Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!bonnie.ics.uci.edu!ajauch
From: ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: The LC vs. IIsi
Message-ID: <284EBD2C.17749@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 91 22:54:36 GMT
References: <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com>
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 68
Nntp-Posting-Host: bonnie.ics.uci.edu

In <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes:

>1) Memory capacity

>As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software
>will require much more of it.  The literature says the LC is limited to
>10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes.  What are these limits based on?
>Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available?  How many SIMM
>slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed
>requirements?

The LC will continue losing ground as progress increases.  Currently the si
is at the top of the Mac heap for future compatibility.  Notice that the LC
is NOT a IILC and the si is a IIsi.  The si will definately have more longevity
than the LC.  The si WILL take future 16MB SIMMs, and will also do virtual.
You're definately right, the trend is only up for memory requirements.

>2) Video performance

>How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support?  Does
>using the built-in video slow down the machine?  Is there a black&white
>mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown?

This is a problem on both machines, same problem.  The only extra goody you
get with the LC is VGA compatability.  I don't need this, so it's wasted
on me.

>3) Expansion slots

>Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but
>how many and what kind?  (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.)  Do you
>think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end?

No, the si will take a NuBus adapter card and the LC will not.  I think the
entire LC concept is a dead letter from the get-go.  It is intended do
directly attack the K-6 market and to replace the Apple IIgs/IIe.  While
it seems to do this just fine, it doesn't solve my problems or most users'.

>4) Other functional differences

>I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory.  However, I can
>buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the
>IIsi.  This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits
>which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory.

You cannot buy LOTS of memory for the LC.  You are limited by the SIMM support
and the number of banks in the LC.  Mostly, you are handicapped by that '020.

>Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the
>IIsi?  Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the
>future from running on the LC?

I have heard from many places that System 7 loves the si and hates the LC.
The si has "clean" ROMs and can really use System 7's features.  While the
LC will run 7, you won't get virtual and there will be a quite noticable
speed difference.

All in all, I would reccomend against the LC, unless that extra grand is just
impossible to come up with.  If money is a real problem, I would rather get
a used IIcx and wait until I could afford a new machine.  The '020 is bound
to be more and more limited as more and more software is written that
will only run on an '030 and above.


--
Alex Jauch
*ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu       |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole*
*ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu        |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen          *