First impressions, 8600 + OS 8
Joe Ragosta
In article <3450BC...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, Paul Verity <pa...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> <snipped a few bits>
>
> Even though you'll probably get a load of people telling you how wrong
> you are (Wintel users no doubt) I couldn't agree more.
>
> I bought 512k L2 cache with OS8, so overall performance should have
> taken a boost anyway, but OS8 has gone further to improve the 'user
> experience' even more. I've had no problems with my 7500/100 since I
> bought it (touch wood), and I feel as though whatever throw at it,
> isn't going to cause disasterous results. It's the only machine that I
> feel won't let me down. (I've haven't seen anybody post a problem with
> OS8 and a 7500 yet. Maybe I'v been in the dark.)
Man, you're missing out. For $300, you can put a 180 MHz 604e card in that
puppy and really watch it fly.
If that's too much, you can get a 150 MHz 604 for $149 (IIRC) or a 132 for
$99. I think you can even pick up a 120 MHz 604 card for $49 if you look
around (try www.macworks.com or Bottom Line). Even the 120 MHz card is a
noticeable improvement.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Maury Markowitz
In article <joe.ragosta-24...@wil32.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
> Man, you're missing out. For $300, you can put a 180 MHz 604e card in that
> puppy and really watch it fly.
Yeah, I'm kicking myself for not waiting and getting the 7300 over my
7200/120. Oh well.
Maury
Paul Verity
j...@wavefront.wavefront.com wrote:
> I'm running an 8600/250, 96mb RAM and it feels like my Indigo^2 200 did.
> This box is fast. Fast fast fast. The speed is great, the video is great
> (see my other thread "8600 video problems" for another perspective), and
> most importantly, the user experience is everything a Mac is supposed to
> be -- and more.
>
> Everything about OS 8 appears to be well thought out, designed rather than > accumulated (like X) or stolen (like Windows). Even the packing materials are > tasteful and well designed.
>
> Apple has the best industrial designers in the computer industry, except
> perhaps for Sun or SGI. The case and just the overall system integration
> is impressive for a commodity machine. Although a righty, I appreciate
> the fact that I could plug my mouse in the left side of my keyboard. I love
> that I can plug my keyboard into the monitor, so as to keep the system on
> the floor. I love the integrated Zip drive. I love the integrated video
> in/out capabilities.
>
> I love running Quake in 640x480 at a glassy smooth refresh rate. I love
> OS 8.
>
> Am I gushing enough?
>
> No nitpicks so far, just a satisfied customer. Even if Apple goes away, or
> changes radically, I'm one seriously happy camper with my current system.
>
> JFB
> j...@wavefront.com
<snipped a few bits>
Even though you'll probably get a load of people telling you how wrong
you are (Wintel users no doubt) I couldn't agree more.
I bought 512k L2 cache with OS8, so overall performance should have
taken a boost anyway, but OS8 has gone further to improve the 'user
experience' even more. I've had no problems with my 7500/100 since I
bought it (touch wood), and I feel as though whatever throw at it,
isn't going to cause disasterous results. It's the only machine that I
feel won't let me down. (I've haven't seen anybody post a problem with
OS8 and a 7500 yet. Maybe I'v been in the dark.)
For those that sneer at me "Why did you buy a Mac?" the answer is
simple. I had used (never owned) PC's for years. I used them at
College, sold them at work, and use them here at Uni (5 years of using
PC's). I used a Mac for 2 weeks.
In the two weeks of using a Mac, it was enough to make me realise how
much better Macs were. Don't ask me to define 'Better', because its
only my opinion, its not a 'Fact', I can't give you 'Proof', I can't
quote anyone and I don't base my facts on technical evidence. Ask
yourself why you make the desicsions you do, where other people have
disagreed with you. Sometimes a technical explanation just doesn't do
it justice... Just accept that other people have opinions too. So any
Wintel users that want to tell me why '95 or NT is better, save your
breath, I don't care...
MacOS 8 rules... (Only my opinion don't forget)
--
Paul... (A happy Apple customer)
j...@wavefront.wavefront.com
Wow. My last Mac was a Powerbook 5300/cs, so the increase in performance
and (knock on wood) reliability is astounding.
I'm running an 8600/250, 96mb RAM and it feels like my Indigo^2 200 did.
This box is fast. Fast fast fast. The speed is great, the video is great
(see my other thread "8600 video problems" for another perspective), and
most importantly, the user experience is everything a Mac is supposed to
be -- and more. I'm stuck in the Wintel world at work for my day to day
computing, so it's like being released from prison! Everything about OS 8
appears to be well thought out, designed rather than accumulated (like X)
or stolen (like Windows). Even the packing materials are tasteful and well
designed.
Apple has the best industrial designers in the computer industry, except
perhaps for Sun or SGI. The case and just the overall system integration
is impressive for a commodity machine. Although a righty, I appreciate
the fact that I could plug my mouse in the left side of my keyboard. I love
that I can plug my keyboard into the monitor, so as to keep the system on
the floor. I love the integrated Zip drive. I love the integrated video
in/out capabilities.
I love running Quake in 640x480 at a glassy smooth refresh rate. I love
OS 8.
Am I gushing enough?
I'm a Unix systems programmer by trade, so I downloaded mklinux last night
and will install it this weekend. The thought of running a free unix on a
system devoid of MS code, and completely out of the grip of Andy Grove, is
gratifying in the extreme. I'm waiting for Rhapsody, because I'm a huge
Next fan (my other computer is a cube), and the thought of something closely
resembling Nextstep on a 250mhz 604e makes me drool.
No nitpicks so far, just a satisfied customer. Even if Apple goes away, or
changes radically, I'm one seriously happy camper with my current system.
More thoughts as I gain more insight into the system.
Brian S Slick
In article <joe.ragosta-24...@wil32.dol.net>,
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote:
>In article <3450BC...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, Paul Verity <pa...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Even though you'll probably get a load of people telling you how wrong
>> you are (Wintel users no doubt) I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> I bought 512k L2 cache with OS8, so overall performance should have
>> taken a boost anyway, but OS8 has gone further to improve the 'user
>> experience' even more. I've had no problems with my 7500/100 since I
>> bought it (touch wood), and I feel as though whatever throw at it,
>> isn't going to cause disasterous results. It's the only machine that I
>> feel won't let me down. (I've haven't seen anybody post a problem with
>> OS8 and a 7500 yet. Maybe I'v been in the dark.)
>
>puppy and really watch it fly.
>
>$99. I think you can even pick up a 120 MHz 604 card for $49 if you look
>around (try www.macworks.com or Bottom Line). Even the 120 MHz card is a
>noticeable improvement.
>
Try to keep the processor at multiples of 50, otherwise your bus speed slows
down. The 120MHz card is _not_ a noticeable difference (I speak from
experience). For a gain of a mere 20MHz in processor speed, the bus slows
down a full 10MHz (to 40MHz). That hurts, and overall the processor speed
gain is balanced by the system slowdown. MacBench showed some improvements
(probably due to the 604 upgrade over the 601), but you will never notice the
difference.
The best bet would probably be the 604/150....keeps the bus at 50MHz. This
will probably yield the most significant performance upgrade available. By
the time you get to 200MHz and 250MHz, the processor is so much faster than
the rest of the system, that it isn't being fully utilized, and the speed
increases that you personally notice will become less and less. When
processor speeds get that high, the rest of your slower hardware will really
take the wind out of the speed boost.
The 604/180 will run the bus at 45MHz, so the overall system speed difference
won't be easily felt when compared to the 604/150. Or at least, the speed
advantage for the 180 won't be enough to justify the extra cost.
It all depends on how processor-instensive the tasks you run are. If they
are, then go for the highest CPU MHz you can find. If they aren't, look for
CPU's that max out your system bus.
--
-Brian Slick
sl...@ecn.purdue.edu
Paxon Hou
>
> For those that sneer at me "Why did you buy a Mac?" the answer is
> simple. I had used (never owned) PC's for years. I used them at
> College, sold them at work, and use them here at Uni (5 years of using
> PC's). I used a Mac for 2 weeks.
>
> In the two weeks of using a Mac, it was enough to make me realise how
> much better Macs were. Don't ask me to define 'Better', because its
> only my opinion, its not a 'Fact', I can't give you 'Proof', I can't
> quote anyone and I don't base my facts on technical evidence. Ask
> yourself why you make the desicsions you do, where other people have
> disagreed with you. Sometimes a technical explanation just doesn't do
> it justice... Just accept that other people have opinions too. So any
> Wintel users that want to tell me why '95 or NT is better, save your
> breath, I don't care...
My reason is that I took a chance. I think the Mac does have the best
overall hardware, although there are some quirks that just can't be
ignored. For example, the ridiculous custom faceplates for every internal
removable drive and every machine, and every combination thereof. As well
as the continued use of the old 25 pin, 5 MB/s external SCSI. But my Umax
S900 does have 6 PCI slots, 8 memory slots, 10BaseT, 2 ADB, and
front-mounted audio in/out.
Before I purchased by SuperMac, I've been aware of a few Mac problems
that don't exist on PC's. The silly Get Info memory allocation is a prime
example. And when I started putting my system to heavy use, I discovered
even more problems which didn't exist on the PC. For example, the
(forward) delete key not working everywhere, having to retype a filename
instead of just double-clicking on an existing file in the Save As dialog,
and the system pausing when menus are opened. In these areas, Windows 95
and NT are better, and I really do care. Other systems have some really
good ideas, so why can't I have them on mine? Apple NIH (Not Invented
Here) is not a good excuse. But then I heard about Be and Rhapsody, hoping
that lots of decade-old Mac problems will finally be fixed, and will truly
deliver the best of all worlds.
--
Paxon Hou
Nathan Hughes
On or about Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:17:55 +0100, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Paul Verity <pa...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> exclaimed :
>j...@wavefront.wavefront.com wrote:
<Snip gushing>
>>
>> I love running Quake in 640x480 at a glassy smooth refresh rate. I love
>> OS 8.
>>
>> Am I gushing enough?
Not nearly as much as you would be sitting behind my PII 300 running
QUAKE II under NT at 1024x768 with a glassy smooth refresh rate. But
what the hell, you got QUAKE; better late than never..
_________________________________________________
Nathan A. Hughes
MFA Candidate
The University Theatre, KU
nhu...@idir.net
www.idir.net/~nhughes
Tom Vilot
On 24 Oct 1997 10:18:15 -0500, j...@wavefront.wavefront.com wrote:
>Wow. My last Mac was a Powerbook 5300/cs, so the increase in performance
>and (knock on wood) reliability is astounding.
Congratulations on your new machine! Sounds like a dream box!!
Oh ... and Paul Verity ... I'd be one of those Wintel Users who is
supposed to tell him how wrong he is for buying Mac.
I won't do that. He's *obviously* thrilled with the computer and
that's what matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| tjv at indra dot com |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Jon Verity
Tom Vilot wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 1997 10:18:15 -0500, j...@wavefront.wavefront.com wrote:
> Oh ... and Paul Verity ... I'd be one of those Wintel Users who is
> supposed to tell him how wrong he is for buying Mac.
>
> I won't do that. He's *obviously* thrilled with the computer and
> that's what matters.
Good man!!!
It's nice not to be slagged off by Wintel users every now and then. (I
seem to get so much of it).
Maybe one day the 'two sides' will get together and create the ultimate
OS!!!
Take care..
---
Paul...
H Huntzinger
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
>
> Man, you're missing out. For $300, you can put a 180 MHz 604e card in that
> puppy and really watch it fly.
>
I know that the aftermarket daughterboards are generally very good at
being 7500/7600/8500/8600 compatible, but how are Apple-to-Apple OEM
swaps?
Specifically, I bought an aftermarket 180 MHz to drop in my 8500/150,
so I have the original OEM 150 MHz board laying around. We have some
7600/132 and 7500/120's around - can I safely do a "yank and drop"
to upgrade one of those, or is Apple's OEM board honestly and truely
"ONLY" for an 8500 as it warns on the label (it reads "8500/9500
only")..?
Please include a direct reply to me for any responses to this posting.
-hh
Paul Hoppe
Ya know, ya gotta wonder what an NT user is doing on a MAC page.......So
what, I can play it on my Performa 6400/200 at 1024x768 on a 21inch mon
with glassy smooth graphics to! Great we can all play it! Still, why
are you on the MAC page, if NT is so superior why waste your time here?
Or is it envy........