Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!convex!ewright From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? Message-ID: <109755@convex.convex.com> Date: 3 Dec 90 18:24:43 GMT References: <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> Sender: usenet@convex.com Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX Lines: 80 In article <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >Good point. I did forget about the IIci. One of those little things that >you have to remember. Look at the Macintosh product line again. Every Macintosh except for the IIfx now has onboard video, and I suspect the fx's successor will also. And except for the LC, with its VRAM, all use the main RAM for this video. Is that clear enough? >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. It used to be that if you had a Macintosh you knew you also had a 68000. No this is another one of those "little things" you have to remind yourself of. How awful of Apple to come out with the Mac II! >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...? 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? No matter how you look at it, the higher-resolution monitor costs more to manufacture. Sure you can say maybe Apple should reduce its profit margins on the 13" monitor, but you can also say Apple should reduce its profit margins on the 12" and make that cheaper as well. If you give both monitors equal markups, the 12" is always going to be cheaper. >ME>>* The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, >ME>>and can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the >ME>>board, expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, >ME>>and is expandable to 17 Meg. Heh? The IIsi does have 1M soldered to the board. That's why the standard configurations are 2M, 5M, and 17M -- 1M soldered in, plus four 256K, 1M, or 4M SIMMs. >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. That's the "but Johnny does it" argument. Just because Johnny (or Apple) does it, doesn't mean it's right. >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. ??? If the computer can't supply the power that the board is trying to draw, the board won't work. I've never heard of equipment getting fried because of too *little* power. >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. Again, that's a separate argument. You say Apple should have cut its profit margins on the old systems; I could just as easily say that Apple should cut its profit margins on the new ones. No matter what margin we agree upon, the new machines are going to be cheaper. >My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac... So you will get to choose between optical disks and hard disks, floppies (in a nonstandard 2.8M format) or no floppies, two types of color hardware or monochrome... I'm not sure I see the "simplistic elegance" here.