Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!clarkson! From: anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? Message-ID: <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> Date: 30 Nov 90 20:54:19 GMT Sender: @grape.ecs.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University Lines: 223 "ME>>" Things I said "das>" Things das@Apple.COM said ME>>* "OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but ME>>oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to ME>>the ROM." das>The CPU spends a large percentage of time executing code out of ROM, das>so it has a wider path to the ROM. It has a 16 bit path to RAM to das>save a little money. Believe it or not, you run out of room for das>traces on a PC board, and either you have to make a bigger board das>(which costs more for the board material and the bigger case to hold das>it) or you cut out some traces. Yes, I know you run out of traces on a PC board. I have made some single-layer boards by hand. No fun! 8-) So is this the reason the path is smaller to RAM? If so, that seems like a major "cut" to save space. A lot of time is spent reading RAM too. das> das>Anyway, why do you care? The user has no clue how wide the data path is, das>in fact the programmer doesn't even know how wide the data path is. The das>processor just gets the right bits for them. Because now when I try to compare the speed between two machines, it becomes much more difficult. Which is faster, the Mac II (16 MHz, 68020) or the LC (16 MHz, 68020)? I can look at benchmarks and see the Mac II generally is, but how will it affect the specific things I may want to do. Will the smaller path not be much influence, or will the programs I want to use happen to make it a significant bottleneck. For example, take the article in MacWorld on the LC (December 1990). On page 187 it shows two benchmarks, one for "Fit Image to Window" and one for "Preview Image". According to MacWorld, they both excersize the processor similarily, but the first test was faster on the Mac II, and the second faster on the LC. ME>>* "And "The IIsi comes with 2 meg and has color, but unlike ME>>the other machines, it uses main memory for video, so you loose up to ME>>320K for 256 colors. So 2 meg on a IIsi isn't like 2 Meg on another machine. das>What do you mean unlike other machines? I'm writing this on a IIci, das>which uses main memory for the on board video. Good point. I did forget about the IIci. One of those little things that you have to remember. ME>>* "Then the IIsi is very fast and has color, but Mac II machines with ME>>seperate ME>>NuBus video cards do graphics faster because they have their own memory." das>What a bunch of crap. Have you done any benchmarks? No, but MacWorld does. MacWorld, Dec 1990, page 195. "Display Adapters Compared." It compares the speed of a NuBus display and the IIsi display. According to them, "...As a result, the Macintosh IIsi using built-in video is about half the speed in 256-color mode as the Macintosh IIsi using a NuBus video board." das>Graphics go faster with on board video, not Nubus video, because the das>processor can access the video RAM directly, instead of going through das>the 10MHz Nubus controller. das> Yes, but the keyword is video RAM. The 68030 is slowed down because it often has to wait to use main memory because the Memory Decoder Unit (MDU) is accessing the same memory while creating images on the screen. There is no seperate "video RAM". (This is on page 193 of the MacWorld article.) das>Anyway, if you feel that way, you can put a seperate viedo card in, das>and not use the on board viedo. Then the IIsi isn't as inexpensive. Not to mention the $249 you have to put out just to be able to plug a NuBus card (must buy an adapter board). And there goes your one slot. ME>>* "To get a numeric coprocessor for the IIsi you have to buy an adapter ME>>card. Either one which allows you to connect a NuBus card, or one that ME>>allows you to connect an SE/30 board. The LC has no Numeric Coprocessor ME>>option, unless someone comes out with one on an expansion card. The Classic ME>>doesn't have one, as expected." das>Motorola doesn't make an FPU for the 68000. Why don't you complain das>to them? Or is that somehow Apple's fault anyway? That's why I said "as expected". Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. das> das>Most users don't do anything that requires an FPU, so its not das>included standard, to save the average user money. You can add one das>if you run something like Mathematica (on a IIsi, God help you). das>Third parties are going to sell FPU boards for the LC. Yes, but it used to be that if you had a 68030 you knew you also had a FPU. Now this is another one of those "little things" you have to remind yourself of. ME>>* I won't even try to sort out all the monitor options for the LC. Yikes! das>What's wrong with the monitor options? You can get a really cheap 12" das>black and white monitor, or a slightly more expensive 12" color monitor, das>or an even more expensive 13" color monitor. das> das>What's the problem, you want Apple to say das>"It only works with this new, incompatible, monitor. Buy it and shut up, das>but don't try use your old Mac II monitor on it, because it won't work"? das>That would make all the users real happy, I'm sure... I'm sure too. But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different resolutions. Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor? (I know, money.) Try helping a computer novice pick between 512x384 pixels and 640x480 pixels. Their first question: "What's a pixel?" Why didn't Apple lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of putting in time and resources (== $$) into making a new one? ME>>* The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, and ME>>can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the board, ME>>expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, and is ME>>expandable to 17 Meg. Then there are all the different configurations ME>>and new SIMM sizes.... das>Like all Mac Plus based machines (including the SE), the Classic is limited das>to 4MB total RAM. If you put 2 4MB SIMMs in, you'd get 8MB, thus wasting das>4MB. Why should Apple support such a stupid memory configuration? Becuase now if Classic users ever run out of memory, they have to buy a new machine instead of throwing out four 1 Meg SIMMS. das> das>The memory is soldered in because its cheaper and more reliable to not das>use sockets. You got a problem with reliability engineering? Nope. But why 1 Meg in the Classic, and 2 Meg in the LC, and none in the IIsi? Again, it makes the buyer's life a little more complicated. Q:"If memory goes bad, how much of a hastle will it be to replace it?" A:"On the Classic...., on the LC...., on the IIsi...." Q:"If I want to expand memory to x amount, how much will it cost?" A:"On the Classic...., on the LC...., on the IIsi...." (This depends on whether any SIMMS will have to thrown out, and what sizes they are.) All these things are simple enough if you are looking at one computer, but if you're trying to compare different models, all these little questions become overwhelming. ME>>And one thing you almost never had to worry about on any computer was ME>>power. Expansion cards on the LC and IIsi will have to have very small ME>>power budgets, and it looks like many NuBus cards will have problems. ME>>To quote Andrew Lewis, president of DayStar Digital (MacWeek 11/6/90), ME>>"'Almost all the products we've done have busted the power budget.'" ME>>According to MacWeek, many times when this happens, you'll have to replace ME>>the whole motherbaord! How many NuBus cards available now list power ME>>useage? Yet another thing we have to watch out for.... das>Wait a minute. Look at this statement. The board manufacturer admits das>that his board is over the stated power limit. This power limit has das>been published to board developers since the Mac II. Its not new. das>Why aren't you mad at the board developer for trying to sell you a das>board which HE KNOWS will mess up your Mac! das> das>The power limits haven't changed since the Mac II. In previous das>machines, the board developers used more than their allotment, das>expecting to draw the extra power reserved for other, hopefully das>unused, slots. But put 6 of those boards in a Mac II, or 3 in das>a IIcx, amd you'll have exactly the same problem. Yes, this is true. But didn't Apple's 8-24 GC card (or one of the new ones) also go over budget? The point is though, there are a lot of cards out there that can cause problems. Is Apple saying well they shouldn't be like that, so that's not our problem? That's just denying reality I think. You end up punishing the people buying the computers for their practices. But even worse: what about the poor users who don't even think about power, plug in there old NuBus board, and ruin their computer. Once again, another little thing you have to watch out for. And a very serious one at that. ME>>I teach introductory computer courses to some people who have never even ME>>used a computer before. One lady came and took one of my classes because ME>>she couldn't use the computer card system in our local library. At the ME>>end of the course, I usually give the students a run down of the Macintosh ME>>line, because maone big headache. ME>>With the original Macintosh lines, there wasn't all these "catches" ME>>you had to watch out for. das>Ok, suppose Apple went back to a nice, simple line. A Mac Plus or a das>Mac II, or nothing. Would that make you happy? No, but instead of Apple trying to cut every little penny, keep the simplisitic elegance of the Macintosh computer as a whole, and maybe cut their profit margin a little more. das> das>I can tell you one thing, it would cause a shareholder lawsuit. das> das>You think life is complicated, try using a DOS machine. Do you want das>8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX, or 80486? 4MHz, 6MHz, 10MHz, das>12MHz, 16MHz, 20MHz, 25MHz, or 33MHz? Lets talk video. Do you want das>a monochrome card, a monochrome Hercules graphics card, an CGA graphics das>card, an EGA graphics card, a VGA graphics card, or a PGA graphics card? das>(Or the new video "standard" IBM introduced a few weeks ago, I think das>its called XGA.) Don't forget to set the dip switches when you install das>the video card! When's the last time you set a dip switch on a Mac? das>And don't worry about configuring multiple monitors on the same machine, das>because the system won't support that. das>Since you probably can't fit all your programs in 640K, you'll need more das>memory. Do you want extended memory, expanded memory, extended expanded, das>or the RAM du jour? Since you probably didn't buy a True Blue machine, das>because you don't like being gouged, you got a clone. Does it have das>a good BIOS, from a reputable compoany like Pheonix, or some noname das>job? das>What kinds of slots do you have? 8 bit XT standard? 16 bit AT standard? das>Half height? 32 bit MCA? 32 bit EISA? das>I'm not even going to get into networks, because I don't know enough das>to make them work on a PC. Exactly! Yes! Don't you see this is beginning to happen to you! These new machines are creeping in all these little exceptions and things to be careful of. Frankly, I am very surpised your reaction was so nasty. I can understand Apple getting sick of people complaining all the time. But that's our job as consumers. My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac, and I am very sad about that. I feel it is my responsibility to point out things I consider mistakes, otherwise how do I expect you to avoid/fix them? Maybe I'll think twice about it next time. __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.