len@qumix.UUCP (Leonard Labar) (03/27/85)
In favor of skinny Macs: Recently the trend is towards more and more Ram with more and more disk storeage and hard disks to compensate for the access time needed to retrieve all those big files. This is driven by software houses that employ large staffs of programmers to develop integrated software that since it is developed in pieces and glued together is never code-optimized. It takes time to do that and time is money. Now I am not as rich as the rest of the world. Also, I believe this is unnecessary. Suppose the new finder were available soon in ROM for the 128k Mac? Then suppose that everything were slimmed down to accomodate faster operation. Then suppose everyone got hot on the idea of devloping integrated software for 128k instead of 512k. This would probably be done by smaller software houses and hackers since the larger ones wouldn't see enough R.O.I. on this. Now lets use things like the Skipfinder DA or a 128k version of Switcher (anyone want to try that?). Then lets get the hardware hackers involved in speeding up the internal 400k disk drive (after all 400k should be enough). Let's keep the Mac "the computor for the rest of us." How about it? Anyone care to comment or tabulate what efforts are currently being done in this area?
bill@crystal.UUCP (04/12/85)
> > > In favor of skinny Macs: > > Recently the trend is towards more and more Ram with more and more disk > storeage and hard disks to compensate for the access time needed to > retrieve all those big files. This is driven by software houses that > employ large staffs of programmers to develop integrated software that > since it is developed in pieces and glued together is never > code-optimized. It takes time to do that and time is money. > > ... I believe this is > unnecessary. Suppose the new finder were available soon in ROM for the > 128k Mac? Then suppose that everything were slimmed down to accomodate > faster operation. Then suppose everyone got hot on the idea of > devloping integrated software for 128k instead of 512k. This would > probably be done by smaller software houses and hackers since the > larger ones wouldn't see enough R.O.I. on this. Now lets use things > like the Skipfinder DA or a 128k version of Switcher (anyone want to > try that?). Then lets get the hardware hackers involved in speeding up > the internal 400k disk drive (after all 400k should be enough). There is something to this suggestion; however, the economics don't work well now for purchasers of new machines (BTW, I don't know how Apple is pricing the 512 vs 128K mac; dealer price difference is around $100, I've heard). 16 * $12 = $192, 16 * $2 = $32, so for a $160 price difference at a local electronics store (I've seen 256K RAMS in the $8 range) you have the extra memory at retail prices. This amounts to around a 10% increase in price from a fat to a skinny mac at retail selling prices. The real question is "will the 128K mac market be abandoned by software producers?" I think not, as 128K applications that work with the switcher will be in demand; but for a small increment in cost (under $100 if you upgrade your mac by yourself RIGHT NOW), you get a much more flexible machine. bill cox -- William Cox Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin, Madison WI bill@uwisc ...{ihnp4,seismo,allegra}!uwvax!bill
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (04/15/85)
> ... for a $160 price difference at a local electronics store (I've > seen 256K RAMS in the $8 range) you have the extra memory at retail > prices.... [thus] for a small increment in cost (under $100 if you > upgrade your mac by yourself RIGHT NOW), you get a much more flexible > machine. No, this economic analysis is not in keeping with what we've heard on the net. A long time ago I asked the question, "will Apple service Macintoshes that have been `fattened' by the DDJ method?" Out of all the readers of the net, only ONE replied; and his reply was, "No." Thus you are really deferring the cost of the upgrade until the time the machine fails, at which time the price you have to pay is whatever Apple charges to sell you a whole new board (rather than a trade-in). And, in fact, we don't know that that will happen; they may refuse to do so, and you'll have to buy a new machine. Thus it appears that the original argument still holds, and it is still cost-effective to buy a 128K machine. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (04/18/85)
In article <820@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> ... >> upgrade your mac by yourself RIGHT NOW), you get a much more flexible >> machine. > > ... >net. A long time ago I asked the question, "will Apple service Macintoshes >that have been `fattened' by the DDJ method?" ... >net, only ONE replied; and his reply was, "No." Thus you are really >deferring the cost of the upgrade until the time the machine fails, at >which time the price you have to pay is whatever Apple charges to sell you >a whole new board (rather than a trade-in). And, in fact, we don't know >that that will happen; they may refuse to do so, and you'll have to buy a The only problem in your analysis of the analysis is your assumption that there will be no experienced, third party repair facilities. They already exist. At worst you would have to pay full spare part cost for a replacement board with no trade in credit, plus per hour labor rates instead of normal flat repair fee. How much is that cost increment? I don't know. But I would not be surpised to find it was less than $600. ( $700 Apple upgrade - $100 DDJ upgrade). You WILL pay more for your repairs than a person with an authorized upgrade. >new machine. Thus it appears that the original argument still holds, and >it is still cost-effective to buy a 128K machine. >-- >Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos >UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer >US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; > 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/20/85)
> The only problem in your analysis of the analysis is your assumption > that there will be no experienced, third party repair facilities. They > already exist. Who?!?!?! Where?!?!?!?!? I've been living in fear since my Mac was upgraded. Please tell us where to go in case of Macfailure.