[net.micro.mac] In favor of skinny Macs.

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.