Re: Re. Sun-Apple

[ddoms@qni.com (Dennis Doms)]

[If anyone thinks this discussion is not pertinent to the group, I can
relinquish at any time. :)]

mlamorte@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Mike LaMorte) wrote:

>RUBYWAND (rubywand@aol.com) wrote:

>:     Nope; they are not Packard-Bells. They are machines slapped together
>: in shops all over Houston and other cities. [djd - remaining 'snipped']

>Oh, those fly-by-night places? Yeah, we have those here too. The majority
>are lucky to last more than a year. So much for customer service and support.

The advantage with a clone (desktop, at least)... if a part fails,
likely you can buy a suitable replacement cheaply, easily, and
locally. If IBM pulled out of the PC market tomorrow, the remaining
systems would close into the gap seamlessly. (There are even software
alternatives down to the OS level. Try that on a Mac. :)

Proprietary systems are increasingly hard to maintain after the
company disappears, or withdraws support. (Apple II users know this
all too well, unfortunately.)

>:     Can one pay $2200 for a '133 system with (ugh) a 4x CD-ROM and no
>: monitor? Sure; shop around a bit and you may luck into a $2800 offer. The
>: machine is no better; but, the HP, Digital, Compaq, etc. name tag looks
>: really great. (By the way, at $2200 you're solidly into the '166 or better
>: range, with 32MB RAM, ...)

>Hmph. #1: what exactly do you need all that power for? Surfing the net?
>Playing games? Typing up papers? If you want to play games, get a
>PlayStation, or wait for Nintendo's Ultra64 or Pippen. And you can surf
>the net just fine on a Mac IIsi or, for that matter, a 386. Oh, but gee,
>you REEALY NEED 166MHz Pentium and 32 megs of memory to type up that
>paper! The extra power means I'll type faster and it'll print faster,
>right?

Uh, some of us do significant work. And if you can get more horsepower
for the same money, why not?

I think I'd hate to see Java running on my IIsi (I'm impatient with it
on my Pentium, though I respect what Java represents). But I'll wait
and see.

>You can't compare the MHz speeds on a Pentium and a PPC.... Pardon the
>pun, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. <shrug> JD Powers & Assc.
>ran some benchmarks and found that the PPC, MHz for MHz is 36% faster.
>Meaning a 100MHz PPC is actually faster than a 133MHz Pentium. Meaning the
>150MHz PPCs smoke 166MHz Pentiums. Why? PPC chips are RISC based. CISC
>processors are yesterday's news. They're more expensive to produce.
>Larger. Run hotter. (Which increases resistance and slows things down.)
>And, in general, run slower. And considering the PowerMacs are running its
>OS in emulation mode, my, oh my... just wait for System 8. 

I agree on the first part. (Comparing MHz for different processors.)

I disagree on the second part. Look at other published performance
stats for the Pentium Pros, since you can get 200MHz. (Oh, I'm sorry,
I guess that is a bit more than the MHz the touted PPC has so far
achieved. :)

(Wait for System 8? Is this like waiting for the PPC 620?)

>And I doubt it'll take up 40 megs on the hard drive like another GUI OS
>that's floating around out there...

I find that inconsistent with the disconcern over installing software
on the hard disk versus running it off of CD-ROM (see below).

>: [ djd - section snipped]

>:     NON-GAME-PLAYER ERROR $0666 (Beep!)-- Try some of the new live-action
>: CD-ROM 'movie' games, like 'Killing Moon or Phantasmagoria. An upgrade
>: from x4 to x6 is VERY noticable.

>Uh, I'd rather just mount the whole thing on the hard drive. It's even faster.

But maybe not practical, or economical. I've seen games that use 120
meg for "full" HD installs; obviously being able to run them from
CD-ROM acceptably with a minimum install is a more desirable solution.

>:     Certainly, if a company is going to sell VHS-compatible Betamax's at
>: Betamax prices, it cannot afford inefficiency, management errors, or bad
>: luck. The cheaper the VHS machines and the more new features competitors
>: add, the harder it becomes to convince stockholders (and the public) that
>: making VHS-compatible Betamax's is a really smart idea.

>Are you trying to say that Apple is marketing itself as an IBM compatable?
>I dunno where you've been, but that's not part of their marketing
>strategy. Sure, you CAN do it, but why would you want to? Most of the
>stuff that's halfway decent is available for both platforms and is
>cross-platform compatable. The Mac is just a superior platform because
>it's user-friendly, has TRUE plug-and-play, and makes the maximum use of
>all its available resources. 

Apple is obviously marketing Macs as personal computers, and therefore
in competition with IBM compatibles. A competition they appear to be
losing in the marketplace.

Beta had some superior performance characteristics to VHS. Being
"superior" does not guarantee survival.

>Does the Windoze systems make the maximum use of the available resources?
>Let's compare, shall we? Windoze95 is roughly comparable to System 6, yet
>it requires 10 times the hard drive space, and "for optimum performance"
>suggests over twice the memory. System 7.5 is light years ahead of
>Windoze95 in user-friendliness, and can be run on Macs that date back to
>when 386's were the "top dog" of the IBM compats. In comparison, you can't
>even run Win95 on anything less than a 486. 

The referral to Windows 95 requiring at least a 486 is incorrect; it
will run on a 386. Before we add the term "acceptably" into the
comparison, I'd like to see how System 7.5 _with all features
equivalent to W95 loaded_ runs on my IIsi.

I agree in that I like the Mac interface better. But Windows 3.1 was
almost tolerable, and I actually find Windows 95 palatable.

>The bottom line is that the MacOS is the OS that other companies (ahem,
>Microsquish) try their hardest to emulate. And in the process, they are
>taking antiquated hardware, and forcing it to do things that it was never
>designed to do. The resulting behemoth of a memory & HD hog is Windoze 95.

>Sad sad sad...

But with the cost differential between the Mac and a typical PC, the
hardware is not a realistic hardship even if your assertions are true.
The ultimate question is "price/performance" ratio, and the market
seems to be speaking.

Obviously it's working well enough (for the competition), or Apple
wouldn't be scrambling. Again.

>-- 
>Mike LaMorte <mlamorte@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
>CEO, President, Designer
>Aurora Concepts Inc.
>Design & Consulting


* Dennis Doms   MAIL:ddoms@qni.com   HTTP://www.qni.com/~ddoms) *
*     "Into this night I wander, it's morning that I dread      *
*      Another day of knowing of the path I fear to tread..."   *
*     - S. McLachlan, "Possession", _Fumbling Toward Ecstacy_   *