26D14DFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>
Sender: Aaron Wallace
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Lines: 56

In article <66968.26D14DFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes:

>But why do you need more slots than a Classic? 

Fax modems, CPU accelerators, memory beyond 4 meg, *real* netowrking
(like EtherTalk), better/color video, and anything that may spring up in the
future.  What if 2.88 meg floppy drives come out?  On the 386, just
put in a controller and drive; on the Plus, it's the motherboard/ROM swap.
Maybe.

>To handle all the stuff that
>any Mac has built-in--networking, serial ports, hard/floppy disk ports, sound
>port, mouse port. 

It's nice to include it all--but not on the motherboard.  What if you want, 
say, a 1:1 interleave HD controller, a high-density floppy controller, faster
networking, or, as happens, something breaks?  Swapping cards is cheaper than
swapping motherboards, as a friend of mine with an old SE discovered when
looking into getting a "super"drive.  I can stuff one of those in an XT for
about $130...

>So saying that "a 20 MHz 386 machine has more capability
>than a Mac" is faulty reasoning.  Just because you can stuff more into it, doesn't
>mean it's better.  Quite to the contrary--that it needs all those slots simply
>points out its shortcomings.

I'd call it flexibility; and for the record, many motherboards nowadays have
built in printer, serial/mouse, hard/floppy, and video controllers.  All of
which usually can be selectively disabled as needed.

>1 meg of RAM on that 386 machine?  Well, strong rumor has it the Classic will
>be shipped from the factory with 2 megs.

Add $70.

>Yes, in raw terms, a 20 MHz 386 machine is faster than an 8 MHz 68000 machine.
> Now, do this:  graft the holy grail of OS enhancements, Windows 3.0, onto that
>386 machine.  Now, let's talk performance in terms of what the user can do and
>how well/quickly he can do it.  We're probably at about the same level, comparing
>your machine and the Classic.

Remember that MacWeek found that a 10 MHz AT and a Plus/SE run at about
the same level of performance, subjectively and otherwise.  MacUser (or
was it MacWeek) also had a Windows/Mac benchmark set, but the results were
flawed because the graphics test compared Illustrator for the Mac with
Corel Draw for Windows in the only test in which there was an appreciable
difference.

>Now, for an exercise, go ahead and install Windows 3.0 on that $700 (that's
>without monitor and hard drive) 12 MHz 286 AT clone.

Better yet, find a dealer whose prices are more in line with the industry,
get the $700 12 MHz AT clone *with* 40 meg hard disk and monitor, and then
give it a try...  (p.s. it works!)

Aaron Wallace