In article <3m2rgr$kf...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> Ken Bull,

How soon do you need to start working? If you search hard you can
probably find a 8100/110 today. But the dealer probably ordered that
computer several months ago. I've managed to get two of these computers
and they each took over two months from date of order from Apple to
delivery. You can bet that when the 604 machines are announced, they will
be in extremely limited availability. So... If MacWeek is right about a
July intro for the Tsunami, add two months to that... Can you wait until
September/October?
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Herr - Computer Resource Specialist - DoD #1351
Bay Tree Bookstore - University of California

I am setting up a desktop publishing and a multimedia authoring business.
I need to purchase a pile of equipment including a couple of PowerPC
8100/110's. The timing of this exercise seems to be tricky with the new
Powermacs on the horizon. I don't want my new investment to become
redundant two months after buying it, but you can't produce work with no
computer (or an order for a soon-to-be-shipped cpu)
Question: Anybody know a realistic date for the shipment of the new
PowerPC's, the PCI bus ones with the 604 processor. Also, is there an
upgrade path for the 8100/110's. Will there be AV technologies built into
these new machines ?
email replies welcome, or reply here ;)
Ken Bull

sil...@sydney.dialix.oz.au

In article <3m2rgr$kf...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>, sil...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au

Ken -

You're dead on about not being able to produce any work with an order
form. So the question is, how much money do you lose by waiting? Do you
have contracts ready to go now, that will begin paying you NOW to produce
those nifty DTP and multimedia creations? If so, buy now! If not, why are
you wasting your money? Wait until the day you have the contract signed,
then get on the phone and don't hang up until you have tracked down
whatever macs are available that day. If you are persistent you should be
able to find top of the line systems.

Sure you will be more productive with a 604 based mac, but how much more
productive? If you are billing at a rate high enough to justify 8100's,
then you should be able to easily justify an upgrade come the fall if the
new machines are so much faster than what you have.

Here's the calculation I use:

Let's say you wait for your computer to do task X for 10 minutes every
hour. That adds up to 80 minutes a day, or 400 minutes a week or 1600
minutes a month. Now, just for argument's sake, let's say that your new
604 based mac is twice as fast as your 8100/100. So you save 800 of those
lost minutes, during which you can do billable work (assuming you aren't
off smoking cigs during that time). 800/60 = 13.33 hours saved per month.
If your billing rate is $30/hour, that gives you about $400 dollars saved
per month. Your upgrade (say, $2000) will pay for itself in 5 months.

Moral of the story? Upgrade or buy yourself a new computer every six months!

Richard Frankel
UC Berkeley

"It's funny 'cause it's true"  --  Homer Simpson

: > I am setting up a desktop publishing and a multimedia authoring business.
: > I need to purchase a pile of equipment including a couple of PowerPC
: > 8100/110's. The timing of this exercise seems to be tricky with the new
: > Powermacs on the horizon. I don't want my new investment to become
: > redundant two months after buying it, but you can't produce work with no
: > computer (or an order for a soon-to-be-shipped cpu)
: > Question: Anybody know a realistic date for the shipment of the new
: > PowerPC's, the PCI bus ones with the 604 processor. Also, is there an
: > upgrade path for the 8100/110's. Will there be AV technologies built into
: > these new machines ?
: > email replies welcome, or reply here ;)
: > Ken Bull
: >
: > sil...@sydney.dialix.oz.au

: Ken -

: You're dead on about not being able to produce any work with an order
: form. So the question is, how much money do you lose by waiting? Do you
: have contracts ready to go now, that will begin paying you NOW to produce
: those nifty DTP and multimedia creations? If so, buy now! If not, why are
: you wasting your money? Wait until the day you have the contract signed,
: then get on the phone and don't hang up until you have tracked down
: whatever macs are available that day. If you are persistent you should be
: able to find top of the line systems.

: Sure you will be more productive with a 604 based mac, but how much more
: productive? If you are billing at a rate high enough to justify 8100's,
: then you should be able to easily justify an upgrade come the fall if the
: new machines are so much faster than what you have.

: Here's the calculation I use:

: Let's say you wait for your computer to do task X for 10 minutes every
: hour. That adds up to 80 minutes a day, or 400 minutes a week or 1600
: minutes a month. Now, just for argument's sake, let's say that your new
: 604 based mac is twice as fast as your 8100/100. So you save 800 of those
: lost minutes, during which you can do billable work (assuming you aren't
: off smoking cigs during that time). 800/60 = 13.33 hours saved per month.
: If your billing rate is $30/hour, that gives you about $400 dollars saved
: per month. Your upgrade (say, $2000) will pay for itself in 5 months.

: Moral of the story? Upgrade or buy yourself a new computer every six months!

: Richard Frankel
: UC Berkeley

: "It's funny 'cause it's true"  --  Homer Simpson

The only problem with that calculation is that even though the processor
may be twice as fast (or more) I don't see the actual gains equating to
that.  There is more to speed than a fast chip or bus.  Is the disk drive
twice as fast? Hard drive? Ram,Vram,Cache.....?  

Let's be realistic. If you are going to do math to justify the expense
include the time spent on the phone ordering. Include time spent loading
software.  I believe that this ludicrous attitude towards upgrading every
chance you get has got to stop.  When I buy a computer I get what I need,
what works for me.  Six months from now it still works.  If you look hard
enough you will see that most upgrades are premature and not worth the
expense.

I would put a 7100/80 with $2000.00 worth of upgrades (RAM,Cache,Cards) up
against a stock 8100/110 with a great deal of confidence and have $1000.00
left over (according to my most recent mail order figures).  By your
recolection what could $1000.00 benefit the business in other equipment
(modem,fax,copier....)

 --
Michael Kucsak
Florida State University

Yeah, and lets face it: no one is going to be able to get a Tsunami for a
LONG time, the new DayStar parallel processor rig may be even better... it
goes on and on.

I think the 8100/110 is a very risky investment: the IIfx of its time
because it is so tricked out with wierd coolers and special chips and
stuff. After waiting for months for an 8100/110 from a local dealer I
decided to cancel the order and wait for a Tsunami. Then the Daystar was
announced. Meanwhile I was waiting five-ten minutes for anything to happen
in Photoshop on my IIfx...

I gave up and mail-ordered a 7100/80av with 80Mb RAM. It works great. I'm
very happy. I figure in a year or two I can either sell the 7100, upgrade
it or stay with it. It seems like a bad time to jump on 604/PCI
technology: let it mature a bit and let supplies stabilize.

In article <3n5uss$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Etnier, etn...@aol.com
writes:

I've been having no unusual trouble with my 8100/110.  It works as well
as any of the other PowerMacs.  I don't think you needed to worry about
it being another IIfx.

Matt

From what I've heard, IBM and Moto won't start volume shipments of the 604
until 4Q of 95.

In article <3n6md5$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Matt Elliott

The IIfx didn't have problems, it just turned out to be a dead branch of
the Mac family tree.  At the time it came out, it was the highest branch,
so many people bought it.  (How far can I carry this "tree" analogy?  :-)
Unfortunately, Apple never released an upgrade and never supported with
system software half of the cool hardware in the fx (DMA, anyone?).  And
so it died.

People that bought the "top-of-the-line" fx were kind of ticked when they
realized that it was a dead-end machine.

So, Etnier was saying (I believe) that the 8100/110 may be similar to the
fx in that it may be the fastest now, but if there are no upgrades for it,
it may turn out to be a bad investment.

Have fun!
Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Fyock                                   The MathWorks, Inc.
fy...@mathworks.com                       Natick, Massachusetts

There was a bit more to it than that. There were peculiarities in the fx
that meant a substantial amount of software had to be rewritten for it:
particularly concerning the floppy drive and copy-protected software, if I
remember. The first couple of years I owned my IIFX involved a lot of time
explaining things to developers.

My understanding of the 8100/110 is that there is substantially more than
a faster clock to differentiate it from the 100: this makes me nervous.

[lines deleted...Macintosh IIfx]

        As I understand it, the major difference is that the 110 MHz version
has fixed the I/O flaw (which caused even the 8100/80 to do transfers at no
greater than Quadra-840AV-speeds).  The 8100/110 also does not have an AV
version, since Apple assumes that anyone who seriously worries about the I/O
problem also needs something better than the stock AV card.
        None of the new PowerMacs (6100/66, 7100/80, 8100/100 _not_ 110) has
the fixed I/O, just the 8100/110.  It also costs _WAY_ more than the 8100/100.
So hopefully the 8100/110 doesn't introduce new problems, since it just fixes
what was originally intended in the 8100 anyways.  (Hopefully, that is...  ;)

--
-M. Sun

In article <3n7d09$...@nic-nac.CSU.net>,
r...@mars.uucp (Richard H.S. Kim) wrote:

Are you confident of your source? Apple is shipping two 604 machines this
summer.

Later,

Ibrahim

In article <sunmx2.798760...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,

well, you obviously haven't run any benchmarks on an 8100/110.. If you run
something like MacBench, you'll notice the 8100/110 unit has an
astonishing 4.4Mb/sec sustained transfer rate on large files, which the
drive is optimized for (they figured you'd be transferring huge video data
files, or large image files).

HOWEVER, the 110 falls flat on small file transfers. Macbench reports the
8100/110 drive is substantially slower, sometimes even 60% slower than a
quadra 840 hard disk.

There has been some criticism lately that the MacBench standard quadra
benchmark was made on a CPU with a prototype drive that is much faster
than the current shipping model. However, this doesn't change the fact
that the 8100/110's speed sucks when it comes to small file transfers.

------------------
  Charles Eicher
ceic...@netins.net
------------------

In article <ceicher-2404952137060...@s125.infonet.net>,

For large file transfers the file manager isn't really doing that much,
for small file transfers the file manager is doing a ton of processing
compared to the disk IO...can you say emulated file manager?  Of course
the 840AV is faster!

-ed

Personally...........

I purchased an 8100/80 about a year ago (yes time does fly), and I've had
so much fun on this machine! THe problem I see, if i was in the market to
buy a new computer is the changing which is about to occur.

The 8100/100(110) are very, very nice machines which offer faster speed.
But, the 604 8100 will be almost 80% different than the 8100's out today.
You're going to find DIMM's (replacing the SIMMS) (RAM) which will enable
the new 8100 (I believe it's either called the Nitro, or Tsunami (nickname
that is)).  The DIMM's will enable the new mac to have up to 1 gig of RAM
(yes, i'm not kidding).

SCSI speed, and the new PCI slots will greatly increase the speed of the
computer.  The mother board on the new computer line will come in two
pieces, the main mother board, and the actual PPC chip will be sorta a
card.  So if a new chip (say the 605) all you have to do is take out the
604, and slide in the new one.

I have more info on these machines, if you have any questions and want to
know more write to "sy...@aol.com".

If I were you, I'd wait the couple of months for the new system, it's
gonna be so different (you might also wait till the clones really arrive).

Sydor

In article <3njjlp$...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, ar...@engin.umich.edu (Ed

yes, and supposedly more of the file manager was native in the 7.5 update,
but surprisingly, my 8100/110 hard drive benchmarks even SLOWER with the
update..!

------------------
  Charles Eicher
ceic...@netins.net
------------------

In article <ceicher-2504951757310...@s125.infonet.net>, ceic...@netins.net

Can you say MODE SWITCHING? I had thought none of the FM was native, but I
could be wrong. Still, file access (and launching Simpletext) will be
painfully slow until the FM is native - Marconi?

--
                 -=Noah M. Daniels=-
            {ndani...@cc.swarthmore.edu}
       "Gott Wuerfelt Nicht" - Albert Einstein
              (God does not play dice)

In message <ceicher-2504951757310...@s125.infonet.net> ceic...@netins.net

There's nothing in the ReadMe or in any published reports on the 7.5.1
update to indicate any changes in the file manager. Performance should not
be terribly different from 7.5 in terms of drive speed.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"

except for the indisputable fact that performance is measurably worse. And
that this has been verified by many people, even using simple benchmarks
like MacBench.

While I am sure that your AOL kiddies excitedly anticipate your outbursts
of flatulence, some of us have actually TESTED these performance
parameters, as opposed to declaring how things "should" be.

------------------
  Charles Eicher
ceic...@netins.net
------------------

In article <3nmtf9$...@news.primenet.com>, engl...@primenet.com (Lawson

Gene and I have crossed swords before. Gene is a professional know-it-all
who often speaks as if he knows something with certainty, when he clearly
is talking off the top of his head. As in this case. Gene never did the
benchmarks, so he couldn't possibly know what he's talking about. Yet he
blazes ahead, telling me how it SHOULD be, ignoring my factual data about
how it IS.

I never accused him of being an AOL kiddie, I only asserted that his
half-baked advice is suitable only for AOL kiddies. Perhaps they will
believe everything he says, but I know better.

------------------
  Charles Eicher
ceic...@netins.net
------------------

In article <ceicher-2604951356200...@s125.infonet.net>, ceic...@netins.net

And then there are those of us who have performed some of the very same
tests and found that performance was not terribly different (<5%) from 7.5
to 7.5.1.

I guess that means that the fact is at the very least disputable.

Also, the previous poster stated that there is nothing to indicate that
any changes were made to the File Manager at all - if you have found
something published which details the changes, by all means share it with
us. Performance as a *result* of the File Manager *should* not have
changed if the File Manager has not changed. Has anybody been able to
directly test the File Manager (and ONLY the File Manager) to determine if
it is at fault and not some other element of the OS? (It's not an easy
thing, BTW)

You know, I'm glad that you've tested all of these things but it's no
reason to be an ass...

--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine

In article <ceicher-2604952220180...@s125.infonet.net>, ceic...@netins.net

Gene never indicated that there was no slowdown. He merely indicated that
File Manager *should* not be the cause of the slowdown. I don't doubt that
your benchmarks say there is a slowdown - I question whether the File
Manager is at fault. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that the File
Manager, and not some other part of the OS, is at fault and perhaps we'll
stop questioning you and investigate further.

Gene never left me with the impression that he knew it all or that he knew
for certain that the File Manager was not to blame. He simply stated that
all published information indicates that the File Manager didn't change
and that it shouldn't be at fault - correct him if he is wrong - you have
not done that - all you have done is insult him.

--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine

[snipt]
: While I am sure that your AOL kiddies excitedly anticipate your outbursts
: of flatulence, some of us have actually TESTED these performance
: parameters, as opposed to declaring how things "should" be.

Gene has published a popular how-to book on using the Mac. While it is
always possible that he is incorrect on a subject, to accuse him of being
an "AOL kiddie" is rather silly.

Stupid, even.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
engl...@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

In article <rmcassid-2704950926560...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmcas...@uci.edu

On an 8100/110 with a stock 2gig hard disk?  Sure, the averaged figures
are only 5% slower. Try doing the individual MacBench disk tests, the ones
you have to customize it to perform, the really small file transfers. Then
let me know what you find. I got results as much as 17% slower on certain
tests.

Do you intend to start a debate asserting that 5 is NOT greater than 0?
Feel free to proceed, but leave me out of it.

Even at your low 5% figure, it still sounds like a measurable slowdown to me.

------------------
  Charles Eicher
ceic...@netins.net
------------------

In message <ceicher-2604951356200...@s125.infonet.net> ceic...@netins.net

Since you are unable to respond to a message in a mature manner, and you
have ignored my private requests for documentation, I'll only say this:

I contacted one of the product managers at FWB (of whose SCSI credentials
there is no doubt, regardless of which online service one uses), and asked
if such a problem had ever been confirmed with the 8100/110 and 7.5.1. The
answer was no.

Additionally, my own forum on America Online is frequented by a number of
digital video professionals who are very concerned about getting the
maximum possible transfer speeds from their computers. They will complain
of a slowdown of every 100-200K/sec. None of them using 8100/110s reports
a problem such as you describe.

Until you are prepared to provide documentation that demonstrates
otherwise (and maybe you'll refrain from snide comments that do not
reflect well on yourself), there's not much anyone can do to help you
resolve this issue.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"

In article <ceicher-2704952135340...@s125.netins.net>, ceic...@netins.net

No, on a 7100/80 with a stock 700MB hard drive.

I did run all of the MacBench individual tests - it took forever. Most of
the tests were within 5% of the 7.5 figures. But let me point out that if
I run those tests every week, I get different figures each time - and they
vary by as much as 5%. I never said that I consistently saw a 5% slowdown.
Sometimes the tests came out FASTER. I said that the performance was
within 5% (that's a +/- kinda thing, you know). I did get results as much
as 17% slower on certain tests, but for individual tests with small files
you can see upwards of 17% difference just by *where* the files are read
and written on the disk. Trust me, 5% is not a *significant* difference
when your margin of error has to be at least that much. You yourself imply
that the results only vary widely for small file transfers - no shit -
they are small transfers that should have large margins of error.

Furthermore, I never recall reading anywhere in the MacBench documentation
that their tests only involved the File Manager. Hell, I don't recall that
their tests even *use* the File Manager. Sorry, but there are a lot of
other things to account for that 5% other than the File Manager.

I am more than willing to assert that +/- 5% is NOT necessarily greater than 0.

It is not measurable - it *might* be detectable, but I don't for a minute
believe that it is significant enough to be measurable.

--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine