IBM PC or MAC?????????
dept...@hotmail.com
IBM PC or Macintosh?
Which is less expensive given that both computers have the
same microprocessing speed (along with relatively equality
between monitor, printer, keyboard and mouse).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Reewe
Hi. This email address and name is bogus -- to prevent Usenet spamming
of my mail box. My REAL address is K...@KenAndTed.com so you can email me
if you want.
Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
could never do on a Mac... If you don't want to do that, contact a local
PC consalt, and have them do it. It'll still be cheaper than self
models.
I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
ect.
On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
$2000.
If you want to buy from a brand, go Micron or Dell. They're the best.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder
K...@KenAndTed.com - http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
"An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian
> Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
> numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
> could never do on a Mac...
You can build your own Mac: Check out APS, Marathon and PowerTools just to
name a few.
>
> I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
> size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
> memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
> ect.
>
> On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
> PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
> $2000.
You sure do your research(Sarcasm). If you spent any time looking around
for Mac prices you could find something comparable in price and
exceptionally better in quality.
Kind Regards
Adrian
Robert A. Decker
On Tue, Jun 24, 1997 2:08 AM, Reewe <mailto:Ha...@agewaad.com> wrote:
>On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that.
Is that a joke?! We recently got a similar system to the one that you
describe (200 mhz 603e, 24 MB RAM, tower with subwoofer, 2.4 GB hardrive, 2
MB VRAM, keyboard, 33.6 modem (but w/out zip)) for $1365. This system is
bundled with quite a bit of software.
I'd gladly pay the extra $365 to have the system put togethor by someone
else (Apple) and to have a good 1 year warranty. How much do you pay
yourself per hour for research and assembly? minimum wage?
In answer to the original question, the prices between PC's and Macs are
now comparable. If you look at cloners like Motorola and Power Computing
the Macs are even better (I trust these two companies better than some
no-name PC cloner).
rob
--
<mailto: "Robert A. Decker" com...@umich.edu>
Listen to my Realaudio
playlist:<http://hmrl.cancer.med.umich.edu/Rob/index.ssi>
Programmer Analyst - Health Media Research Lab
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center
"Get A Life" quote #10: "Wow. I'm a genius too. I think. BEEP."
-Chris Elliott
Jeremy
###gy...@netspace.net.au (Adrian) wrote:
The operative words are time and spent. It's about a thousand times
easier to find the right stuff for a PC. For the 3 companies named
that make parts for Mac...I could name dozens. An if you spent that
same time...you could probably find something even better for PC....in
fact, if you spend enough time, something better will come out and you
might have to spend time looking at that now.
P.S. Look at the schedule chip prive drops intel has for August...AMD
is promising to undercut intels drops as well. They are getting VERY
reasonable.
>
>Kind Regards
>Adrian
Christian Bau
> Hi. This email address and name is bogus -- to prevent Usenet spamming
> of my mail box. My REAL address is K...@KenAndTed.com so you can email me
> if you want.
>
> Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
> numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
> could never do on a Mac... If you don't want to do that, contact a local
> PC consalt, and have them do it. It'll still be cheaper than self
> models.
>
> I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
> size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
> memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
> ect.
>
> On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
> PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
> $2000.
I cannot see where your $5000 number comes from. In old England, where
Macs use to be more expensive then in other countries, Mac Warehouse
offers 200MHz 604e, 4Gigabyte, 64MB etc. for less than £1600. 16MB extra
for £55.
Motorola starts at £699 for 180Mhz 603e, 1.2 GB and 16MB including five
years warranty (that is five years warranty from a company that will still
be there in five years). Thats hard to beat for any PC cloner.
-- For email responses, please remove the last emm from my address.
-- For spams, please send them to whereever...@but.not.here
Wayne
>The operative words are time and spent. It's about a thousand times
>easier to find the right stuff for a PC. For the 3 companies named
>that make parts for Mac...I could name dozens. An if you spent that
>same time...you could probably find something even better for
PC....in
>fact, if you spend enough time, something better will come out and
you
>might have to spend time looking at that now.
>
>P.S. Look at the schedule chip prive drops intel has for
August...AMD
>is promising to undercut intels drops as well. They are getting VERY
>reasonable.<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Ge=
neva</PARAM>
No offence dude, but you better lay off your crack pipe. I've got a
thick stack of magazines and catalogs sitting next to me right now. I
could go to any site and place an order within 5 minutes and have it
installed and running within 24 hours with a $3 overnight shipping
charge (far less than paying local sales tax!) Macs simply aren't any
different when it comes to buying peripherals.
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE></SMALLER>
Rick Tan
>Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
>numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
>could never do on a Mac... If you don't want to do that, contact a local
>PC consalt, and have them do it. It'll still be cheaper than self
>models.
>
>I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
>size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
>memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
>ect.
>
>On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
>PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
>$2000.
>
>If you want to buy from a brand, go Micron or Dell. They're the best.
Total wrong. For a $5000 system, you could get a multiprocessor Mac that
blows the PentiumPro in the dust.
Stop spreading misinformation.
Pulse Graphics
$5,000.00 for a Mac with 200 Mhz 2.x hard drive and a zip drive? No, not
since 1995, lets try $1,900 and up, and thats just to own the Apple logo...
and by the way I would be delighted to see your books
Ken Builds a cheap PC:
Pentium 166mhz: $150. or a Pentium w/mmx 200Mhz: $300.
Board with current and non buggy PCI chipset on a standard bus: $300.
Case/Power supply: (well lets go to swap-o-rama and get one) $60.
Internal Iomega zip drive after rebate: $180.
WDC 2.8 gig EIDE drive: $250.
12X CD-ROM that dosen't suck: $230-300.
HEY! look at that we're up to *$1170.00 or 1320.00 and we dont have even
have Memory nor an video/audio subsystem nor modem/telophony... but thats
okay, judging from your math, your applied enginering expertese in the
design and construct of this PC will more then compensate for any of the
geegaws that those monkeys at Apple could justify...
*if I'm off on the cheapest value for the components, it's not by much,
lets just admit that.
Reewe <Ha...@agewaad.com> wrote in article
<33AF6469...@agewaad.com>...
> Hi. This email address and name is bogus -- to prevent Usenet spamming
> of my mail box. My REAL address is K...@KenAndTed.com so you can email me
> if you want.
>
> Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
> numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
> could never do on a Mac... If you don't want to do that, contact a local
> PC consalt, and have them do it. It'll still be cheaper than self
> models.
>
> I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
> size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
> memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
> ect.
>
> On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
> PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
> $2000.
>
> If you want to buy from a brand, go Micron or Dell. They're the best.
>
Jeremy
"Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>The operative words are time and spent. It's about a thousand times
>
>>easier to find the right stuff for a PC. For the 3 companies named
>
>>that make parts for Mac...I could name dozens. An if you spent that
>
>>same time...you could probably find something even better for
>PC....in
>
>>fact, if you spend enough time, something better will come out and
>you
>
>>might have to spend time looking at that now.
>
>>
>
>>P.S. Look at the schedule chip prive drops intel has for
>August...AMD
>
>>is promising to undercut intels drops as well. They are getting VERY
>
>>reasonable.<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Ge=
>neva</PARAM>
>
>
>No offence dude, but you better lay off your crack pipe. I've got a
>thick stack of magazines and catalogs sitting next to me right now. I
>could go to any site and place an order within 5 minutes and have it
>installed and running within 24 hours with a $3 overnight shipping
>charge (far less than paying local sales tax!) Macs simply aren't any
>different when it comes to buying peripherals.
>
Crack pipe eh...original. Well....you go order overnight...pay the
shipping...wait the 24 hours. I can go and have the bulk of any PC
hardware in my hands in about 20 minutes.....no contest. No shipping
charges...no waiting in darn near all cases...and I too can overnight
order even the rarest items. Mac simply are a little
different....your ordering while I'm hooking mine up. I can go to the
shop and hold the item in my hands, make sure it's what I want (
Ahh...I forgot...some folks aren't used to quite so many options
*please note...I didn't say you did not have them...just not as
many*). I can see if an item is made well...I can look at the box. I
can look at the items competitor's box. I can get all of the details
on the contents of the box, and the warrenty, and who makes it,
without picking up my phone and playing 20 questions.
I guess to sum it up...I can make my choice on more than what Apple
tells me is good. (or microsoft for that matter.) It's just a nice
and convienient thing. Don't hate me...this is just my opinion and
why I feel the way I do....and maybe everything I said doesn't apply
to you. Some people live near a good Mac supplier, they are fortunate
if that is what they are into...however, I think the majority of users
don't live near one. I personally don't live all to close to any
Apple dealer whatsoever. If your Apple needs service....and you are
in the wrong area...have fun. With my PC, there is a very reputable
shop withing 5 Minutes of my house, who is more than capable of
dealing with any problems, although in recent years I feel that I have
gotten good enough to deal with my own. Even so, this dealer refuses
to touch an Apple product, and the next closest shop, about 20 minutes
away is the exact same. (and for the crazed ones out there...YES...I
HAVE LOOKED...I used to own an Apple.) There is an Apple center close
to 40 minutes from here...but compare it to 5....
Well...I guess I will go vanish now...if I keep writing this stuff I
will have a mailbox full of Mac crazed psychos telling me why I am all
wrong and why they are right. Well...trust me on one thing...for
me....PC's are right. Mail me with crazed Mac prophesies, and it
makes the killfile. If you have something interesting to say, that's
a different story. (I am not real fond of answering millions of
mails) Please also realize that I don't hate the friggin Mac....I
give it some credit....there are some damn good aspects of those
machines....but they don't work for me...and apparently the majority
of other computer buyers.
I think I will go away now...<insert smart remark here>
Go with what works for you,
Jeremy
Jeremy
180 for a zip...no...try 150 max...230-300 for a CD-rom? No...I have
a 24X I got literally for half of that (and yes...it is just about
that fast) Motherboard...you must have been looking at ones that
include the chips....I got mine for 120 at the time. Geniune intel
Triton III (best at that time...SDram sockets, USB support, 4 PCI
slots 4 72 memory slots, 256k pipelined burst....you name it.), and
that counts the tax. You have shopped around about as much as the man
you accuse.
"Pulse Graphics" <puls...@wwa.com> wrote:
>$5,000.00 for a Mac with 200 Mhz 2.x hard drive and a zip drive? No, not
>since 1995, lets try $1,900 and up, and thats just to own the Apple logo...
>and by the way I would be delighted to see your books
>
>Ken Builds a cheap PC:
>
>Pentium 166mhz: $150. or a Pentium w/mmx 200Mhz: $300.
>Board with current and non buggy PCI chipset on a standard bus: $300.
>Case/Power supply: (well lets go to swap-o-rama and get one) $60.
>Internal Iomega zip drive after rebate: $180.
>WDC 2.8 gig EIDE drive: $250.
>12X CD-ROM that dosen't suck: $230-300.
>
>HEY! look at that we're up to *$1170.00 or 1320.00 and we dont have even
>have Memory nor an video/audio subsystem nor modem/telophony... but thats
>okay, judging from your math, your applied enginering expertese in the
>design and construct of this PC will more then compensate for any of the
>geegaws that those monkeys at Apple could justify...
>
>*if I'm off on the cheapest value for the components, it's not by much,
>lets just admit that.
>
hmmmm
Bruce L. Grubb
> "Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>The operative words are time and spent. It's about a thousand times
> >>easier to find the right stuff for a PC. For the 3 companies named
> >>that make parts for Mac...I could name dozens. An if you spent that
> >>same time...you could probably find something even better for PC....in
> >>fact, if you spend enough time, something better will come out and
> >>you might have to spend time looking at that now.
> >
> >>P.S. Look at the schedule chip prive drops intel has for
> >August...AMD is promising to undercut intels drops as well. They are
getting VERY
> >
> >>reasonable.<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Ge=
> >neva</PARAM>
> >
> >
> >No offence dude, but you better lay off your crack pipe. I've got a
> >thick stack of magazines and catalogs sitting next to me right now. I
> >could go to any site and place an order within 5 minutes and have it
> >installed and running within 24 hours with a $3 overnight shipping
> >charge (far less than paying local sales tax!) Macs simply aren't any
> >different when it comes to buying peripherals.
>
> Crack pipe eh...original. Well....you go order overnight...pay the
> shipping...wait the 24 hours. I can go and have the bulk of any PC
> hardware in my hands in about 20 minutes.....no contest.
What about price? Which IRC is what the whole arguement is about.
[snip]
> I can see if an item is made well...I can look at the box. I
> can look at the items competitor's box. I can get all of the details
> on the contents of the box, and the warrenty, and who makes it,
> without picking up my phone and playing 20 questions.
This is a strawman.
First being able to examine the box in many cases does not really tell you
anything usefull. Besides in many cases that information is in the
mail-order catalog anyhow. For comparison you really need to find a
review of the products because feature and processor-system requirements
only tell part of the story. Bugs and speed being two key factors the box
does *not* tell you.
Second the warranties for nearly all products is *inside* the box. If
your local stores have a 'you open you buy' policy (some do) nix that
idea. Also some mail-order companies have their own warranty policy which
can extend the warranty of hardware products you get from them. I got my
CD-ROM drive replaced under such an 'extended' warranty by MacWarehouse
several months after the manufactuer's warranty ran out.
As for software warranties are conserned those are so nearly identical
that comparison is meaningless. Summation - there is the standard limited
warranty disclaimer. Followed by the standard send in the card 30 days
from purchace, media is free from defects for 90 days part. Next comes
the 'disavow of incidental or consequental damage unless your state doesn
allow this' clause. At the end comes the other rights depending on stated
clause and terms of voiding the warranty.
Finally as for "playing 20 questions" is conserned I can imagine that only
for the most extreme begginers or the totally clueless.
> I guess to sum it up...I can make my choice on more than what Apple
> tells me is good. (or microsoft for that matter.) It's just a nice
> and convienient thing.
But the point of the other poster is that you usially pay extra for that
convienience thing. All of are local computer stores in this area are in
malls. Mall computer stores are far more exensive than mail order. I put
more value on my dollar than if it is 'convienienct'.
> Some people live near a good Mac supplier, they are fortunate
> if that is what they are into...however, I think the majority of users
> don't live near one. I personally don't live all to close to any
> Apple dealer whatsoever. If your Apple needs service....and you are
> in the wrong area...have fun.
MacWarehouse has great hardware and software service last time I used it.
Regading the local store I have found to like to old joke about the
elevator - some times you get the elevator sometimes you get the shaft.
Quality is great in some place but in others... well the less said the
better.
Ted Leonard
> Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
> numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
> could never do on a Mac... If you don't want to do that, contact a local
> PC consalt, and have them do it. It'll still be cheaper than self
> models.
There are a couple of places you can buy Mac parts in the raw and build
your own machine now. I couldn't find anywhere that beat PowerComputings
prices by enough, when you factor in the warrenty and life time free tech
support, to make me buy that instead of PowerComputing. To each his/her
own!
> I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
> size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
> memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
> ect.
>
> On a Mac, you'd be running at about $5000 for a system like that. At a
> PC store like CompUSA or Computer City, a PC like that would be about
> $2000.
>
> If you want to buy from a brand, go Micron or Dell. They're the best.
My PowerCenter Pro 210 604e came with 2 gig hard drive, minitower case, 64
mb of RAM, 1 meg of L2 cache, 4 megs of VRAM, hardware 2D/3D acceleration,
kick ass sound (no card, it's built in to the system), duel SCSI
(UltraSCSI and conventional, 16X CD, built in zip, 10T and AAUI ethernet,
33.6 fax modem AND a 17 inch monitor all for $3400.00. That's a far cry
from $5000.00 and I dare say you'll have a tough time putting together a
comparable PC for less. I might even add Virtual PC. It should run most if
not all your PC games just fine......
--
Ted Leonard
te...@top.net
http://www.top.net/tedl/standingbear
Signature space for rent. Inquire within.
Kenneth R. Kinder
As usual, that header email address is bogus to prevent spamming. Try
K...@KenAndTed.com
Pulse Graphics wrote:
>
> $5,000.00 for a Mac with 200 Mhz 2.x hard drive and a zip drive? No, not
> since 1995, lets try $1,900 and up, and thats just to own the Apple logo...
> and by the way I would be delighted to see your books
>
> Ken Builds a cheap PC:
Yeah, MAYBE used.
> Pentium 166mhz: $150. or a Pentium w/mmx 200Mhz: $300.
> Board with current and non buggy PCI chipset on a standard bus: $300.
> Case/Power supply: (well lets go to swap-o-rama and get one) $60.
> Internal Iomega zip drive after rebate: $180.
> WDC 2.8 gig EIDE drive: $250.
> 12X CD-ROM that dosen't suck: $230-300.
Ummm.. where do you shop? That motherboard and chipset, included with
the bus, PCI, all that good stuff, 200mhz 586 shouldn't be more than
about $300... Certainly not $600.
Case? $50. ZIP drive before rebate? $100. Hard drive? 3.6gig $200. 16x
IDE cdrom? $100
Get real prices.
>
> HEY! look at that we're up to *$1170.00 or 1320.00 and we dont have even
> have Memory nor an video/audio subsystem nor modem/telophony... but thats
> okay, judging from your math, your applied enginering expertese in the
> design and construct of this PC will more then compensate for any of the
> geegaws that those monkeys at Apple could justify...
Memory... $70 for 16mb 60ns. 2mb PCI /w Mpeg video card: $30. Modem? Go
for a ZOOM 56k Flux, about $200. Monitor? $200. We're a little over
$1,000 now, but we went primium.
>
> *if I'm off on the cheapest value for the components, it's not by much,
> lets just admit that.
>
Kenneth R. Kinder
As always, Ken@KenAndTed is the real email. That one up there in those
headers is fake, to make spammers actually read the messages of those
who they spam.
Rick Tan wrote:
> Total wrong. For a $5000 system, you could get a multiprocessor Mac that
> blows the PentiumPro in the dust.
>
> Stop spreading misinformation.
Ummm... three points:
1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
Drew
I posted this before, but as it is the most valid price benchmark I have
seen on this newsgroup, let me give you the numbers again.
Posted prices at Fry's Computer Store in San Jose, May 28, 1997
200 Mhz MMX Pentium PC:
IBM C6E 3 Gig 16X CD $2100
Compaq 4784 4.3 Gig 16XCD $2200
Sony PC-120 3.8 Gig 16X CD $2100
225 Mhz PPC 603e Macintosh:
Apple 65/225 3 Gig 12x CD $2000
All computers have 32 Meg RAM, 256K Cache and a 33.6 Modem.
In this case, I would say the Mac is cheaper. The main differences are the
16X CD on the PC side and the faster CPU on the Mac side (and the on-board
SCSI, ADB ports, and AppleTalk).
I compared slightly different machines two weeks before this and the Mac
was cheaper then also.
I also did some research on the web and it appears that Macs are generally
cheaper than their PC counterparts. However, it is difficult to judge
certain things, such as dealer reliability and product availability, so web
and mail-order comparisons may not be absolutely possible.
It does appear that the higher end Mac systems may be slightly more
expensive than PCs. Comparison here is difficult because features vary
substantially and the proposed use of the computer should drive the
purchase decision and feature set.
Drew
Drew...@aol.com
dept...@hotmail.com wrote in article <8671165...@dejanews.com>...
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <33B095D3...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
<as...@asdf.com> wrote:
> As always, Ken@KenAndTed is the real email. That one up there in those
> headers is fake, to make spammers actually read the messages of those
> who they spam.
>
> Rick Tan wrote:
> > Total wrong. For a $5000 system, you could get a multiprocessor Mac that
> > blows the PentiumPro in the dust.
> >
> > Stop spreading misinformation.
>
> Ummm... three points:
> 1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
> custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
> yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
Since there are PCs that have Multiprocessors which IIRC only NT
understand what to do with isn't this point swing both ways?
> 2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
So will the P7 (well accually PA-RISC) when it finally comes out so what
is you point? Better to bite the bullet now then to go with software that
will have to run in emulation mode on different CPU runing a different
instruction set from today's Intel stuff by the end of this year.
> 3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
> but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
> running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
The Mac can run Unix and IIRC there is a version of Linux for the Mac so
thesese are non-issues.
Quantum Leaper
Drew wrote:
>
> I posted this before, but as it is the most valid price benchmark I have
> seen on this newsgroup, let me give you the numbers again.
>
> Posted prices at Fry's Computer Store in San Jose, May 28, 1997
>
> 200 Mhz MMX Pentium PC:
> IBM C6E 3 Gig 16X CD $2100
> Compaq 4784 4.3 Gig 16XCD $2200
> Sony PC-120 3.8 Gig 16X CD $2100
>
> 225 Mhz PPC 603e Macintosh:
> Apple 65/225 3 Gig 12x CD $2000
>
> All computers have 32 Meg RAM, 256K Cache and a 33.6 Modem.
>
montior for $1599 and a 15' Monitor for $225.
The system is ASUS & Pentium 200
MMX, HDD-4.3GB,
Mem-32MB,
CD-12X,33.6Fax/Voice.
No Monitor.
15' Monitor $225 not even the cheapest but one I knew the specs were.
So total price is....$1599 system
$225 monitor
Total....$1834
You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
prices from http://www.pricewatch.com
--
Join CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://www.cauce.org/
Paddy Eason
dept...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> IBM PC or Macintosh?
>
> Which is less expensive given that both computers have the
> same microprocessing speed (along with relatively equality
> between monitor, printer, keyboard and mouse).
Depends if you take into account the cost of your time setting up, then
maintaining the thing. And how much work/play you get out of it. I'd say
that the Mac may be initially more expensive (though there is a lot of
competition between the various clone makers and Apple, with some
amazingly fast and cheap systems available now), but it's well worth it.
Also You may find that what you get included for free in the Mac (16 bit
stereo sound for instance) you may have to pay for with some add-on for
the PC.
But when it comes to computers and OS's, remember - Vive la difference.
Frank Drebinski
He's talking about name brand systems you idiot. Compare a name brand
Mac system (Apple for example) to a name brand PC system (IBM or Compaq
for instance). If the best you can do is compare a system built by
Apple to a system you put together in your garage from parts you bought
at Fry's or the local computer show, then you do nothing to help the
argument that PC's are cheaper.
I'm not just picking out the PC advocates here. To both PC and MAC
advocates: If you're going to engage in comparisons of PC/MAC pricing,
please do it in a way that might be of at least a _little_ value to
readers (as was done on the top of this thread).
I use a PC exclusively, but have been thinking about getting a Mac, so
this information would be of use to me. As it stands, I only see
disinformation herein, which isn't helping my purchasing decisions one
bit.
I'd also be interested to hear a bit about the quality of the systems
offered by both Mac and PC manufacturers. Compaq seems to make the
highest quality systems in the PC world, comparable to that of Apple
(which from what I've seen makes the highest quality and most
aesthetically pleasing systems in the Mac domain). Any comments would
be appreciated.
Larry Pyeatt
In article <33B095D3...@asdf.com>,
"Kenneth R. Kinder" <as...@asdf.com> writes:
> As always, Ken@KenAndTed is the real email. That one up there in those
> headers is fake, to make spammers actually read the messages of those
> who they spam.
>
> Rick Tan wrote:
>> Total wrong. For a $5000 system, you could get a multiprocessor Mac that
>> blows the PentiumPro in the dust.
>>
>> Stop spreading misinformation.
>
> Ummm... three points:
> 1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
> custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
> yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
Multiprocessor systems have been working for years. Of course, it
takes a REAL OS to really make use of them. There are several
multiprocessor Unix versions, including Linux, which scale very well
with the number of processors. NT handles multiple processors, but
does not scale well at all. Current Mac OS has limited support for
multiple processors, and Rhapsody will provide excellent
multiprocessor support. Under Windows, forget it. In short:
Multiprocessors work, but not when Microsoft is around.
> 2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but almost every high end system
built today is RISC. CISC is reserved for low end IBM PC clones.
> 3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
> but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
> running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
DEC Alpha is RISC. In 2) you seemed to think RISC is a bad thing(tm),
while in 3) you seem to think an Alpha is a good thing(tm). So if
Alpha is RISC and RISC is bad, then how can Alpha be good?
--
Larry D. Pyeatt All standard disclaimers apply.
pye...@cs.colostate.edu Void where prohibited.
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~pyeatt
Kenneth R. Kinder
As always, to prevent more spam in my mail box, that email address up
there in the headers is a phony. Check out K...@KenAndTed.com
Larry Pyeatt wrote:
> > 1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
> > custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
> > yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
>
> Multiprocessor systems have been working for years. Of course, it
> takes a REAL OS to really make use of them. There are several
> multiprocessor Unix versions, including Linux, which scale very well
> with the number of processors. NT handles multiple processors, but
> does not scale well at all. Current Mac OS has limited support for
> multiple processors, and Rhapsody will provide excellent
> multiprocessor support. Under Windows, forget it. In short:
> Multiprocessors work, but not when Microsoft is around.
First of all, I don't do Windows. Too much like Macintosh, underpowered
and crashy. I use Linux because it's powerful, easy, reliable, and free.
Multiprossor systems, in their long history have never been as practical
as using a single processor that is fast.
>
> > 2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
>
> Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but almost every high end system
> built today is RISC. CISC is reserved for low end IBM PC clones.
You're calling a ... Mac a high end system? That's like calling a TI 30
a high end calculator. Anyway, if you would actually learn a little more
and do some assembly programming, you'd find yourself with more and more
headaches when you try RISC.
> > 3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
> > but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
> > running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
>
> DEC Alpha is RISC. In 2) you seemed to think RISC is a bad thing(tm),
> while in 3) you seem to think an Alpha is a good thing(tm). So if
> Alpha is RISC and RISC is bad, then how can Alpha be good?
The DEC Alpha is considered a RISC system yes, but it has a whole lot of
instructions that lesser RISC systems (fe PowerPC) don't, which makes
the change easier.
RISC is basicly a quicker and easier design for engineers. By reducing
the instructions to the absolute minimum, an engineer can reduce gates
and transistors in the chip. That increase its clock speed, and makes it
burn a whole lot cooler. hz per hz, a CISC is more useful to an assembly
programmer, because in many cases, what could be done with one CISC
instruction requires five or six RISC instructions. I know you're going
to shove Byte magazine benchmarks up my ass now, and I remind you that
they are the only ones who give RISC faster rating. Most likely, the all
wise designers of the benchmarks didn't even use CISC instructions that
would have to be converted to RISC. Like Corel Draw's stuff.... mostly
math.
I realize that RISC maybe the way of the future, because of its ease of
design. That's why I use Linux. RISC isn't better, it's just allot
easier to design and build. Combine that, and all of the media's
pro-RISC editorializing is why Intel is going to RISC.
However, I understand your need for speed. You are running on an OS
that's terribly sluggish, and has a terrible memory model. I'm using
Linux, and on my wimpy little AMD 5x86 133mhz, even when compiling, my
system is very acceptable. MacOS is of course, not a multitasker, so you
wouldn't understand.
Rick Tan
>Ummm... three points:
>1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
>custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
>yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
You should tell that to the people at Be. Inc. The non-SMP-ness of the
architecture is due to the MacOS, not the architecture. Put the BeOS in a
MP Mac and you get SMP. When Rhapsody comes out, it will have SMP.
>2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
>3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
>but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
>running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
You downrate RISC, but in your third point, you tout the DEC. I am
assuming that you meant the DEC Alpha. Isn't the DEC Alpha a RISC CPU?
BTW, Macs can run Linux too.
The original thread talked about the price of a PC versus a Mac, and now
you throw in DEC into the soup. Could you use a software title written
for x86 WinNT and run it on a DEC Alpha? It is fine to debate the virtues
and pitfalls of two architectures side by side, but do not assert that one
architecture is better than another just because a third architecture has
some features that one of the original two did not. (PLAIN ENGLISH: USE
CORRECT LOGIC IN YOUR DEBATES!)
Your above statement is akin to saying "Bagels are better than Muffins
because you can put jelly on a Croissant."
Kenneth R. Kinder
That email address is fake to prevent spaming. My real one is
K...@KenAndTed.com
Rick Tan wrote:
>
> In article <33B095D3...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
> <as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> >Ummm... three points:
> >1) Multiprocessors don't work. They are only useful when you are using
> >custom software applications made to use them. To date, engineers have
> >yet to make a fast way to devide up the instructions
>
> You should tell that to the people at Be. Inc. The non-SMP-ness of the
> architecture is due to the MacOS, not the architecture. Put the BeOS in a
> MP Mac and you get SMP. When Rhapsody comes out, it will have SMP.
Ah... Rhapsody -- what NT had in 3, Unix has had for ten years, and
Linux has free, with NO X Window Support, NO included source code, and
only runs on Macintosh. Wow! What a great deal! Remind me -- just who is
playing catch up?
>
> >2) They'd be RISC, bummer.
> >3) For a little more, you could get a DEC machine. Maybe not an Alpha,
> >but one that would really put any fruit computer to shame, and it'd be
> >running Unix or NT too. Not to mention DEC's ability to run Linux.
>
> You downrate RISC, but in your third point, you tout the DEC. I am
> assuming that you meant the DEC Alpha. Isn't the DEC Alpha a RISC CPU?
> BTW, Macs can run Linux too.
>
> The original thread talked about the price of a PC versus a Mac, and now
> you throw in DEC into the soup. Could you use a software title written
> for x86 WinNT and run it on a DEC Alpha? It is fine to debate the virtues
> and pitfalls of two architectures side by side, but do not assert that one
> architecture is better than another just because a third architecture has
> some features that one of the original two did not. (PLAIN ENGLISH: USE
> CORRECT LOGIC IN YOUR DEBATES!)
>
> Your above statement is akin to saying "Bagels are better than Muffins
> because you can put jelly on a Croissant."
Yes, the DEC Alpha is a RISC system. But its RISC is not as terribly
chopped up as Apple/IBM's. Check out my other message for RISC stuff.
Jee Hoon Lee
In article <33B094BB...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
<as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Memory... $70 for 16mb 60ns. 2mb PCI /w Mpeg video card: $30. Modem? Go
> for a ZOOM 56k Flux, about $200. Monitor? $200. We're a little over
> $1,000 now, but we went primium.
>
Your idea of premium is a $200 dollar monitor, a generic video card, a
Zoom modem, a generic case made from stamped aluminum, and only 16mb of
ram. You can keep it. PC users get what they pay for: cheap stuff. Not
that cheap is bad; if you don't need the best stuff, go for it. The
original poster requested comparible quality--what you show ain't it.
Comparible quality PCs do exist, but you don't mention them because that
narrows the price gap considerably. I agree that PCs have always been, and
still are, cheaper overall.
Most (note most, not all) Macs have a better fit&finish, higher quality
components, and superior integration of software and hardware. It's not
because Macs are "inherently" better, but that better stuff is usually
chosen to go in one. I'm not, nor care to be, a PC expert, but I have
installed ram, cards and HDs into generic PCs and I personally know people
who build those cheapo-rama blow-out build it yourself PCs. Yes, they do
the job and they work. I'll stick to Macs.
--
Jee Hoon Lee
E-Mail:do...@accessnv.com
Web: http://coyote.accessnv.com/dorok
outthere@leftfield
On 24 Jun 1997 17:55:21 GMT, "Drew" <Drew...@aol.com> wrote:
>I posted this before, but as it is the most valid price benchmark I have
>seen on this newsgroup, let me give you the numbers again.
>
> Posted prices at Fry's Computer Store in San Jose, May 28, 1997
>
>200 Mhz MMX Pentium PC:
>IBM C6E 3 Gig 16X CD $2100
>Compaq 4784 4.3 Gig 16XCD $2200
>Sony PC-120 3.8 Gig 16X CD $2100
>
Why choose these expensive brands? IBM and Compaq for sure are RIP
offs.
Wayne
>You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
>prices from http://www.pricewatch.com<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</P=
ARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Geneva</PARAM>
Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein?
Steve Kanefsky
In article <###gyro-24069...@dialup-m3-25.melbourne.netspace.net.au>,
Adrian <###gy...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>In article <33AF6469...@agewaad.com>, Reewe <Ha...@agewaad.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, by far, PCs are have a cheaper value ratio. I'll line up the
>> numbers for you. To get dirt cheap, I build my PCs myself, something you
>> could never do on a Mac...
>
>name a few.
I checked out APS. I didn't see where you could build your own computer.
All I saw was a very limited ability to configure a computer that they
build for you. You have 2 choices of cases, for example, with the 603e200
desktop, and none with the 603e240 or 604e200. You have no choice of
power supply. You have a limited choice of hard disks and it doesn't even
tell you exactly which kind of disk you'd be getting. It doesn't even
mention the brand for most CD-ROMs, and the choice there is very limited
as well. You can choose how much video RAM you want, but you can't choose
what kind of *video* you want. There's no choice for SCSI, sound, etc.
either. You call this building your own system?
Try building a PC sometime. It's an unbelievable sense of choice and
freedom. One huge factor is that I could use old components I had already
if I wanted too, including some left over from Macs (like SCSI disks and
RAM), without having to re-purchase things I didn't need. I had literally
hundreds of cases and power supplies to choose from. I could choose any
IDE or SCSI hard disk or CD-ROM in existence, hundreds of different video,
SCSI, and sound cards, etc. I could choose which OS(s) I wanted to buy,
or use an existing OS license. Perhaps most importantly, I can upgrade
any of these components at any time without having to upgrade most or all
of the system. I can upgrade the motherboard without changing the CPU,
or vice versa. I don't have to buy new sound, SCSI, video, and ethernet
if I buy a new motherboard. If I upgrade to a new video card, I have an
old video card I can sell or use in another machine. There's so much
more flexibility.
--
Steve Kanefsky
Quantum Leaper
Wayne wrote:
>
> >You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
> >prices from http://www.pricewatch.com
>
>
aweek right now. I still have a stack of Destroyer and some H.Beam
Piper books I picked up a garage sale. So giving me a title is a not
much help. The Cheap stuff, I buy has a 1 year manufacturer warrenty,
and NONE of the stuff on pricewatch are refurbs which would be 40%-60%
cheaper.
BTW its the same warrenty as the stuff you buy a Best Buy and others,
unless your one of the jokers who buy an extended (Ripoff) warrenty.
Steve Kanefsky
In article <33B153...@cfc.co.uk>, Paddy Eason <pa...@cfc.co.uk> wrote:
>dept...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Depends if you take into account the cost of your time setting up, then
>maintaining the thing. And how much work/play you get out of it. I'd say
>that the Mac may be initially more expensive (though there is a lot of
>competition between the various clone makers and Apple, with some
>amazingly fast and cheap systems available now), but it's well worth it.
>Also You may find that what you get included for free in the Mac (16 bit
>stereo sound for instance) you may have to pay for with some add-on for
>the PC.
Just because it's built into the motherboard doesn't mean it's free. If
you like you can get a PC motherboard with an integrated sound chip too,
though I strongly prefer having a sound card in a slot that I can move to
another machine, swap with another sound card, etc. Virtually every PC
these days comes with sound, whether it be on the motherboard or on a card
(the better ones use a card). Usually it's a much more sophisticated
sound capability than Macs have as well -- combining FM synth, wavetable,
MIDI, SIMM slots for upgrading MIDI sample RAM, full duplex, S/PDIF
digital I/O in some cases, etc. Sound is definitely not an "add-on."
Usually there's a credit to the base price if you choose not to have a
sound card.
>But when it comes to computers and OS's, remember - Vive la difference.
Absolutely. Of course you have a lot more OS's to enjoy on the PC (many
of which are better than the MacOS IMHO).
--
Steve Kanefsky
Joe Anstett
Frank Drebinski wrote in article <33B16797...@polfor.com>...
>He's talking about name brand systems you idiot. Compare a name brand
>Mac system (Apple for example) to a name brand PC system (IBM or Compaq
>for instance).
No need to call the gentleman an idiot, unless you want to have it
reciprocated.
You probably don't realize that the NAME ON THE CASE is irrelevant, it is
the NAME ON THE COMPONENTS that matter. Only superficial fools or the
naive buy a total system based on name brand recognition (hello, Apple).
The saavy know to look for the finest ingredients, not a superficial name
on the outside. For example, the label on my system says "HYMCO". Yet it
has high quality components (intel mb, wd hard drives, etc.). I would have
paid way more for it if the name on the case said "HP" or "IBM".
If IBM builds a system by using Intel motherboards and CPUs, wd hard disks,
brand x video cards, and I get the same components somewhere else cheaper,
does that mean my machine is inferior?
>I'd also be interested to hear a bit about the quality of the systems
>offered by both Mac and PC manufacturers. Compaq seems to make the
>highest quality systems in the PC world, comparable to that of Apple
>(which from what I've seen makes the highest quality and most
>aesthetically pleasing systems in the Mac domain). Any comments would
>be appreciated.
Compaq makes crap. Anyone in the computer industry knows it. They are the
most proprietary non-proprietary vendor in the market. They do their own
(shoddy) engineering and make nonstandard modifications. They use
behind-the-curve hardware.
Much like Apple, or IBM for that matter. Compaq's popularity stems from
24/7 support to IS depts. Traditionally, the big guys like IBM/HP/Compaq/De
ll/Apple sell hardware that is behind the technology curve (not the fastest
CPUs, not the latest features, etc.) but is engineered well if not
overengineered. The old IBM machines (including PS/2s) and most Macs are a
good example. I have a ten-year-old PS/2 that still works, is built like a
brick, and cannot be destroyed. It will be obsolete long before it stops
working.
Personally, I don't need the overengineered hardware and I don't want to
pay for it (not since buying that PS/2 ten years ago). I know that my
machines will be rendered obsolete in a matter of years and I want the best
features at high quality (though not necessarily at the over-engineered
levels of IBM/HP/Apple).
Joe
Joe
Paddy Eason
Joe Anstett wrote:
>
>
>
> Frank Drebinski wrote in article <33B16797...@polfor.com>...
> >He's talking about name brand systems you idiot. Compare a name brand
> >Mac system (Apple for example) to a name brand PC system (IBM or Compaq
> >for instance).
Who are you calling an idiot? In a thread entitled IBM PC or MAC????????? I think it's a
fair assumption to make that the questioner wanted to know whether Macs generally are
cheaper than PC's for the same horsepower. It was a pretty general enquiry, I should
guess, from someone who doesn't profess to know a whole lot about computers. So you know
where to stuff your brand names.
Mike Smith
Wayne <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<AFD7974...@153.35.181.197>...
>>You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
<ridiculous font tags snipped>
>Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein?
<more ridiculous font tags snipped>
What's your point? TANSTAAFL? That's right, dude.
'Cept for some of us, the extra time we put in building
a cheaper (meaning *less expensive*) PC vs. spending
extra for a Mac doesn't add up to much, since we know
a little something about computers. I can build a work-
ing PC in under an hour (not a boast, I 'm sure there are
people even better at it); figure another hour for the OS
and Office, etc. Figure I bill myself $25/hour (after all,
I'm pretty good friends with me, so I'm likely to give me
a break). That's $50 over the cost of the parts, which
are cheap and getting cheaper by the second.
--Mike Smith
P.S. I'm pretty sure a Loonie wouldn't trust any com-
puter he didn't build, which is kind of the way I feel about
it, too. ;-)
Larry Pyeatt
In article <33B1B976...@asdf.com>,
"Kenneth R. Kinder" <as...@asdf.com> writes:
> Larry Pyeatt wrote:
>> Multiprocessor systems have been working for years. Of course, it
>> takes a REAL OS to really make use of them. There are several
>> multiprocessor Unix versions, including Linux, which scale very well
>> with the number of processors. NT handles multiple processors, but
>> does not scale well at all. Current Mac OS has limited support for
>> multiple processors, and Rhapsody will provide excellent
>> multiprocessor support. Under Windows, forget it. In short:
>> Multiprocessors work, but not when Microsoft is around.
>
> First of all, I don't do Windows. Too much like Macintosh, underpowered
> and crashy. I use Linux because it's powerful, easy, reliable, and free.
We agree about this much, except I would not call the high end Macs
underpowered. I did not mean to imply that you were a Windows user.
I have seen your home page, and enjoyed your Linux myth dispeller.
> Multiprossor systems, in their long history have never been as practical
> as using a single processor that is fast.
I think that depends on what you are doing with them. There are many
real world applications where multiprocessor systems are the only
viable option. There are other applications where multiprocessor
systems are more practical than using a single fast processor. For
our environment, it makes sense to have a single machine with several
fast processors, since most of what we do is compute bound. The
processors share other system resources and we get more bang for our
buck.
>> Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but almost every high end system
>> built today is RISC. CISC is reserved for low end IBM PC clones.
>
> You're calling a ... Mac a high end system? That's like calling a TI 30
> a high end calculator.
I said that almost every high end system built today is RISC. I did
not say that all RISC systems are high end. I have a DECstation 3100
at home. Definitely RISC, definitely not high end. Still, one could
argue that a high end Mac (with the right OS) is comparable to a
mid-line workstation. Definitely not comparable to a Cray.
> Anyway, if you would actually learn a little more
> and do some assembly programming, you'd find yourself with more and more
> headaches when you try RISC.
Actually, I have written quite a bit of assembly code. What machine?
Let's see, started on 6502, then IBM 360, VAX Macro, 80x86, 8035,
6811, Z80, PIZZA 2000, 68000, MIPS, and Sparc. There could be a couple
more that I have totally forgotten. Anyway, some of these are RISC,
some CISC. By far the two worst headaches came from 80x86 and 8035.
YMMV.
>> DEC Alpha is RISC. In 2) you seemed to think RISC is a bad thing(tm),
>> while in 3) you seem to think an Alpha is a good thing(tm). So if
>> Alpha is RISC and RISC is bad, then how can Alpha be good?
>
> The DEC Alpha is considered a RISC system yes, but it has a whole lot of
> instructions that lesser RISC systems (fe PowerPC) don't, which makes
> the change easier.
Hmm, I haven't actually written assembly for either architecture, but
I have read a book on the PowerPC architecture. It has tons of
instructions. It reminded me a bit of the VAX or 68000 with some IBM
mainframe stuff thrown in. I find it difficult to believe that the
Alpha has more instructions.
> RISC is basicly a quicker and easier design for engineers. By reducing
> the instructions to the absolute minimum, an engineer can reduce gates
> and transistors in the chip. That increase its clock speed, and makes it
> burn a whole lot cooler. hz per hz, a CISC is more useful to an assembly
> programmer, because in many cases, what could be done with one CISC
> instruction requires five or six RISC instructions. I know you're going
> to shove Byte magazine benchmarks up my ass now,
No, actually I agree with you for the most part. It does generally take
a few more instructions to write RISC code. But I think it is more
like 50% more instead of 500% more.
> and I remind you that
> they are the only ones who give RISC faster rating. Most likely, the all
> wise designers of the benchmarks didn't even use CISC instructions that
> would have to be converted to RISC. Like Corel Draw's stuff.... mostly
> math.
Generally, such programs are written in C or some other higher level
language. The compiler takes care of generating the code. Bad
compiler=bad results. As far as Byte being the only ones who give
RISC a faster rating, look at any set of benchmarks that include both
CISC and RISC machines.
The linux benchmarks page, lists these two:
The best CISC score:
Pentium Pro 200 Mhz 32 M RAM PCI SCSI-W 227.2 37.9
Versus a relatively slow RISC
AlphaPC64 (21064A cpu) 300Mhz 64MB ram 266.5 66.6
> I realize that RISC maybe the way of the future, because of its ease of
> design. That's why I use Linux. RISC isn't better, it's just allot
> easier to design and build. Combine that, and all of the media's
> pro-RISC editorializing is why Intel is going to RISC.
Well, I think you are ignoring the fact tha RISC has delivered higher
performance at a lower price than CISC. In most people's books, that
makes RISC better. Intel is going RISC because the x86 architecture
is nearing the end of its life.
> However, I understand your need for speed. You are running on an OS
> that's terribly sluggish, and has a terrible memory model.
Well, actually I am using Solaris on a dual processor Sun Ultra 2
Creator at the momemt. Nothing sluggish about it. I am also using
several other systems, including HP-UX and Ultrix.
> I'm using
> Linux, and on my wimpy little AMD 5x86 133mhz, even when compiling, my
> system is very acceptable. MacOS is of course, not a multitasker, so you
> wouldn't understand.
At home I run Linux on my Cyrix 5x85 and my SO runs Linux on her
486DX2/66. Of course, the DECstation 3100 only runs Ultrix at the moment.
One of these days I will get around to working on the Linux MIPS port.
Don't know where you got the idea that I use MacOS. Could it be
because you confuse the PowerPC chip with one of the OSs that runs on
it? Get with the times! PowerPC is a good architecture with a bright
future. It can do more than run MacOS, and delivers better
performance at a lower price than Intel's architecture. I am trying
to decide whether to get a Mac or an Alpha for my next system. They
both run Linux (although the Mac version needs some more work) and
they both deliver excellent performance. x86 is not even in the
running any more.
Drew
outthere@leftfield wrote in article
<33b2beed...@news.usinternet.com>...
The odd one out in this comparison is Sony. Although it is highly regarded
for consumer electronics, I do not think that image has yet passed to its
computer line. In this it would be comparable to Motorola.
I would consider Apple, Compaq and IBM to be together in the top tier of
computer brands based on historical, technical, reliability and market
share perceptions. Because of this brand equity, they should be more
expensive than Jim-boy's home built special. For many people there are
good, solid reason's for buying a brand. You may consider these as
rip-offs, but I wonder if you would buy an unbranded hard drive
manufactured by an unknown company.
Drew
Drew...@aol.com
Steve Kanefsky
In article <33B16797...@polfor.com>,
Frank Drebinski <f...@polfor.com> wrote:
>He's talking about name brand systems you idiot. Compare a name brand
>Mac system (Apple for example) to a name brand PC system (IBM or Compaq
>for instance). If the best you can do is compare a system built by
>Apple to a system you put together in your garage from parts you bought
>at Fry's or the local computer show, then you do nothing to help the
>argument that PC's are cheaper.
Actually, home-built systems are usually higher-quality than name brand
systems. With a name-brand system, every little penny they can save on
the cost translates into big bucks for the manufacturer when you multiply
it by the number of units sold, so they tend to cut a lot of corners.
Integrating everything onto the motherboard is one thing that Apple has
always done and which PC makers are starting to do too because it lowers
costs, but it decreases choice and upgradability for the user. It's very
easy to achieve a higher-quality system by choosing the components
yourself and assembling them, or by ordering from a small clone maker that
will assemble the exact system you want.
Name brand systems are often cheaper than home-built systems as well,
because of the corner-cutting I mentioned (which Apple does as well) and
the huge discounts they get on OEM versions of the components. You can
often get closeout deals as well, like the $899 Compaq 150Mhz Pentium Pro
system (no monitor) with NT 3.51 that MicroWarehouse was selling recently.
...
>I'd also be interested to hear a bit about the quality of the systems
>offered by both Mac and PC manufacturers. Compaq seems to make the
>highest quality systems in the PC world, comparable to that of Apple
>(which from what I've seen makes the highest quality and most
>aesthetically pleasing systems in the Mac domain). Any comments would
>be appreciated.
Let me say it again: you can easily build (or custom-order) a PC that is
far superior in quality to a Compaq or any other name-brand PC. That even
goes for the real high-end $10,000+ server stuff they sell. You just
order parts with the level of quality you would like and can afford. I
have a $900 all-steel server case for my PC with dual hot-swap redundant
load-sharing 300W power supplies, for example. I have a $1000 SCSI card
with an on-board 40Mhz 68040 CPU that supports up to three ultra-wide SCSI
buses, up to 64MB of error-correcting cache RAM, and does RAID 0, 1, and 5
in hardware. On the other hand, you would still far surpass the quality
of almost any name-brand Mac or PC with a $200 case/power-supply and a
$125 SCSI card.
--
Steve Kanefsky
peter
In article <33B1E009...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
<as...@asdf.com> wrote:
> Yes, the DEC Alpha is a RISC system. But its RISC is not as terribly
> chopped up as Apple/IBM's. Check out my other message for RISC stuff.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kenneth R. Kinder
> K...@KenAndTed.com - http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
> "An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
> PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition for RISC is
Instructions executed by the processor belong to a small set of basic,
simple instructions. RISC architecture optimizes this set of instructions
(most of which can be executed in one clock cycle), while providing the
means for building the complex instructions that are needed less
frequently. The resulting improvement in performance over CISC (complex
instruction-set computing) architectures, which use a large set of complex
instructions, can be impressive.
This right from the horse's mouth IBM. The only criteria is that the
instruction be simple NOT THAT THE INSTRUCTION SET IS SMALL
Do not bad mouth RISC processors from a position of Ignorance.
CISC IS DEAD, it is a walking corpse. Ask INTEL their next generation
chip is RISC
Jonathan H. Pickard
In article <01bc8264$6cd26700$0200000a@kld_mcs>,
Mike Smith <kld_m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Wayne <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote in article
><AFD7974...@153.35.181.197>...
>>>You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
>
><ridiculous font tags snipped>
Gaarg -- does this mean I'm gonna have to put /yberdog/HX-Newsreader:j in my
killfile now, daddy?
>I can build a work-
>ing PC in under an hour (not a boast, I 'm sure there are
>people even better at it);
There are -- there's a guy over in the service department that's built a
system from boxed parts in ~12 minutes. 15-20 is typical.
>That's $50 over the cost of the parts, which
>are cheap and getting cheaper by the second.
For comparison: Some distributors are offering prebuilt systems at $15 over
cost of parts. (Fifteen dollars, yup)
>--Mike Smith
>P.S. I'm pretty sure a Loonie wouldn't trust any com-
>puter he didn't build, which is kind of the way I feel about
>it, too. ;-)
Absolutely. :-) I see enough proprietary crap come through the doors each day
to reinforce this belief. (I also see plenty of poorly-configured
joe-bob-builts to make myself wonder...)
-jhp
--
"USENIX holding NT seminars? wait, I'm on drugs, right? In reality I'm
throwing up in the bushes behind the Grateful Dead concert and it's all been
one long hallucination?"
Nils Benson
Drew wrote:
>
> computer line. In this it would be comparable to Motorola.
> I would consider Apple, Compaq and IBM to be together in the top tier of
> computer brands based on historical, technical, reliability and market
> share perceptions. Because of this brand equity, they should be more
> expensive than Jim-boy's home built special. For many people there are
> good, solid reason's for buying a brand. You may consider these as
> rip-offs, but I wonder if you would buy an unbranded hard drive
> manufactured by an unknown company.
>
I too find this to be the case. I've been building PC's since I was
thirteen, yet when it came time for my father to purchase one - he got
an Aptiva. I was dead set against it - yet I couldn't offer wehat the
IBM had in the box, which was mostly the warranty and name. Although I
still think it's brain dead (2-1/2 PCI slots on a P150?!@$!@) - in the
long run I'd rather he have it than anything I would have built him.
Mike Smith
Joe Anstett <jos...@cnet.com> wrote in article
<5oueh3$d09$1...@innbox.cnet.com>...
> The saavy know to look for the finest ingredients, not a superficial name
> on the outside. For example, the label on my system says "HYMCO". Yet
it
> has high quality components (intel mb, wd hard drives, etc.). I would
have
> paid way more for it if the name on the case said "HP" or "IBM".
Intel mobo? WESTERN DIGITAL hard disks??!?!?!
Puh-leeze. Of six WD hard drives my office has
bought in the last year, three have failed. One in
our 24/7 server (gulp) and one in a system shipped
to a customer (bend over). They haven't made a
decent drive since the 2540 (which was bulletproof
as all hell - is, I should say, as we have several of
them still in faithful service).
Intel MBs are pretty solid, but way too expensive
and way too lame. One of the nice things about
building your own system is being able to buy from
less mainstream manufacturers in search of higher
performance at lower prices (e.g. Abit motherboards).
--Mike Smith
Like a tea tray in the sky...
In article <33B14F...@execpc.com>, lea...@bigfoot.com writes...
>So total price is....$1599 system
> $225 monitor
> Total....$1834
>
The 2000 apple name brand MAC is still price competitive with that.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - tom.o...@jhu.edu
JHUVMS system programmer - http://jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu/~ecf_stbo/
You can hear bgInc. almost any day; singing shovez, shovez, shovez-vous?
'The Internet'... is not a valid Win32 application, bill. Boycott bg shoveware!
David Field
do...@accessnv.com (Jee Hoon Lee) wrote:
>In article <33B094BB...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
><as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>>
>> Memory... $70 for 16mb 60ns. 2mb PCI /w Mpeg video card: $30. Modem? Go
>> for a ZOOM 56k Flux, about $200. Monitor? $200. We're a little over
>> $1,000 now, but we went primium.
>>
>Your idea of premium is a $200 dollar monitor, a generic video card, a
>Zoom modem, a generic case made from stamped aluminum, and only 16mb of
>ram. You can keep it. PC users get what they pay for: cheap stuff. Not
>that cheap is bad; if you don't need the best stuff, go for it. The
>original poster requested comparible quality--what you show ain't it.
>Comparible quality PCs do exist, but you don't mention them because that
>narrows the price gap considerably. I agree that PCs have always been, and
>still are, cheaper overall.
>Most (note most, not all) Macs have a better fit&finish, higher quality
>components, and superior integration of software and hardware. It's not
>because Macs are "inherently" better, but that better stuff is usually
>chosen to go in one. I'm not, nor care to be, a PC expert, but I have
>installed ram, cards and HDs into generic PCs and I personally know people
>who build those cheapo-rama blow-out build it yourself PCs. Yes, they do
>the job and they work. I'll stick to Macs.
You mean those computers with slot phobia, insufficient video memory,
many parts not upgradeable, and an aversion to any kind of similarity
across the range?
David.
David Field
pxp...@pitt.edu.delete (peter) wrote:
>In article <33B1E009...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
><as...@asdf.com> wrote:
Yeah, Peter.
Tell us again. How many "walking corpses" get sold? Quite a few more
than those super-duper RISC chip machines. Face it, if Motorola hadn't
screwed up on the 68060, Macs would be using 68090 CISC chips today
and Mac advocates would tell us that CISC was far better than those
terrible Digital chips.
And the next generation of Intel chips (still two years away, and the
CISC chips seem to be staying the distance) is LIW. That stands for
Long Instruction Word - certainly not the RISC you're promoting. I
suppose it's better to have chips built on ideas from the end of the
nineties, not from the end of the eighties.
David.
Joe Ragosta
In article <5ou0oj$efm$1...@news1.rmi.net>, kane...@datamagic.com (Steve
Kanefsky) wrote:
None of which have been rated better than MacOS in independent surveys.
BTW, I can run every OS that you can _plus_ Mac OS (Note: Executor does not
run Mac OS, just Mac apps) and BeOS. I guess that makes the Mac the
compatibility champion now.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
Visit the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Joe Ragosta
In article <33B29E...@execpc.com>, lea...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> >
> > Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein?
> >
> The truth is I really don't know, I have been reading about 2 books
> aweek right now. I still have a stack of Destroyer and some H.Beam
> Piper books I picked up a garage sale. So giving me a title is a not
> much help.
Just curious, but what's the point of reading two books per week if you
can't even remember if you read them?
Kenneth R. Kinder
peter wrote:
>
> In article <33B1E009...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
> <as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, the DEC Alpha is a RISC system. But its RISC is not as terribly
> > chopped up as Apple/IBM's. Check out my other message for RISC stuff.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Kenneth R. Kinder
> > K...@KenAndTed.com - http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
> > "An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
> > PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The definition for RISC is
> Instructions executed by the processor belong to a small set of basic,
> simple instructions. RISC architecture optimizes this set of instructions
> (most of which can be executed in one clock cycle), while providing the
> means for building the complex instructions that are needed less
> frequently. The resulting improvement in performance over CISC (complex
> instruction-set computing) architectures, which use a large set of complex
> instructions, can be impressive.
>
> This right from the horse's mouth IBM. The only criteria is that the
> instruction be simple NOT THAT THE INSTRUCTION SET IS SMALL
>
> Do not bad mouth RISC processors from a position of Ignorance.
> CISC IS DEAD, it is a walking corpse. Ask INTEL their next generation
> chip is RISC
Ok... I've programmed assembly language in both RISC, and CISC. IBM, the
guys who made RISC love to talk about RISC being the way of the future,
and all that. Which it is, unless we can get some new techno for CISC.
Anyway, by their definition, I was 100% correct. Tell me, do you know
assembly language? at all? Do you know what an instruction even is?
Kenneth R. Kinder
Like a tea tray in the sky... wrote:
>
> In article <33B14F...@execpc.com>, lea...@bigfoot.com writes...
> >So total price is....$1599 system
> > $225 monitor
> > Total....$1834
> >
> >You Mac advocates really should look for CHEAPER hardware, I got all
> >prices from http://www.pricewatch.com
>
> The 2000 apple name brand MAC is still price competitive with that.
Yeah, and his prices are sky high.
James E. Boswell
>Pentium 166mhz: $150. or a Pentium w/mmx 200Mhz: $300.
in the UK, iP166 = £150 iP200MMX = £320 (Plus VAT of course.....)
>Board with current and non buggy PCI chipset on a standard bus: $300.
£140 Here.........
>Case/Power supply: (well lets go to swap-o-rama and get one) $60.
Yeah.... about right...
>Internal Iomega zip drive after rebate: $180.
Again.. those are cheaper here... £89...
>WDC 2.8 gig EIDE drive: $250.
?
£160 for a 3.2 IBM or Quantum Fireball ST
>12X CD-ROM that dosen't suck: $230-300
That's RIGHT OFF... Pioneer 12x's are £100, Plextor 12Plex'es are
£125.....
>
>*if I'm off on the cheapest value for the components, it's not by much,
>lets just admit that.
I'd say your CD-Rom was slightly off.... just slightly. ;)
-_-_-_
James "FlashFire" Boswell | Ja...@Hillbanks.demon.co.uk
WWW: http://www.hillbanks.demon.co.uk/
ICQ: 1653327 | Wing Commander-Quake TC team head coder
Clan Lethal Enforcers {LE} "The Judgement is death... and ridicule!"
peter
In article <5p1svn$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
> pxp...@pitt.edu.delete (peter) wrote:
>
> >In article <33B1E009...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
> ><as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Yes, the DEC Alpha is a RISC system. But its RISC is not as terribly
> >> chopped up as Apple/IBM's. Check out my other message for RISC stuff.
> >The definition for RISC is
> > Instructions executed by the processor belong to a small set of basic,
> >simple instructions. RISC architecture optimizes this set of instructions
> >(most of which can be executed in one clock cycle), while providing the
> >means for building the complex instructions that are needed less
> >frequently. The resulting improvement in performance over CISC (complex
> >instruction-set computing) architectures, which use a large set of complex
> >instructions, can be impressive.
>
>
> >Do not bad mouth RISC processors from a position of Ignorance.
> >CISC IS DEAD, it is a walking corpse. Ask INTEL their next generation
> >chip is RISC
.>
.> Tell us again. How many "walking corpses" get sold? Quite a few more
.> than those super-duper RISC chip machines. Face it, if Motorola hadn't
.> screwed up on the 68060, Macs would be using 68090 CISC chips today
.> and Mac advocates would tell us that CISC was far better than those
.> terrible Digital chips.
.>
.> And the next generation of Intel chips (still two years away, and the
.> CISC chips seem to be staying the distance) is LIW. That stands for
.> Long Instruction Word - certainly not the RISC you're promoting. I
.> suppose it's better to have chips built on ideas from the end of the
.> nineties, not from the end of the eighties.
.>
.> David.
David
First did not advocate anything. But when I see peaple babbling with
bullshit Jargon, I feel that a definition is in order. I constantly see
individuals tossing the term RISC vs CISC aroun without regard to their
proper meanings.
To carry on a discusion as to why RISC is superior to CISC would mean that
I am advocating. But without advocating, Iwill tell you what I think to
be the design specifications that promoted the use of both.
CISC- The main reasons that this achitecture prevailed for the past 20
years is due to the facts 1) Hard drives were small and 2) RAM was
expensive. CISC allows for multiple instructions to be executed in one
word commands. This meant that programs could be written to be much
smaller in the amount of memory needed to be stored and/or executed. The
draw back is that most functions in the CISC instruction word were not
used but had to excute any way. This meant that clock cycles are wasted.
The other draw back to a CISC achitecture is that the chips tend to run at
higher temperatures and consume more power. This drawback is one that in
the past really did not matter but with todays chips especially the
Pentium II, this is becoming a problem. I doubt that you will see PII in a
portable computer.
RISC- RISC performs one simple function each clock cycle. In multimedia
and rendering, the computations needed are generally simple functions so
the processor performs just the computations that are needed. If complex
instructions are needed than they can be built from the simple
instructions. Once again only instructions needed are performed. The big
drawback to the RISC archetecture is that large amounts of memory for
storage and for execution is needed. Also it is very sensitive to the
amount of cache avalible. The RISC chips can also be run at higher
frequencies and run at lower power than the CISC counterparts.
The fact that RAM prices are dirt cheap and hard drives ,much larger than
1GB, are routinely placed into computers the design specifications have
chaged to favar the development of RISC based computers. Just because
something sells now does not mean that it will prevail later. For example
in the mid sixties rack and pinion steering did not exsist in many cars
but by the mid seventies it was fairly uncommon not to find rack and
pinion steering.
INTEL is well aware of the benefits of RISC and are simply going to move
there production of chips to that direction. What sells now will continue
to sell and new products will replace old ones it is the way things get
better and sometimes worse depending on your perspective.
As for the ALPHA chip it is a beast and is a fabulous chip BUT in order to
get the performance it is tuely capable of it needs a hell of a memory
subsystem (ie motherboard). An extreme example of what it can do is the
CRAY T3E. It is a comercially available teraflop supercomputer that uses
the Alpha chips.
Peter Pediaditakis
peter
> Ok... I've programmed assembly language in both RISC, and CISC. IBM, the
> guys who made RISC love to talk about RISC being the way of the future,
> and all that. Which it is, unless we can get some new techno for CISC.
> Anyway, by their definition, I was 100% correct. Tell me, do you know
> assembly language? at all? Do you know what an instruction even is?
Yes Ken I have written code in assmebly and yes I do know what an
instruction is. But when you make statement that say "But its RISC is not
as terribly
> chopped up as Apple/IBM's", I wonder whether you know what you are
talking about.
Peter
Michael Koch
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> None of which have been rated better than MacOS in independent surveys.
Lemme guess: those are the people that recommend purchases of machines,
right? Which explains the dominance of Mac/MacOS in the market. Ohh
well.. guess their opinion doesn't matter.. whatta shame.
> BTW, I can run every OS that you can _plus_ Mac OS (Note: Executor does not
> run Mac OS, just Mac apps) and BeOS. I guess that makes the Mac the
> compatibility champion now.
Allright, send me screen shots of your machine running:
Windows NT 4.0
OS/2 <any version>
Solaris 2.5.1
Any 3 other (diff.) commercial *nix flavors.
How many models are supported by mkLinux? Open/Free/NetBSD?
How about NeXTStep? I'll wait on that one.
Hmm, forget it... just send me a 30 min video of you cruising the net
with Netscape, make sure you hit lots of gfx and Java intensive
sites.... make that 60 mins, since we'll have to account for the time it
takes to <restart> from those nice #11 errors, or was it #7?
MIKE...
PS: where the hell is Pinko-OS when you need it?!?!?!?
nate
On 28 Jun 1997 16:37:19 GMT, pxp...@pitt.edu.delete (peter) decided
he/she should say:
>In article <5p1svn$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
>Field) wrote:
>
>> pxp...@pitt.edu.delete (peter) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <33B1E009...@asdf.com>, "Kenneth R. Kinder"
>> ><as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>draw back is that most functions in the CISC instruction word were not
>used but had to excute any way. This meant that clock cycles are wasted.
>The other draw back to a CISC achitecture is that the chips tend to run at
>higher temperatures and consume more power. This drawback is one that in
>the past really did not matter but with todays chips especially the
>Pentium II, this is becoming a problem. I doubt that you will see PII in a
>portable computer.
According to ZD net, Intel may ship a mobile version of the PII early
next year.
From: http://www8.zdnet.com/products/content/cshp/1707/cshp0005.html
<q>
. On the other hand, Intel doesn't plan on releasing mobile versions
of the Pentium II--the MMX-enabled P6--until sometime in the first
half of 1998.
</Q>
Nate
MacChat
In article <33B5DE...@earthlink.net>, mk...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> >
> > >Lemme guess: those are the people that recommend purchases of
> > machines,
> > >right? Which explains the dominance of Mac/MacOS in the market. Ohh
> > >well.. guess their opinion doesn't matter.. whatta shame.
> >
> > You're right, nobody pays attention to BYTE and PCWorld...
>
> Go figure...
>
> MIKE...
Well your ***WRONG*** Check this out at
http://www.internetstats.com/vote2/theirvote.cgi?option=results&topic=os.
This is the results of an OS survey. This shows accurately how much
dominance we have in the computer industry.
Quantum Leaper
Wayne wrote:
>
> >> Wayne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein?
> >> >
> >> The truth is I really don't know, I have been reading about 2 books
>
> >> aweek right now. I still have a stack of Destroyer and some H.Beam
> >> Piper books I picked up a garage sale. So giving me a title is a
> not
> >> much help.
> >
> >Just curious, but what's the point of reading two books per week if
> you
> >can't even remember if you read them?
>
> a Wintel guy telling we should buy cheapper hardware.)
>
Yes I think I got the joke, if its the book I think it is, and you
don't understand, I cheaper hardware, NOT crappy hardware. When I
bought my NEW HD 2 months ago, I bought it though Mailorder and SAVE
$80 over the local price, it seem you Mac nuts would have payed the
local prices and been happy. I buy Quality stuff, cheap, it just takes
a little digging. BTW the warrenties WHERE the same on the local HD and
the Mailorder one. An example is Zoltrix anything, there VERY Cheap
and CRAPPY hardware, and I would even use one if it was given to me!!!!
BTW if you don't know the difference between CRAP and CHEAP, I would
suggest looking in a dictionary.
I can buy from a hundred different companies and each ONE wants my
business, so its easy finding a piece of hardware or software a few
dollars over cost! Thats what I was talking about.
This is to the other Mac avocate, I read alot of books but I don't
REMEMBER EVERY title, if I pick the book up and read the back, I could
tell you if I had read it or not. I don't have a photographic memory of
book titles.
--
Join CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://www.cauce.org/
peter
In article <33b56066...@nntp.idir.net>, nhu...@idir.net (nate) wrote:
.>
.> According to ZD net, Intel may ship a mobile version of the PII early
.> next year.
.>
.>
.> From: http://www8.zdnet.com/products/content/cshp/1707/cshp0005.html
.> <q>
.> . On the other hand, Intel doesn't plan on releasing mobile versions
.> of the Pentium II--the MMX-enabled P6--until sometime in the first
.> half of 1998.
.> </Q>
.>
.>
.> Nate
Nate I have heard the same thing but for the past 6 months PII have been
available to the computer makers but nobody can make a portable. The
problem is that the PII uses in excess pf 15 watts and portables generally
do not have room for a cooling fan.
Peter
Paddy Eason
Kenneth R. Kinder wrote:
>
> >
> > The definition for RISC is
> > Instructions executed by the processor belong to a small set of basic,
> > simple instructions. RISC architecture optimizes this set of instructions
> > (most of which can be executed in one clock cycle), while providing the
> > means for building the complex instructions that are needed less
> > frequently. The resulting improvement in performance over CISC (complex
> > instruction-set computing) architectures, which use a large set of complex
> > instructions, can be impressive.
> >
> > This right from the horse's mouth IBM. The only criteria is that the
> > instruction be simple NOT THAT THE INSTRUCTION SET IS SMALL
Hold on! RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Emphasis on the size of the instructions set, not the size
of the instructions. Why isn't it called Reduced Instruction Size Computing, if what you say is true? Also, just look
at the line "small set of basic, simple instructions" Again - mention of the size of the set, as well as the size of
the actual instructions. So - while you may be right to stress the importance of the small size of the instructions, I
don't think it's strictly true that the ONLY criterion is that the instruction be simple...
Just my 2 pennies.
--
Paddy Eason
Computer Film Company, London.
pa...@cfc.co.uk
Paddy Eason
Paddy Eason
peter
> Hold on! RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Emphasis on
the size of the instructions set, not the size
> of the instructions. Why isn't it called Reduced Instruction Size
Computing, if what you say is true? Also, just look
> at the line "small set of basic, simple instructions" Again - mention of
the size of the set, as well as the size of
> the actual instructions. So - while you may be right to stress the
importance of the small size of the instructions, I
> don't think it's strictly true that the ONLY criterion is that the
instruction be simple...
>
Paddy
That is a very common misconception anfd that is why I posted the
definition of RISC to begin with. Since RISC architedture is an IBM
beast, I got my definition straight from IBM's mouth. The fundemental
feature of RISC is the one word simple instruction not a limited
instruction set.
Peter Pediaditakis
CHECK IBM homepage for more info
Larry Campbell
I bought it though Mailorder and SAVE $80 over the local price, it seem
you Mac nuts would have payed the local prices and been happy. I buy
Quality stuff, cheap, it just takes a little digging.
No, because according to your logic, the Macs parts are (supposedly) not locally
available to us, so we HAVE to go mail order, right?
If you're buying PC parts mail order, WELCOME TO THE PARTY.
I've been buying my Mac parts through mail-order for the last ten years.
They're all SCSI drives, very high quality components, and they cost exactly
the same as the equivalent PC parts.
So your point is?
Joe Ragosta
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> > None of which have been rated better than MacOS in independent surveys.
>
> Lemme guess: those are the people that recommend purchases of machines,
> right? Which explains the dominance of Mac/MacOS in the market. Ohh
> well.. guess their opinion doesn't matter.. whatta shame.
Once again (for the 1,000th time it seems like). Sales != quality. Macs are
consistently rated as top quality machines. Sales figures don't refute
that.
Are you arguing that a Ford Pinto is a better car than a Mercedes, too?
>
> > BTW, I can run every OS that you can _plus_ Mac OS (Note: Executor does not
> > run Mac OS, just Mac apps) and BeOS. I guess that makes the Mac the
> > compatibility champion now.
>
> Allright, send me screen shots of your machine running:
>
> Windows NT 4.0
> OS/2 <any version>
> Solaris 2.5.1
> Any 3 other (diff.) commercial *nix flavors.
> How many models are supported by mkLinux? Open/Free/NetBSD?
> How about NeXTStep? I'll wait on that one.
AFAIK, all of these will run on Virtual PC which was my point. If you send
me installation CDs for any of them, I'll be happy to provide as many
screen shots as you want.
>
> Hmm, forget it... just send me a 30 min video of you cruising the net
> with Netscape, make sure you hit lots of gfx and Java intensive
> sites.... make that 60 mins, since we'll have to account for the time it
> takes to <restart> from those nice #11 errors, or was it #7?
Huh? I spend days or weeks without a crash even when using Netscape pretty
heavily. What's your point?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Joe Ragosta
In article <?digman?-30069714...@digital-00-31.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
> I bought it though Mailorder and SAVE $80 over the local price, it seem
> you Mac nuts would have payed the local prices and been happy. I buy
> Quality stuff, cheap, it just takes a little digging.
But the latest game has been flaming Mac users for buying from mail order.
Which is it--should I buy from mail order or not? It seems that the Wintel
herd is going to flame me either way.
James E. Boswell
Ok, Try Quantum or (Gulp) Seagate for Harddisks, I've never had one fail
(except for one that was dropped down a flight of stairs)
As for Motherboards, What About Tyan, Gigabyte, etc.........
Mike Smith wrote in article <01bc8332$f60a39c0$0200000a@kld_mcs>...
Byron Lister
> components, and superior integration of software and hardware. It's not
Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
"superior
integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over my PC....My
MAC
crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd think that have
tight control
over the hardware would yield greater software reliability!!!!
Admittedly its only a Quadra 605....Don't laugh its what I got upgraded
to from a
Mac IIse in a round of upgrades this year....Managers got upgraded to a
603e/75...
The PowerMacs seem no better....they just crash quicker....
Give me 95/NT any day over this junk!!!!!
> because Macs are "inherently" better, but that better stuff is usually
> chosen to go in one. I'm not, nor care to be, a PC expert, but I have
> installed ram, cards and HDs into generic PCs and I personally know people
> who build those cheapo-rama blow-out build it yourself PCs. Yes, they do
> the job and they work. I'll stick to Macs.
>
> --
> Jee Hoon Lee
> E-Mail:do...@accessnv.com
> Web: http://coyote.accessnv.com/dorok
regards
Byron(NT, OpenVMS and Unix System Manager)
Quantum Leaper
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <?digman?-30069714...@digital-00-31.hou.neoworld.net>,
> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>
> > I bought it though Mailorder and SAVE $80 over the local price, it seem
> > you Mac nuts would have payed the local prices and been happy. I buy
> > Quality stuff, cheap, it just takes a little digging.
>
> But the latest game has been flaming Mac users for buying from mail order.
> Which is it--should I buy from mail order or not? It seems that the Wintel
> herd is going to flame me either way.
>
doing, right. Considering I wrote it, not Larry.
I have NEVER flamed anyone for buying Mailorder, I think it the
smartest move anyone can do. Thats how I bought my P75, from
Gateway2000, Mailorder ONLY company.
BTW Larry is one of you Mac'ers, but I do think it good, to make Larry
out to be a MSWin supporter.
Larry Campbell
> I guess learning how to quote is something Mac users have a hard time
> doing, right. Considering I wrote it, not Larry.
> I have NEVER flamed anyone for buying Mailorder, I think it the
> smartest move anyone can do. Thats how I bought my P75, from
> Gateway2000, Mailorder ONLY company.
> BTW Larry is one of you Mac'ers, but I do think it good, to make Larry
> out to be a MSWin supporter.
> --
> Join CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
> http://www.cauce.org/
I think Joe was just adding his comments.
Everyone in this NG knows I'm a true blue MacFanatic.
I own/use Wintel boxes as well.
I just don't see anything about PCs worth raving about.
-Larry
Larry Campbell
> The PowerMacs seem no better....they just crash quicker....
>
> Give me 95/NT any day over this junk!!!!!
You're welcome to it.
You're not convincing anyone in this NG,however, that the
crashes you experience on an hourly basis are the fault of anything
other than the user.
Michael Koch
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> Once again (for the 1,000th time it seems like). Sales != quality. Macs are
> consistently rated as top quality machines. Sales figures don't refute
> that.
Don't care... it doesn't have anything to do with quality only. It seems
more indicative of WHAT WORKS. So, the 'poor quality, less maintainable,
more crash-prone, less "compatible" ' PC, which has inferior software
(to boot!) seems to be the better solution. But then, as we Mac owners
already know, people w/ PCs are too stupid to know the difference.
> Are you arguing that a Ford Pinto is a better car than a Mercedes, too?
I'm not even going to argue out of which orifice you pulled that stupid
question.
> AFAIK, all of these will run on Virtual PC which was my point. If you send
> me installation CDs for any of them, I'll be happy to provide as many
> screen shots as you want.
Hohohoho, what does "as far as" mean? Seen it?, says so on the box?, 'in
principle it should run'?, 'dunno'? . If they can make Solaris 2.5.1 run
in emulation on a mac I'd be very interested in buying stock in that
company.
> Huh? I spend days or weeks without a crash even when using Netscape pretty
> heavily. What's your point?
Same w/ my Win95 box, runs w/o a problem... of course nobody believes me
that one. Go figure.
MIKE...
Joe Ragosta
In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
<Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
> "superior
> integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over my PC....My
> MAC
> crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd think that have
> tight control
> over the hardware would yield greater software reliability!!!!
Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
>
> Admittedly its only a Quadra 605....Don't laugh its what I got upgraded
> to from a
> Mac IIse in a round of upgrades this year....Managers got upgraded to a
> 603e/75...
Hmmm. Since neither a Mac IIse or 603e/75 exists, I wonder if you really
know what you're talking about.
> Give me 95/NT any day over this junk!!!!!
>
>
> regards
>
> Byron(NT, OpenVMS and Unix System Manager)
Ahhhh.
Job security.
OfficeLAN User
Michael Koch wrote:
>
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> > None of which have been rated better than MacOS in independent surveys.
>
> Lemme guess: those are the people that recommend purchases of machines,
> right? Which explains the dominance of Mac/MacOS in the market. Ohh
> well.. guess their opinion doesn't matter.. whatta shame.
>
> > run Mac OS, just Mac apps) and BeOS. I guess that makes the Mac the
> > compatibility champion now.
>
> Allright, send me screen shots of your machine running:
>
> Windows NT 4.0
> OS/2 <any version>
> Solaris 2.5.1
> Any 3 other (diff.) commercial *nix flavors.
> How many models are supported by mkLinux? Open/Free/NetBSD?
> How about NeXTStep? I'll wait on that one.
>
> with Netscape, make sure you hit lots of gfx and Java intensive
> sites.... make that 60 mins, since we'll have to account for the time it
> takes to <restart> from those nice #11 errors, or was it #7?
>
>
> PS: where the hell is Pinko-OS when you need it?!?!?!?
Virtual PC was released a few weeks ago which lets us PowerPC people
emulate a Pentium MMX chipset on our Macs. While it may not be speedy,
as emulations never are, it does give good performance and *CAN* run
OS/2, NT 4.0 and others. Can't give you any screen shots because I
would never be caught dead with those systems running in emulation on my
machine. But it can be easily done. And as the PowerPC chips continue
their widening of the gap with Intel hardware, the emulators will more
and more approach the speed of the real Intel machines.
Andrew
Alan Donald
In terms of 'standard' hardware, i'd probably call a Dell GXi a fair bit more
standard than my 'bitsa' clone i am writing this on. There are advantages and
disadvantages of having integrated peripherals yes, but it doesn't make a machine
standard. I wouldn't call my 'bitsa' machine standard in a pink fit, but if i had
to call something a 'standard' machine, it'd be alot more likely to be a
Dell/Compaq.
In article <01bc82c5$36853900$55803cd1@homer>,
Mike Daniel <mda...@fia.net> wrote:
>"Standard" hardware means that you can replace any *single* component
>without being forced to replace much more. You know the story. A bad piece
>of soldered on RAM leads to a new motherboard, which leads to a new video
>card (because the old one was soldered to the MoBo), and a new IO board.
>Don't forget a new case and power supply (because the old MoBo was a custom
>fit in the old case.) And if the old MoBo had a PS2 mouse and keyboard
>port, you can either replace those or buy adapters.
>
>Oh Hell. I'll just replace the whole damn machine!
>
>Mike
>
>
>> And _what is_ standard hardware? I don't think that anyone can call their
>> machine standard hardware these days. Perhaps call it a common
>combination
>> of hardware, but not standard.
>>
al...@osi.com.au Open Systems Integrators
al...@ign.com.au http://www.ign.com.au/~alan
-------------------------------------------------------------
-compromise conformity assimilation submission -
-ignorance hypocricy brutality the elite -
-all of which are american dreams. al...@osi.com.au -
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ragosta
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <?digman?-30069714...@digital-00-31.hou.neoworld.net>,
> > ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
> >
> > > I bought it though Mailorder and SAVE $80 over the local price, it seem
> > > you Mac nuts would have payed the local prices and been happy. I buy
> > > Quality stuff, cheap, it just takes a little digging.
> >
> > But the latest game has been flaming Mac users for buying from mail order.
> > Which is it--should I buy from mail order or not? It seems that the Wintel
> > herd is going to flame me either way.
> >
> I guess learning how to quote is something Mac users have a hard time
> doing, right. Considering I wrote it, not Larry.
> I have NEVER flamed anyone for buying Mailorder, I think it the
Well, it seems that _you_ need to learn to quote. I never said that this
was _your_ position. I said that Mac users are getting flamed for buying
mail order and now they're getting flamed for not using mail order.
As for the quote, my quotations are correct. Someone else must have changed it.
> smartest move anyone can do. Thats how I bought my P75, from
> Gateway2000, Mailorder ONLY company.
--
Joe Ragosta
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > Once again (for the 1,000th time it seems like). Sales != quality. Macs are
> > consistently rated as top quality machines. Sales figures don't refute
> > that.
>
> Don't care... it doesn't have anything to do with quality only. It seems
> more indicative of WHAT WORKS. So, the 'poor quality, less maintainable,
> more crash-prone, less "compatible" ' PC, which has inferior software
> (to boot!) seems to be the better solution. But then, as we Mac owners
Better solution? Debateable. It certainly depends on the problem.
But the post that I responded to said that PCs are better computers are
better _because_ there are more of them. That is clearly wrong, as I
pointed out.
> already know, people w/ PCs are too stupid to know the difference.
I don't know of anyone who ever said that, except perhaps in jest.
>
> > Are you arguing that a Ford Pinto is a better car than a Mercedes, too?
>
> I'm not even going to argue out of which orifice you pulled that stupid
> question.
Why? The person said that PCs are better because there are more of them. If
this argument is true, the corollary would be that Pintos are better
because there are more of them.
You need to take a course in logic.
>
> > AFAIK, all of these will run on Virtual PC which was my point. If you send
> > me installation CDs for any of them, I'll be happy to provide as many
> > screen shots as you want.
>
> Hohohoho, what does "as far as" mean? Seen it?, says so on the box?, 'in
> principle it should run'?, 'dunno'? . If they can make Solaris 2.5.1 run
> in emulation on a mac I'd be very interested in buying stock in that
> company.
I know that Solaris has been run on VPC. I don't know which version. I'm
basing the comment on Connectix' announcements _plus_ some other
information which I can't discuss. Since it's entirely reasonable for you
to ignore anything I can't discuss, just rely on Connectix' announcements.
They say it runs NT, OS/2 and so on. If you don't believe them, how about
some evidence that they're wrong?
>
> > Huh? I spend days or weeks without a crash even when using Netscape pretty
> > heavily. What's your point?
>
> Same w/ my Win95 box, runs w/o a problem... of course nobody believes me
> that one. Go figure.
I never said I don't believe you. You apparently have trouble
distinguishing between _one user's_ experience and overall trends. The only
reason I posted my comment is that someone said that _all_ Macs crash all
the time.
Larry Campbell
> Well, it seems that _you_ need to learn to quote. I never said that this
> was _your_ position. I said that Mac users are getting flamed for buying
> mail order and now they're getting flamed for not using mail order.
>
> As for the quote, my quotations are correct. Someone else must have
changed it.
> Joe Ragosta
> See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Joe,
This is evidently a lamer ploy to play Mac advocates
against each other.
Altering quotes is fairly typical flamer activity, it seems.
Point your browser towards:
www.users.nwark.com/~tjmiller/index.html for
Spark's Comprehensive Guide to Flaming.
-Larry
Quantum Leaper
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <33B942...@execpc.com>, lea...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> > I guess learning how to quote is something Mac users have a hard time
> > doing, right. Considering I wrote it, not Larry.
> > I have NEVER flamed anyone for buying Mailorder, I think it the
>
> was _your_ position. I said that Mac users are getting flamed for buying
> mail order and now they're getting flamed for not using mail order.
>
position. I have been using Modems since the days of 300 baud modems,
and single line BBSs. Back then the quoting was done line by line
mostly. So 13 years of reading and writing messages, I think I can
quote correctly. What post did I put someone elses words in someone
elses mouth? Please tell me, I would love to know...
Like I said I would never flame anyone for buying mailorder, though I
wouldn't buy software that way, I like to read the box first.
> As for the quote, my quotations are correct. Someone else must have changed it.
>
I wouldn't go that far. If you want me to PROVE what you said, here is
the unbiased Deja News article.
http://xp8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=10494304&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=867884035.23047
You did put my WORDs in Larry mouth, I don't really care since it goes
to your creditibity more. I guess the someone would be call Mac right?
Quantum Leaper
Larry Campbell wrote:
>
> > Well, it seems that _you_ need to learn to quote. I never said that this
> > was _your_ position. I said that Mac users are getting flamed for buying
> > mail order and now they're getting flamed for not using mail order.
> >
> changed it.
>
> against each other.
> Altering quotes is fairly typical flamer activity, it seems.
I didn't alter ANY quotes, try
http://xp8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=10494304&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=867884035.23047
for unbiased telling of what Joe posted! Flamers/Lamers only change
things because they don't have the truth on they side! I'm not tring to
pit anyone against each other, I only wanted the TRUTH, which I guess
is hard for you Mac advocates. Deja News is great for exposing these
types of Flamer/Lamer polys.
I haven't been called a Lamer in a decade or so.
I guess 13 years of using a modem and around 7 with on (last 3 years)
/off access to the Internet , I have learned there are just some people
you don't have a clue. Like you and Joe, if your going to try to flame
someone you should make damn sure they can't PROVE that your lying!!!!!!
BTW all Joe had to do was to delete your name at the top of the post and
I wouldn't have said a word!!!
Larry Campbell
Dave,
Every new Mac ships with a warranty.
You could've had the machine replaced.
Apple swapped out my 8500's logic board
at no charge.
They overnighted the part to me, no less!
I've owned eleven Macintoshes in ten years,
along with four Wintel machines.
The 8500 was the first Macintosh that I had
a problem with.
You could say I'm extremely impressed with
Apple's quality control.
I have a hard time believing that (if the hardware
of your 6400 is not defective) your frequent crashes are not
user-related.
Judging from your frequent posts in this NG, you seem to
have something personal against Apple and Mac users in general,
regaling us almost daily with updates on Apple's state-of-affairs
and your user log of daily crashes.
If it really bothers you that much, you should seek employment
elsewhere, where they don't use Macs.
Based on your problems you've so carefully documented for us, I
suspect that you would have an even more difficult time using Wintel
machines.
Good luck.
-Larry
In article <5petlt$1...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>
>
>
> >> The PowerMacs seem no better....they just crash quicker....
> >>
> >> Give me 95/NT any day over this junk!!!!!
>
> >You're welcome to it.
> >You're not convincing anyone in this NG,however, that the
> >crashes you experience on an hourly basis are the fault of anything
> >other than the user.
>
> Larry, I don't know what planet you're on, but I have the worst Mac in
> the department because it crashes four times a day instead of the once
> a day of most of the other Macs.
>
> And, funnily enough, it went from four crashes a day to about one
> crash a day back to four crashes a day without any help from me. If I
> knew how to get it to run better I'd fix it, but I'm convinced it's
> something to do with solar radiation. There seems to be no other
> explanation.
>
> David.
Larry Campbell
In article <5petrm$1...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
> >I think Joe was just adding his comments.
> >Everyone in this NG knows I'm a true blue MacFanatic.
> >I own/use Wintel boxes as well.
> >I just don't see anything about PCs worth raving about.
>
> Larry, I think that Macs are far worse than their supporters make them
> out to be.
>
> But I too don't see anything about PCs worth raving about.
>
> I don't see anything about any computer "worth raving about."
>
> I guess I can't get emotionally attached to a tin box that does
> tricks.
>
> David.
Dave,
don't tell me I'm going to have to resort to those dorky emoticons
to convey my message.
You can like something without becoming "emotionally attached."
Look, I think you just got a bad machine.
But if all you do is gripe about it instead of getting it fixed,
it's your fault, and your problem.
If you were to surf the dozens of Mac-related sites, you would see for
yourself that Mac users monitor very closely both the Mac hardware and
software issues that arise.
I don't think Mac advocates are embellishing anything as pertains to Macs;
on the whole we're a pretty conscientious bunch.
-Larry
Larry Campbell
> I haven't been called a Lamer in a decade or so.
> I guess 13 years of using a modem and around 7 with on (last 3 years)
> /off access to the Internet , I have learned there are just some people
> you don't have a clue. Like you and Joe, if your going to try to flame
> someone you should make damn sure they can't PROVE that your lying!!!!!!
> BTW all Joe had to do was to delete your name at the top of the post and
> I wouldn't have said a word!!!
> --
> Join CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
> http://www.cauce.org/
Guess I hit a nerve.
Before you get carried away with righteous indignation, I'll
remind you that I was the one that was misquoted, and yes, if it
was deliberate, then it is a lamer ploy.
I really don't give a shit who misquoted me.
I never accused anyone, did I?
Check dejanews.com, as long as you're throwing it up to me.
And you're not the only one who's logged over a decade on-line
and been on the net since the early 90's, old-timer.;-)
Oh, and I don't have a clue?
Why are you harassing Mac advocates?
Don't have anything better to do than hang out in the Mac newsgroups?
-Larry
David Field
David Field
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>> I guess learning how to quote is something Mac users have a hard time
>> doing, right. Considering I wrote it, not Larry.
>> I have NEVER flamed anyone for buying Mailorder, I think it the
>> smartest move anyone can do. Thats how I bought my P75, from
>> Gateway2000, Mailorder ONLY company.
>> BTW Larry is one of you Mac'ers, but I do think it good, to make Larry
>> out to be a MSWin supporter.
>> --
>> Join CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
>> http://www.cauce.org/
Wayne
>And, funnily enough, it went from four crashes a day to about one
>crash a day back to four crashes a day without any help from me. If I
>knew how to get it to run better I'd fix it, but I'm convinced it's
>something to do with solar radiation. There seems to be no other
>explanation.
>
>David.
Go through your programs and allocate a bit more RAM to each by doing a GET
INFO and increasing the prefferred size about 30% (more if you can.) That
clears up a lot of MacAcne. :)
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
Petri Holopainen
MacChat wrote:
>
> Well your ***WRONG*** Check this out at
> http://www.internetstats.com/vote2/theirvote.cgi?option=results&topic=os.
> This is the results of an OS survey. This shows accurately how much
> dominance we have in the computer industry.
An OS survey? Are all links to this site from MacHead sites?
2233 against 53 votes?
Yeah right... A very accurate and scientific "survey"...
Petri Holopainen
Wayne wrote:
>
>
> Go through your programs and allocate a bit more RAM to each by doing a GET
> INFO and increasing the prefferred size about 30% (more if you can.) That
> clears up a lot of MacAcne. :)
>
Ohmy... I didn't realize that MacOS still had this braindead memory
management... Now it is even clearer why Rhapsody absolutely essen-
tial to Apple and the Macintosh.
Using a modern operating system, this kind of manual memory allocation
is not needed. Even poor old Win3.x could handle dynamic allocation
and de-allocation of memory back in 1990.
Come to think of it, even DOS could do this...
Kevin Swan
Reewe <Ha...@agewaad.com> wrote:
>I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
>size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
>memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
>ect.
I don't think so, Reewe.
Pentium 200 board and chip $500
Full tower case and power supply $150
3GB EIDE drive $350
16MB RAM (your price) $ 80
2MB MPEG video card $125
Zip drive $240
Mouse $ 60
Mouse pad $ 5
Keyboard $ 35
Floppy drive $ 35
Miscellaneous cables $ 10
--------
Total $1590.00 + taxes and shipping
Also, you forgot a monitor. How about a sound card? CD-ROM? Modem?
Maybe an operating system? Nice try, Reewe, but if you can put that system
together for $1000, then I want to know how. :)
Kev.
--
Kevin Swan BCSH
ke...@kombat.acadiau.ca Acadia University
How's my posting? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
** Fatal Error [1]: 'Win95' virus detected on /dev/hda1; Formatting ...
David T. Wang
Kevin Swan (ke...@kombat.acadiau.ca) wrote:
: Reewe <Ha...@agewaad.com> wrote:
: >I could put together a Pentium clone for about $1000 with 200mhz, full
: >size tower case, 3ish gigs of HD space, 16mb (extar $80 per 16mb)
: >memory, 2mb MPeg video card, ZIP drive, and the usuall stuff -- keyboard
: >ect.
You can buy all these different parts from all different vendors and get
better prices, but if we just go to a single vendor, say, Micro Express,
and try to get everything from one place, let's see what we come up with...
: I don't think so, Reewe.
: Pentium 200 board and chip $500
$359. (200 MHz, no MMX, 512K L2)
: Full tower case and power supply $150
$ 69 Full size tower.
: 3GB EIDE drive $350
$239 (Quantum Tempest 3.1 Gig)
: 16MB RAM (your price) $ 80
$ 78 (EDO, 32 meg cost $130)
: 2MB MPEG video card $125
$ 69 ATI graph Xpres 2 MB MPEG
: Zip drive $240
$ 99 IDE internal
: Mouse $ 60
$ 26 Microsoft serial mouse
: Mouse pad $ 5
$ 1 $5? Why?
: Keyboard $ 35
$ 18 generic
: Floppy drive $ 35
$ 23 Mitsumi
: Miscellaneous cables $ 10
$ 0 flop/IDE/ser included
: --------
: Total $1590.00 + taxes and shipping
$981 + shipping. What taxes?
: Also, you forgot a monitor. How about a sound card? CD-ROM? Modem?
: Maybe an operating system? Nice try, Reewe, but if you can put that system
: together for $1000, then I want to know how. :)
It's cheaper to just pick one vendor, and have them build the whole thing
for you. $1000 is too low to include everything, but $1500 for what you
quoted was just way too high. Try www.pricewatch.com, to look for better
prices.
: Kev.
Byron Lister
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
> <Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
> > "superior
> > integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over my PC....My
> > MAC
> > crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd think that have
> > tight control
> > over the hardware would yield greater software reliability!!!!
>
> Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
> once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
I suspect it crashes for a couple of reasons:
1) The MAC networking is absolutely lousy....I used shared folders on a
server
and occassionaly the server locks up and all machines with open folders
die.
The other major gripe is that the Mac has no folder locking...Only one
person
at a time can do anything on a particular
folder...AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
2) Netscape bitches about running out of memory after a period of
time(usually reading
news)...I've already given it as much memory as I'm willing too...So
when it bitches
I shutdown netscape and restart it.....It always fails to restart, and
usually a locked
machine results....Perhaps its a victim of Netscape????
There are other unexplained lockups when using Netscape....This is not a
beta!!! This is a
supported version.....
The Support people who look after my mac and others manage some 6000+ of
them, and whilst
they aren't guru's even they are frustrated by the shortfalls of the
current Mac OS.
> >
> > Admittedly its only a Quadra 605....Don't laugh its what I got upgraded
> > to from a
> > Mac IIse in a round of upgrades this year....Managers got upgraded to a
> > 603e/75...
>
> Hmmm. Since neither a Mac IIse or 603e/75 exists, I wonder if you really
> know what you're talking about.\
ooppss. The previous model was a II something I can't remember
exactly...It
was only on my desk for a week....the other one is a 7200/75...I assume
its got
a 603e in it....the 60xe/XXX is a designation I saw in an Apple price
list
> > Give me 95/NT any day over this junk!!!!!
> >
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Byron(NT, OpenVMS and Unix System Manager)
>
> Ahhhh.
>
> Job security.
Absolutely.....I try to keep up to date with most things.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta
> See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Byron
Quantum Leaper
Larry Campbell wrote:
>
> In article <33BAE5...@execpc.com>, lea...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> > I haven't been called a Lamer in a decade or so.
> > I guess 13 years of using a modem and around 7 with on (last 3 years)
> > /off access to the Internet , I have learned there are just some people
> > you don't have a clue. Like you and Joe, if your going to try to flame
> > someone you should make damn sure they can't PROVE that your lying!!!!!!
> > BTW all Joe had to do was to delete your name at the top of the post and
> > I wouldn't have said a word!!!
>
True and a lack of sleep didn't help. I sorry if I blew up.
> Before you get carried away with righteous indignation, I'll
> remind you that I was the one that was misquoted, and yes, if it
> was deliberate, then it is a lamer ploy.
Please show me, MY misquoted message. I showed you Joes misquote.
It sounded like you were saying I was a lamer for misquoting someone,
and all I said was it looks like Joe is making Larry a PC advocate, or
some to that effect.
> I really don't give a shit who misquoted me.
I guess it must be a Mac thing, I said if Joe can't get a simple quote
correct, what other misinformation has he been spreading.
> I never accused anyone, did I?
Did I say you did?
> Check dejanews.com, as long as you're throwing it up to me.
Alittle hard considering Deja News only goes back to early 1995, it may
be awhile for those older messages. Usenet archive go back to 1979 or
1980, I think.
> And you're not the only one who's logged over a decade on-line
> and been on the net since the early 90's, old-timer.;-)
$30 bux for a 300 baud modem was a steal when I got my first modem.
> Oh, and I don't have a clue?
Sorry, lack of sleep.
> Why are you harassing Mac advocates?
I am? All I was trying to do is have the correct information
presented, I thought that was Advocacy? ;)
> Don't have anything better to do than hang out in the Mac newsgroups?
>
Tsk Tsk, and you said you had a clue, but then again Mac software may
not show that this message is cross posted to the following
usegroups....
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy <<<< This is were I read the message
from....
alt.destroy.microsoft
alt.fan.bill-gates
comp.sys.intel
Michael Koch
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> Better solution? Debateable. It certainly depends on the problem.
Hey..HEY! Don't start making sense now!
>
> But the post that I responded to said that PCs are better computers are
> better _because_ there are more of them. That is clearly wrong, as I
> pointed out.
Nahh... respond to me, not some post from god-knows-when. Don't care.
> > already know, people w/ PCs are too stupid to know the difference.
>
> I don't know of anyone who ever said that, except perhaps in jest.
My "creative interpretation"... heh!
> Why? The person said that PCs are better because there are more of them. If
> this argument is true, the corollary would be that Pintos are better
> because there are more of them.
"The person".... is that me?
>
> You need to take a course in logic.
I sincerely doubt the premise, there ARE more Mercedes than Pintos. But
anyway, the argument that "MACs are of higher quality than PCs" is
extremely silly, for several reasons:
1. which brand do you compare them to?
2. given that there is only one brand of APPLE macs are you considering
the clones?
2.a does that mean that the average APPLE macs and CLONE macs have the
same reliability?
3. does the # of people responding and the market share correlate?
3.a ...as a matter of fact: does the # of incident reports per brand
follow the Poisson distribution when considering number of people who
responded or market share [a.k.a, units in use?]
4. what was the target segment of users for the survey you rely on (I
presuppose that you actually have data for your claim)?
If you want to find stat. data to support your claim you will. In some
recent mag. they had 3 or so PC companies rated better than apple for
quality... so what? Probably doesn't mean anything SIGNIFICANT.
The questions that one has to look for are the comparative type....
> I know that Solaris has been run on VPC. I don't know which version. I'm
> basing the comment on Connectix' announcements _plus_ some other
> information which I can't discuss. Since it's entirely reasonable for you
> to ignore anything I can't discuss, just rely on Connectix' announcements.
> They say it runs NT, OS/2 and so on. If you don't believe them, how about
> some evidence that they're wrong?
You make the claim, you bring the evidence. I have no reason to suspect
them, rather, I suspect YOU.... even though one should not immediatly
jump to the conclusion that I suspect you of premeditated falsification.
You know that this package has a whole lot of problems, especially in
the dep. of drivers... graphics? <I guess that is the drawback to
switching to an 'open' arch.>
What does it mean if a platform can emulate 2 or more others? It
somewhat reminds me of the Amiga and Atari ST emulating PCs and Macs.
> I never said I don't believe you. You apparently have trouble
> distinguishing between _one user's_ experience and overall trends. The only
> reason I posted my comment is that someone said that _all_ Macs crash all
> the time.
All the macs I (< I! ) use crash all the time. I admit, I only have a
limited sample size of 3 of them.
MIKE...
Michael Koch
Adam Haun wrote:
> Name calling will get you nowhere. Most PC users are not "stupid". Are
> Linux users stupid? Are OS/2 users stupid? Are people who have to use
> Win95 to work stupid?
Try reading between the lines.
>
> Wow, that was a comment worthy of an eight year old.
Name calling? NAME CALLING?
> >> Huh? I spend days or weeks without a crash even when using Netscape pretty
> >> heavily. What's your point?
> >
> >Same w/ my Win95 box, runs w/o a problem... of course nobody believes me
> >that one. Go figure.
> >
> > MIKE...
>
> If Win95 runs w/o a problem, then you must not even turn it on.
... too damn easy...
MIKE...
Steve Kanefsky
In article <joe.ragosta-ya02408...@news.dol.net>,
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote:
>In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
><Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
>> "superior
>> integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over my PC....My
>> MAC
>> crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd think that have
>> tight control
>> over the hardware would yield greater software reliability!!!!
>
>Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
>once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
I love it. One minute, the Mac advocates are talking about how Macs are
so easy to use, the next minute they blame you if your Mac crashes all the
time and you're not a computer expert capable of figuring out exactly why.
--
Steve Kanefsky
Larry Campbell
> Tsk Tsk, and you said you had a clue, but then again Mac software may
> not show that this message is cross posted to the following
> usegroups....
>
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy <<<< This is were I read the message
> from....
> alt.destroy.microsoft
> alt.fan.bill-gates
> comp.sys.intel
> --
Point taken.
Lack of sleep as well.
Sorry.
-Larry
Wayne
>I love it. One minute, the Mac advocates are talking about how Macs
are
>so easy to use, the next minute they blame you if your Mac crashes
all the
>time and you're not a computer expert capable of figuring out exactly
why.
>
>--
>Steve Kanefsky<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM=
>Geneva</PARAM>
Remember: idiot-proof a system and someone will invent a better
idiot...
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE></SMALLER>
future
On 3 Jul 97 17:31:04 GMT, ke...@kombat.acadiau.ca (Kevin Swan) wrote:
>I don't think so, Reewe.
> Pentium 200 board and chip $500
Try $350
> Full tower case and power supply $150
Try $75
> 3GB EIDE drive $350
Try $250
> 16MB RAM (your price) $ 80
Try $65
> 2MB MPEG video card $125
Try $20 (cheapie generic 2 meg MPEG video card)
> Zip drive $240
Try $130
> Mouse $ 60
Try $5 (cheapie Zoltrix mouse)
> Mouse pad $ 5
Free with purchase
> Keyboard $ 35
Try $10 (generic keyboard, works good)
> Floppy drive $ 35
Try $20
> Miscellaneous cables $ 10
> --------
> Total $1590.00 + taxes and shipping
Just a little high...
--
If you want to Email me, my address is "future at blarg dot net".
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html.
David Field
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
Larry, I am typing this on one of my two Wintel machines at home.
They're not perfect, but I think that I'm now well past my average
once-in-three-months crash to reboot.
I recently encountered my first-ever *repeatable* Mac crash. It was
when I went to Nasdaq.com, and the Mac didn't like the flavor of Jave
offered. I'll put that down to my not configuring Netscape with Java.
But all the rest occur at random. How do you debug that? How do you
think I felt when I took advantage of some quiet time to run Disk
Doctor and Speed Disk, only to have the machine crash when I opened
the first file in the first application after that?
If I had a crash on a PC (and it *has* happened to me) I wouldn't
bother to try the same thing immediately afterward, because I know
that the PC would crash again. Something would need fixing. But now I
know that the Mac will sail right past whatever ailed it and run the
program.
I need to get the manual out in the early part of next week. I'm sure
it will happen, but I don't like this hanging over me.
David.
David Field
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>In article <5petrm$1...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
>Field) wrote:
>> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>Dave,
>don't tell me I'm going to have to resort to those dorky emoticons
>to convey my message.
>You can like something without becoming "emotionally attached."
>Look, I think you just got a bad machine.
>But if all you do is gripe about it instead of getting it fixed,
>it's your fault, and your problem.
>If you were to surf the dozens of Mac-related sites, you would see for
>yourself that Mac users monitor very closely both the Mac hardware and
>software issues that arise.
>I don't think Mac advocates are embellishing anything as pertains to Macs;
>on the whole we're a pretty conscientious bunch.
I know that Mac sites have considerable detail on fixing Mac problems,
just as PC sites do. That's one of the great things about the
Internet.
It's just when Mac advicates start comparing their machines to PCs . .
.
David.
Larry Campbell
In article <5pjbem$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
Well, we can be pretty obnoxious at times....
-Larry
Joe Ragosta
In article <5phvkp$elb$1...@news1.rmi.net>, kane...@datamagic.com (Steve
Kanefsky) wrote:
> In article <joe.ragosta-ya02408...@news.dol.net>,
> Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote:
> >In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
> ><Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
> >> "superior
> >> integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over my PC....My
> >> MAC
> >> crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd think that have
> >> tight control
> >> over the hardware would yield greater software reliability!!!!
> >
> >Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
> >once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
>
> I love it. One minute, the Mac advocates are talking about how Macs are
> so easy to use, the next minute they blame you if your Mac crashes all the
> time and you're not a computer expert capable of figuring out exactly why.
Except for one simple thing. In my experience, if you take a Mac out of the
box, install software using the recommended directions and stay away from
third party utilities, it won't crash.
Most of the people who have problems with their Mac are messing around
doing things when they don't know what they're doing. If they're capable of
installing things, they should be capable of finding out what they did
wrong. If they're not capable of figuring that out, they probably didn't
install anything that would cause problems.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
Visit the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <33BBC0...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
<Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
> > <Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
> > > "superior integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over
> > > my PC....My MAC crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....
> > > You'd think that have tight control over the hardware would
> > > yield greater software reliability!!!!
> >
> > Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
> > once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
>
> I suspect it crashes for a couple of reasons:
> 1) The MAC networking is absolutely lousy....I used shared folders on a
> server and occassionaly the server locks up and all machines with open
> folders die.
The network itself is not the problem how it is set up an managed seems to
be your problem. Even a Mac network need to be taken care of; poor
maintainace and/or set up is the bane of *any* network Mac, PC, and even
UNIX.
> The other major gripe is that the Mac has no folder locking...Only one
> person at a time can do anything on a particular
> folder...AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
More evidence that the network manager seems to not know what they are doing.
University of Utah's Mac lab allowed several users to use the same folder
via AppleShare back in their System 4.1 and 6.0.6/6.0.8 days (1988-1990).
And this was before a low level verions of AppleShare was built into the
MacOS.
> 2) Netscape bitches about running out of memory after a period of
> time(usually reading news)
IMHO Netscape is poor for news reading and MT-Newswatcher is 1000 times better.
>...I've already given it as much memory as I'm willing too...So
> when it bitches I shutdown netscape and restart it.....It always
> fails to restart, and usually a locked machine results....
> Perhaps its a victim of Netscape????
IMHO Netscape needs an overhaul to fix the bugs and and get the RAM useage
down to reasonable. Until then I recommend MSIE instead; the fact that a
Mac user is recommending a MS product should give you an idea of exactly
how low an esteme I have for Netscape.
> There are other unexplained lockups when using Netscape....This is not a
> beta!!! This is a supported version.....
Most software of late seens to have this problem. Even MacUser has
complained about the 'beta' nature of both hardware and software of late.
> The Support people who look after my mac and others manage some 6000+ of
> them, and whilst they aren't guru's even they are frustrated by the
> shortfalls of the current Mac OS.
Shortfalls in the MacOS or in the network manager? U of U's network
manager had a 60 mac network running without *any* of these problems and
with older MacOSes to boot.
> > > Admittedly its only a Quadra 605....Don't laugh its what I got upgraded
> > > to from a Mac IIse in a round of upgrades this year....Managers
> > > got upgraded to a 603e/75...
> >
> > Hmmm. Since neither a Mac IIse or 603e/75 exists, I wonder if you really
> > know what you're talking about.\
>
> ooppss. The previous model was a II something I can't remember
> exactly...It was only on my desk for a week....the other one is a 7200/75...
> I assume its got a 603e in it....the 60xe/XXX is a designation I saw in
> an Apple price list.
The 7200/75 has a 601 in it and was offically discontinuted in March
1996. Please get your facts straight.
Bruce L. Grubb
> In article <joe.ragosta-ya02408...@news.dol.net>,
> Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote:
> >In article <33B912...@yes.optus.com.au>, Byron Lister
> ><Byron_...@yes.optus.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Given that I'm forced to use a Mac at work...I have yet to see the
> >> "superior integrationof software and hardware" give me anything over
> >> my PC....My MAC crashes or lockups at lest 2 to 3 times a day....You'd
> >> think that have tight control over the hardware would yield
> >> greater software reliability!!!!
> >
> >Then you ought to find out why it's crashing. My current Mac hasn't crashed
> >once in two weeks (I've been keeping track).
>
> I love it. One minute, the Mac advocates are talking about how Macs are
> so easy to use, the next minute they blame you if your Mac crashes all the
> time and you're not a computer expert capable of figuring out exactly why.
The reason Mac advocates say this is because *on its own* the MacOS is
very stable. The problem is that the MacOS is also *very* easy to modify
with third party control panels and extensions and as the number of these
increases the MacOS's stability tends to go down.
It is akin to the old joke about computer programing: 'The speed at which
a program is completed is directly proportional to the amount of Jolt cola
consumed. Unfortunitly the number of bugs in said program is *also*
directly proportional to the amount of Jolt cola consumed.'
If a Mac has enough control panels and extensions to look like the Macy
Thanksgiving Parade everytime it boots up then it is very likely to be
prone to crashes. The same goes for running beta or bug ridden software.
The condition of the hard drive is also a prime source of problems. Just
because the MacOS is easy to use doen't mean that the HD doesn't need
occational maintainace. Desktops should be rebuilt at least once a week
and the HD checked at least once a month for directory corruption or file
fragmentation (more frequent checks on heavy use machines). File
fragmentation is really a major problem because it can cause the MacOS to
crash or become corrupted.
Due to its limitations Disk First Aid is not very usefull in this regard
so a third party utility like Nortain Utilities is needed. But given
these factors it is understandable that a Mac advocate would question why
the MacOS is crashing with annoying regularity.