1994 Byte Awards - POWER MACINTOSH!
Charles Lott
read the Jannuary 1994 edition of Byte Magazine, Page 52, 3rd column.
In a writeup for the 1994 Byte Awards titled "POWER MACINTOSH":
<quoted verbatim from the article>
With the Power Macs, Apple has made one of the smoothest technology
shifts in history--and without forsaking performance, price, or
compatibility. These new Macintoshes deliver plenty of horsepower,
especially when doing floating point calculations (vital for working
with graphics and video).
Byte's cross-platform benchmarks show that the low-end Power Mac
6100/60, which sells for $2200, performs comparably to a Pentium PC.
And ou low-level and application benchmarks show that the Power Macs
don't need to hang their heads in the company of other RISC systems,
either. In fact, in some applications, the 7100/66 and 8100/80 can keep
up with workstations based on DEC's Alpha chip. The Power Macs
will get even faster as more software houses move their programs
to native code and Apple ports more of the Toolbox to native code.
Apple has made some wise compromises in design. Cost-saving decisions,
such as the inclusion of slow RAM, have been cancelled out by
performance boosting features, such as the inclusion of a wider
data bus and burst transfers. The hardware allows for faster systems
in the future. Apple's engineers are to be commended for their
farsighted approach.
These first Power Macs are proof that the PowerPC architecture has the
right stuff to carry users toward the millenium. They've got the power
to handle hungry data types, such as video. They will be able to
accomodate a variety of new operating systems. And they cost less
than most used cars. The Power Macs win our collective praise at the
most significant computers of 1994.
---------------------------------------
Does it get any better than this? And from such an authoritative
source, too! I hope Apple makes a big deal out of it <hint, hint>.
Great job, Apple!
Charles Lott
and...@electra.saaf.se (Anders Ekl|f) writes:
>In article <1994122013...@tulatcpa.amoco.com>,
>Charles Lott <lcu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>All those naysayers for Apple and it's Power Macintosh family should
>>read the Jannuary 1994 edition of Byte Magazine, Page 52, 3rd column.
>> ^^^^
>Wouldn't that be 1995 ?
Picky! Picky! You're correct! 1995 it should be. :)
Anders Ekl|f
Charles Lott <lcu...@aol.com> wrote:
>All those naysayers for Apple and it's Power Macintosh family should
>read the Jannuary 1994 edition of Byte Magazine, Page 52, 3rd column.
> ^^^^
Wouldn't that be 1995 ?
************************************************************************
* Anders Eklöf * Phone: + 46 8581 74712 * "I blame you for *
* Porfyrstigen 14 * e-mail: and...@saaf.se * the moonlit sky" *
* S - 196 33 KUNGSÄNGEN * or a...@radfys.ks.se * ---- *
* SWEDEN * * Tasmin Archer *
************************************************************************
The cAtAlYst
" The Power Macs win our collective praise as the
most significant computers of 1994."
Something us Mac users have known for a while. (g)
"If it isn't a Macintosh it's Plug and Pray"
Billy-Bob Gates
In <3dscjf$9...@ns.oar.net> ac...@lubrizol.com (acro) writes:
>In article <nekervis.3-...@slip1-27.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>neker...@osu.edu (The cAtAlYst) writes:
>> " The Power Macs win our collective praise as the
>> most significant computers of 1994."
>I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
>job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk. Although a
>fan of Macs in general, I would completely disagree with that line
>'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
>until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
>with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
>installed, along with a few other goodies, I have to admit that I rec'd
>as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
>power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
>impressed.
So, you think Pentium based computers should qualify as the
'most significant computers of 1994' then huh?
If NOT, have you heard of the word 'transition'?
Stop fronting that you're 'a fan of Macs in general', you're just
like my cousin Bill. By the way, this is not a flame... Don't
take it personally... wait a minute, you're dissing Macs, hell,
this be a flame then! ;-)
..Billy Bob Gates
tm
FLAWED! is a trademark of the Pentium Processor
acro
>
>
> " The Power Macs win our collective praise as the
> most significant computers of 1994."
>
> Something us Mac users have known for a while. (g)
I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk. Although a
fan of Macs in general, I would completely disagree with that line
'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
installed, along with a few other goodies, I have to admit that I rec'd
as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
impressed.
acr
Lawson English
: I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
: job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk. Although a
: fan of Macs in general, I would completely disagree with that line
: 'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
: until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
: with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
: installed, along with a few other goodies, I have to admit that I rec'd
: as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
: power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
: impressed.
Which apps are you using with it? Microsoft Excel 5 and Word 6?
Painter 3.0 screams along as much as 5-10x faster on the PowerMac...
: acr
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cruz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cruz
cc...@ids.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Stone
: I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
: job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk. Although a
: fan of Macs in general, I would completely disagree with that line
: 'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
: until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
: with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
: installed, along with a few other goodies, I have to admit that I rec'd
: as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
: power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
: impressed.
Although the System is responsible for some degree of speed to
your applications, you can never boast that a Quadra 800 runs a 68k
version of a program as fast as the same native (fat binary) version on
your 8100. The non native system does not suck that much speed away from
ANY program running native on the PPC chips.
Perhaps you have only run 68k versions and have yet to see a true
Native app on your 8100. You are right however. It will be nice when
MacOS (the fully native system) is released.
Alan Dail
(Kevin Stone) wrote:
>
> : I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
> : job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk. Although a
> : fan of Macs in general, I would completely disagree with that line
> : 'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
> : until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
> : with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
> : installed, along with a few other goodies, I have to admit that I rec'd
> : as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
> : power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
> : impressed.
>
>
One thing that can cause significant slowdown is non native extensions. If
they patch a native system call, then every time the system call is made,
you have to do a context switch to the 68k emulator, run the patch, then
switch back to PowerPC mode. You can try rebooting with the shift key down
to turn off all extensions and see what the performance is like. There is
also a utility called PowerPeek that tells you what extensions are going
to patch native calls with 68k patches as well as showing when you are
running in native mode.
Alan
--
+-Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
| 804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
| AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
| Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
+------------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+
Alan B. Wachs
...
: 'most significant'. This machine will not perform up to its potential
: until the OS is completely native. Until then, it's a glorified 68xxx
: with a potentially fast CPU. I have 32 megs on this guy, and with 7.5
We have 6100's at work. My demo-version of LView won't run on 'em.
It gives the message, "requires 68020 and a FPU" I guess the OS is failing to
emulate an FPU. Is this the kind of fault you mean?
My understanding is the solutions are:
1. get LView to run native on a powermac
2. get an OS that emulates the FPU
3. rewrite LView to operate w/o the FPU
While I'm in Mac Trivia mode, maybe someone can help me with another bug.
NCSA Telnet locks up my Performa 476. Fetch works perfectly. The
link is through Appletalk, which connects to an Ethernet. There's also a
I have a 2400baud/9600send-only fax installed, which I only use for faxes.
Any clues?
Gary.
---
reply to Gary...@aol.com please
Gene
> One thing that can cause significant slowdown is non native extensions.
> If they patch a native system call, then every time the system call is
> made, you have to do a context switch to the 68k emulator, run the
> patch, then switch back to PowerPC mode. You can try rebooting with the
> shift key down to turn off all extensions and see what the performance
> is like. There is also a utility called PowerPeek that tells you what
> extensions are going to patch native calls with 68k patches as well as
> showing when you are running in native mode.
Very few extensions will really slow down your Power Mac, even if they do
patch a few native calls with emulated calls. Older versions of Adobe Type
Manager and After Dark were blamed for performance hits, since fixed in
newer versions of their software. Best thing to do is simply to disable
one of these "offending" extensions and see if things really get better.
Most times what they patch doesn't impact perceived performance all that
much.
The biggest source of a performance hit is usually just running 680x0
appplications rather than native versions.
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"
Bryan Wu
Wachs) wrote:
> We have 6100's at work. My demo-version of LView won't run on 'em.
> It gives the message, "requires 68020 and a FPU" I guess the OS is
failing to
> emulate an FPU. Is this the kind of fault you mean?
You can get SoftFPU (it's non native till you pay the shareware fee
though) to emulate the 68020's FPU.
> My understanding is the solutions are:
> 1. get LView to run native on a powermac
> 2. get an OS that emulates the FPU
> 3. rewrite LView to operate w/o the FPU
4. get an extension which emulates the FPU - check the usual shareware sites.
Joseph W. Vigneau
Billy-Bob Gates <bga...@micro.soft.com> wrote: <-- Cute..
>
>In <3dscjf$9...@ns.oar.net> ac...@lubrizol.com (acro) writes:
>
>>In article <nekervis.3-...@slip1-27.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>>neker...@osu.edu (The cAtAlYst) writes:
>
>>> " The Power Macs win our collective praise as the
>>> most significant computers of 1994."
>
>>I've been an on and off Mac user for the last 6 years (depending on the
>>job), and I currently have an 8100AV sitting under my desk.
native]
>
>So, you think Pentium based computers should qualify as the
>'most significant computers of 1994' then huh?
>
Wow, where did that come from? The word 'Pentium' wasn't even mentioned in
that post... Besides, the most signifigant computer of 1994 to me is *my*
computer :) (Which *is* a bug(er, flaw)-free Pentium/90, btw., running a
real OS...)
--
jo...@wpi.edu WPI Computer Science '97 Linux!
<a href="http://www.wpi.edu/~joev"> Click Here! </a>
PixMation
of the software.
Edmond Leung
Peter Brewer
>
>>In article <nekervis.3-...@slip1-27.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>>neker...@osu.edu (The cAtAlYst) writes:
>
>>> " The Power Macs win our collective praise as the
>>> most significant computers of 1994."
>
>>as good or better performance with my Quadra 800. Perhaps the potential
>>power of this machine is significant, but I've yet to be really
>>impressed.
>
>So, you think Pentium based computers should qualify as the
>'most significant computers of 1994' then huh?
>If NOT, have you heard of the word 'transition'?
>
>
> tm
>FLAWED! is a trademark of the Pentium Processor
I think you're going to have to wait awhile or else increase your
memory to 64MB+. System 8 or Copland will allow native programs
to run somewhat faster than now and as true premptive processes.
However, they will be hybrid processes which will still use parts
of the old Mac System with the new. One process will be a dedicated
'mac process' in charge of running old style programs etc. This
'process' will suck up alot of the memory and cycles. There may
be hope from Itty Bitty Software who have developed a 68K to PowerPc
dynamic compiler which will convert some/most? 68K programs to
PowerPC programs when they are executed at the cost of memory.
Its performance characteristics should be very similar to those of
Apples's A/UX whose architecture is almost an exact duplicate except
for System 7.1+ support and PowerPC compatibility.
-- Peter Brewer
Mason Bliss
In article <3ef9rj$9...@hamlet.umd.edu>, Peter Brewer writes:
> There may be hope from Itty Bitty Software who have developed a 68K to
> PowerPc dynamic compiler which will convert some/most? 68K programs to
> PowerPC programs when they are executed at the cost of memory.
Itty Bitty is still around? Do you have a net address for them? I used to
love their AutoBlack screensaver, and would have never written Basic Black
if their screensaver had continued functioning properly under new system
software etc.
Bryan Wu
[...]
>One process will be a dedicated
>'mac process' in charge of running old style programs etc. This
>'process' will suck up alot of the memory and cycles.
just a comment, but I think you're reading the macweeks, but without the
background to fully digest the articles about copland.. none of the above
would require 64Megs+
>There may
>be hope from Itty Bitty Software who have developed a 68K to PowerPc
>dynamic compiler which will convert some/most? 68K programs to
>PowerPC programs when they are executed at the cost of memory.
No. Itty Bitty Software's trying to make a 68K dynamic compiler which
will be basically what Apple's trying to put into the ROMS of the
upcoming 603+ machines - i.e. dynamic recompilation of PPC code in ROM -
not using main RAM at all, but the cache ram.
Peter Brewer
>In <3ef9rj$9...@hamlet.umd.edu> bre...@hamlet.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:
>[...]
>>One process will be a dedicated
>>'mac process' in charge of running old style programs etc. This
>>'process' will suck up alot of the memory and cycles.
>
>just a comment, but I think you're reading the macweeks, but without the
>background to fully digest the articles about copland.. none of the above
>would require 64Megs+
>
You obviously have never run A/UX. If you want to run a number of the larger
applications you will need lots of RAM. I run out now and again with 32MB.
Of course swapping will help some but it really doesn't help the single
tasking Mac process that much.
>
>>There may
>>be hope from Itty Bitty Software who have developed a 68K to PowerPc
>>dynamic compiler which will convert some/most? 68K programs to
>>PowerPC programs when they are executed at the cost of memory.
>
>No. Itty Bitty Software's trying to make a 68K dynamic compiler which
>will be basically what Apple's trying to put into the ROMS of the
>upcoming 603+ machines - i.e. dynamic recompilation of PPC code in ROM -
>not using main RAM at all, but the cache ram.
Apple's still thinking about it. Itty Bitty have actually done it.
What I read claims that they need the co-resident versions of both
the PPC and 68k binaries.. e.g. fat binaries. If it were just cache
it would be the same as an interpreter... not that much speedup.
>
>>Its performance characteristics should be very similar to those of
>>Apples's A/UX whose architecture is almost an exact duplicate except
>>for System 7.1+ support and PowerPC compatibility.
Believe me, you'll need at least 32MB of RAM to run some of the larger
applications simulataneously. It isn't the O.S. so much as the apps...
some are memory hogs and so are usually not run simultaneously.
-- Peter
Alex Morando
Peter Brewer <bre...@hamlet.umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>There may
>>>be hope from Itty Bitty Software who have developed a 68K to PowerPc
>>>dynamic compiler which will convert some/most? 68K programs to
>>>PowerPC programs when they are executed at the cost of memory.
>>
>>No. Itty Bitty Software's trying to make a 68K dynamic compiler which
>>will be basically what Apple's trying to put into the ROMS of the
>>upcoming 603+ machines - i.e. dynamic recompilation of PPC code in ROM -
>>not using main RAM at all, but the cache ram.
>
>Apple's still thinking about it. Itty Bitty have actually done it.
>What I read claims that they need the co-resident versions of both
>the PPC and 68k binaries.. e.g. fat binaries. If it were just cache
>it would be the same as an interpreter... not that much speedup.
>
barring a breakthrough, "there's no product here" regarding
a dynamic recompiler. The basic tradeoff seems to be execution speed
as a function of cache size.
--
! Alex Morando, Space Systems Engineering | Reorganization sucks!
! a...@netcom.com,amo...@aol.com
! My employer does not usually agree with the views given above.
Robert A. Uhl
>>will be basically what Apple's trying to put into the ROMS of the
>>upcoming 603+ machines - i.e. dynamic recompilation of PPC code in ROM -
>>not using main RAM at all, but the cache ram.
>
>Apple's still thinking about it. Itty Bitty have actually done it.
>What I read claims that they need the co-resident versions of both
>the PPC and 68k binaries.. e.g. fat binaries. If it were just cache
>it would be the same as an interpreter... not that much speedup.
How come Apple does not write an app converter? You'd open it and
convert all your apps to the PPC code. It can't be much different from
what Itty Bitty is doing or what Apple does in its on-the-fly
translation. Why doesn't Apple do this? It would earn a lot in customer
satisfaction.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bob Uhl | Spectre | `In touto nika' + |
| U of D | Baron Robert von Raetzin | http://mercury.cair.du.edu/~ruhl/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Stone
: that Drew software (?) announced a while back? Looks like that was
: vaporware too.
Forget Emulation... the Houdini 2 card is here. It is a fully
integrated 486-DX2-66 chip on a PDS card that will plug into any
PowerMac 6100.
Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you buy it seperately with
the computer... otherwise it sells for about $500.
BAS
jbwatson
>
> Does it also plug into a 7100/66?
>
> Gene Ferguson
Not yet. They are apparantly discussing this.
Gene Ferguson
(Brian Stone) wrote:
Does it also plug into a 7100/66?
Gene Ferguson
/\ /\ /\ fe...@jfa.com
/ \/ \ /\ / \ Aurora, Colorado
_/________\/__\____\_ Gateway to the Rockies
Vladimir Elberg
: : Remember the supposed "486 emulation which works fast as hell"
: BAS
This is LAME! An INTEL 486-DX2 66 MHZ chip costs only $160.00 and yet
its $700 for a Power
PC!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
Ashley Gerard Perrien
: Also, I heard (dunno from where) that Itty Bitty was way too premature
: for their announcement. MacWeek is just announcing Itty Bitty's press
I heard just the opposite, that MacWorld (maybe User?) had gotten wind of
the development and printed the article and Itty Bitty came out later
saying that the article shouldn't have been printed so early. Basically
they're saying it's the magazines fault. I'm not sure which is true though.
Ashley Perrien
Brandon Hines
> Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
>DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you buy it seperately with
>the computer... otherwise it sells for about $500.
That is a large percentage of the cost of a new DX2/66.
In the local paper today (Austin American Statsmen) there
are two different adds for complete DX2/66 systems for $999.
These included 200meg+HD 4meg ram and SVGA monitor.
I would think twice about spending 50%+ simply to emulate
something that will be bottom line within 6months to a year.
(I don't guess there will be a pentium socket?)
Brandon
Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Kevin Heider
writes:
> This is LAME! An INTEL 486-DX2 66 MHZ chip costs only $160.00 and
yet
>its $700 for a Power
>PC!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
?!?!?!?!??!
I do NOT have one, but I have heard that the add-on card for the PowerPC
includes a 486DX2-66 and memory (Do NOT remember if it was 4 or 8MB's).
Plus you can run a PowerPC chip and the 486DX2-66 AT THE SAME TIME.
This is a GREAT way to save desk space.
-- Kevin Heider
Stephen Rea
MACINTOSH! to (crosspost 2) All;
VE> : Forget Emulation... the Houdini 2 card is here. It is a fully :
VE> integrated 486-DX2-66 chip on a PDS card that will plug into any :
VE> PowerMac 6100. : Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as
VE> fast as an actual : DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you
VE> buy it seperately with : the computer... otherwise it sells for about
VE> $500.
VE> This is LAME! An INTEL 486-DX2 66 MHZ chip costs only $160.00 and yet
VE> its $700 for a Power
It's more than the chip. The Houdini card is a PowerMac PDS card with a
486DX2/66 microprocessor with 16-bit Sound Blaster support, a 72-bit SIMM slot
for up to 32 megs of dedicated RAM (although it will share you Mac RAM is
desired) TCP/IP and IPX protocol support, 512K VRAM SVGA adapter port
(although it will share your Mac monitor if desired). It will share you
floppy drive, hard drive, and CD-ROM drive (in addition to the previously
mentioned RAM and monitor).
It is a fully functinal DOS compatible logic board on a Mac PDS card.
Joe Ragosta
(Brandon Hines) wrote:
> In article <3fbq8r$b...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, bas...@silver.sdsmt.edu
(Brian Stone) says:
> > Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
> >DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you buy it seperately with
> >the computer... otherwise it sells for about $500.
>
> That is a large percentage of the cost of a new DX2/66.
> In the local paper today (Austin American Statsmen) there
> are two different adds for complete DX2/66 systems for $999.
> These included 200meg+HD 4meg ram and SVGA monitor.
Compare it to a brand name. But even if it is half the cost, why should I
buy a separate computer at twice the price and fill my desk up with
computers when I can install a card into my machine?
>
> I would think twice about spending 50%+ simply to emulate
> something that will be bottom line within 6months to a year.
> (I don't guess there will be a pentium socket?)
>
> Brandon
> Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Word is that there will be a Pentium version, but no official announcement.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
doc...@interramp.com
"Microsoft Office 4.2-What you use when you don't have access to good software."
Joe Ragosta
Elberg) wrote:
Again, a PC-Head who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about
insists on blasting the Mac.
The card includes the chip, video support, sound support, various
controllers, circuit boards, etc. Besides, if you had any experience in
business, you'd know you're asking the wrong question. The price is not
determined by how much it costs to make something, but rather by how much
the customer is willing to pay. We have products that cost us $50 to make
that sell for $1000.
For people who prefer to have only one computer on their desk, this is a
great (and relatively inexpensive solution). How many Mac cards can you
install in your PC?
JACOB CAZZELL
Lame??! I think that they did a darn fine job interfacing an Intel 486 chip on
a board that is NUBUS compatible and will function in the PPC. Sure the price
is high now but give it a little while and it will probably drop off to where
we "poor" folk can also afford it. The best of *both* worlds in one box.
Reports that I have read have confirmed that it does indeed run all MS-DOS and
Windows apps & Mac/PowerMac apps. No emulation!
=B-) Jacob Cazzel
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed."
-Proverbs 16:3
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain, but where are we going to get rubber pants in our size?"
-Pinky & The Brain, The Animaniacs
"Go away mister clown man, you're scaring me!" -Wakko Warner, The Animaniacs
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
E-mail 00JMC...@bsuvc.bsu.edu | finger 00JMC...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Joel Sartoris
doc...@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) writes:
>[snip]
>
>For people who prefer to have only one computer on their desk, this is
a
>great (and relatively inexpensive solution). How many Mac cards can you
>install in your PC?
>
Lessee, what does this say about the market for MAC cards for the PC...
hmmmm.... ;-)
-- Joel Sartoris js...@ix.netcom.com
Nathanael J Henderson
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Distribution: world
Vladimir Elberg (v...@ritz.wustl.edu) wrote:
: : Forget Emulation... the Houdini 2 card is here. It is a fully
: : integrated 486-DX2-66 chip on a PDS card that will plug into any
: : PowerMac 6100.
: : Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
: : DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you buy it seperately with
: : the computer... otherwise it sells for about $500.
: This is LAME! An INTEL 486-DX2 66 MHZ chip costs only $160.00 and yet
: its $700 for a Power
: PC!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
The card also include the soundblaster chip-set, a game port, and a
second video port. It can use the Mac's floppy, CD-ROM, and networking
hardware, even printers and serial ports, so you pretty much can do anything
a 'normal' PC could do.
Reply Corp. sells near-identical cards for $500 for the card, + $95
if you want the SoundBlaster daughter-card, $50 for network drivers.
DOS/Windows is included (and DOOM, by some reports.)
Joe Gervais
Brandon Hines <Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <3fbq8r$b...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, bas...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Brian Stone) says:
>> Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
>>DX2-66 PC. And it only costs around $700 if you buy it seperately with
>>the computer... otherwise it sells for about $500.
>
>That is a large percentage of the cost of a new DX2/66.
>In the local paper today (Austin American Statsmen) there
>are two different adds for complete DX2/66 systems for $999.
>These included 200meg+HD 4meg ram and SVGA monitor.
OK, 200+MB drive = $150 new.
4MB SIMM = $130 new.
Crappy generic keyboard = $50 new.
Crappy generic monitor = $200 new.
Total = Around US$530.
That leaves $469. Reply Corporation's version of
Houdini II lists for $495 starting. Seems like
it's well in the ballpark given the engineering
involved.
>I would think twice about spending 50%+ simply to emulate
>something that will be bottom line within 6months to a year.
>(I don't guess there will be a pentium socket?)
Well first off, you're not emulating it, you're running
an actual DX2-66. Second, you get an (apparently) seamless
method of integrating two different platforms in one box.
For some folks, that's more than worth the small investment.
Also, any system you buy now will be bottom of the line
within 6 months to a year. Where've you been the last
fifteen years? :)
Bottom line: For some folks it's a darn sweet deal. And
in any case, it's a neat feat of engineering.
Cheers,
-Joe
"We have armadillos in our pants. That's very frightening." -Spinal Tap
[none]
: In article <3fdkeo$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
: Brandon Hines <Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
: >In article <3fbq8r$b...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, bas...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Brian Stone) says:
: >> Rescent reports say that the Houdini 2 is just as fast as an actual
: >>DX2-66 PC.
Macuser p. 121 Feb 1995 gives a different account of the speed--does
anybody who has one want to comment?
: That leaves $469. Reply Corporation's version of
: Houdini II lists for $495 starting. Seems like
: it's well in the ballpark given the engineering
: involved.
also, that Macuser article claims Reply will offer a card for the 6100--i
called them and asked for a catalog...they said it was a mistake...they
only offer it for a 610 and have no firm plans to make one for
6100s...anybody know anything else??
Neil E. Mickelson
I can't find my latest MacUser with the contact info...
Thanks...please e-mail me...
*********************************************************************
* NEIL E. MICKELSON * "Avoid having your ego so close to *
* University of Illinois * your position that when your position *
* at Urbana-Champaign * falls, your ego goes with it." *
* Senior, Electrical Eng. * *
*********************************** --General Colin Powell *
* e-mail: mick...@uiuc.edu * *
* http: yeah, right...like * MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN, *
* I've got time to finish * I THINK...(?!) *
* my home page this year!! * *
*********************************************************************
Karl Thomas
>In article <3fdkeo$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Brandon Hines <Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3fbq8r$b...@krypton.hpc.sdsmt.edu>, bas...@silver.sdsmt.edu (Brian Stone) says:
>>That is a large percentage of the cost of a new DX2/66.
>>In the local paper today (Austin American Statsmen) there
>>are two different adds for complete DX2/66 systems for $999.
>>These included 200meg+HD 4meg ram and SVGA monitor.
But wouldn't you rather have all that in one machine so you could use
your hardware that's probably better than the cheap clone?
>>I would think twice about spending 50%+ simply to emulate
>>something that will be bottom line within 6months to a year.
>>(I don't guess there will be a pentium socket?)
>Well first off, you're not emulating it, you're running
>an actual DX2-66. Second, you get an (apparently) seamless
>method of integrating two different platforms in one box.
>For some folks, that's more than worth the small investment.
I barely have space (or the plugs) for my 6100/60, ext. hard drive, ext.
CD-ROM drive, modem, speakers, monitor, printer, and soon a third hard
drive. The last thing I need is another computer taking up space. Besides, I
would have to buy another CD-ROM drive, sound card, and another good monitor.
If you already have a perfectly good 6100/60. Why not buy a no
compromises 486dx/2-66 card to put in it.
Pierre Ukelo
Reply:
Tel: 1-800-801-6898
408 942-4804
Fax: 408 956-2793
Hope it helps.
Pierre
Steve Rogers
There are hardly any 486-specific apps written yet,
let alone Pentium. 386, even 386SX, will remain
the most popular spec. for apps for some time yet.
And it has 16-bit SoundBlaster. Well I'm impressed
anyway. What a good solution for someone (like me)
who wants to move to Mac but has a few crucial
Windows-only apps (Sage & Lotus in my case).
--
Steve Rogers = steve...@thebeast.demon.co.uk
--
"Reality is anything you can get away with"
Kristy Patterson
Amen! I prefer to use the Mac, but in my current position I have to do a lot
of software development in Windows, using Visual Basic. Also, I don't have
what you would call a huge amount of space for not only 2 monitors (which I
have), but also 2 CPUs, 2 keyboards, 2 mice, you get the idea... so, in that
sense, the Houdini II was ideal for me, to just stick in the 6100 and go...
Hell, it's worth it just to be able to write my help files in Word 6.0 for
the Mac (well, don't get me started on Word 6, but I still prefer Mac to
Windows), drop them in a shared folder (which appears to DOS/Windows as drive
F), and use them in Visual Basic, rather that having to either use Windows
exclusively, or use a bunch of disks. And, it enabled me to get one large
hard drive (2GB), partition it, and have plenty of space for both platforms.
So, I'm a believer in Houdini; I can't comment on the speed compared to a
Pentium, since I've never used one, but my work right now doesn't require a
screaming amount of speed in anything except Word, which I'm not likely to
get on either platform.
--
+=====================+"Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day, but
|Kristy Patterson | give him a case of dynamite and soon the village will
|kri...@dartmouth.edu| be showered with mud and seaweed and unidentifiable
+=====================+ chunks of fish." -Joe Chew, alt.folklore.urban