Re: why did apple go mac?

[frankc <frankc@srv.net>]

> : > If you choose transition hardware, you are left with a comprimise.
> : What is transition hardware?  What compromise are you referring to?  The ability to
> : use two types of memory?  The ability to use either ISA or PCI cards?
>
> I was refering to any hardware which combines two types of memory, or two types of
> expansion slot.  There will usually be limits to how many of which type can be used, and
> that becomes expensive if you invest a lot of money into particular components.  This
> could range from an abnormal amount of high capacity SIMMs.  Try using sixteen, 4MB, 30
> pin SIMMs in a modern computer.  That is what I have sitting in my Quadra (with another
> 16MB of the same in an SE/30).  What if you used an EISA expansion card, say for video
> or SCSI?  The upgrade paths for either of those have long since passed.  Similarly if you
> have a large number of ISA cards.

I am still not understanding the memory part.  I have a motherboard that will take SIMMs and
DIMMs of any of the different variations: EDO, fastpage mode, ECC, non-ECC, etc...  This
enabled me to wait to upgrade from 70ns SIMMs to 10ns DIMMs, which I eventually did.  I can
put up to 768MB of RAM of either type in the system.  This motherboard provided the bridge
between memory technologies which was good for me.

> : > Grabbing computer parts from the thrift store doesn't help either,
> : > because the stuff is always behind the times.
>
> : Do not confuse obsolescence with not being able to run Windows.
>
> Who cares about Windows?  I play with Apple/Atari/Macintosh exactly because not enjoyment
> can be extracted from Windows.

Try programming a DOS protected mode program under Win95!  You can not tell if it is your
application or the DPMI server of Win95 that is giving you exceptions!

> Now what I was refering to was the ability to use old parts with new parts.  Most of the
> cards in thrift store computers are going to be ISA.  Most of those cards are nothing
> fancy, so you probably won't want to waste your slots on them.  RAM is only useful for
> older machines.  Which is fine for me because I like playing with older machines, but not
> okay for upgrading.

True.  But the parts are not unuseful.  Ever needed a mail server that will can go for years
without problems?  Try an old 486 and FreeBSD.

> : > If I ever feel the need to do something serious on the hardware level, then it
> : > will be either on an Apple II/II+ or an XT.  I have reasonable documentation
> : > for either machine, thus a reasonable chance of understanding it.  It is an
> : > understanding of how a machine works which gives me satisfaction.
>
> : I understand where you are coming from here.  With the advent of Windows the people
> : that thought they knew what was going on with DOS were lost in the windowing
> : environment.  I myself can whip out a fully graphical DOS application, but the crap
> : that you have to go through to program a Windows app sucks.  I prefer Unix X
> : programming to that junk.
>
> Ah, the bad old days of DOS.  But at least DOS was mostly easy to understand, and much
> easier to program for (particularly if you liked breaking rules).  Unix is nice to use,
> but nothing that many competent users will understand even a fraction of.  So we are
> left with the older machines.  If we want to be realistic, and avoid making a career
> out of it, that is.

That is where KDE and GNOME come in.  Even the computer inept can use it.

> : Now if you look at the low level of a 386 motherboard compared to an 8088 motherboard
> : they are not very different.
>
> I will learn about the 8088 before even thinking about the 386!

Actually I am finding it may be easier to build a 386 based single board computer than an
8088 based board!  But yes, the 8088 is a good place to start.  Or better yet, the 6502.