bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) (06/20/89)
In glancing through the prices on SIMMs, I am struck by something rather strange; Why are the SIMM prices for MAC SIMMs (8 chips) more than the price for IBM (etc.) SIMMs (9 chips). This wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't been running quite happily for the past 6 months with a bank of IBM (9 chip) SIMMs in my MAC-II. Are the extra bucks just for the warm fuzzy feeling given by using "the right stuff" or what? Even if there were a difference, production costs on the MAC SIMMs should be cheaper (with one less chip). Please do not flame me for referring to them as "chips", I'm sure everyone understands what I mean :-) -=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob DeBula | Internet: bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu The Ohio State University | Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (06/20/89)
In article <138@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes: >In glancing through the prices on SIMMs, I am struck by something rather >strange; Why are the SIMM prices for MAC SIMMs (8 chips) more than the price >for IBM (etc.) SIMMs (9 chips)... For the same reason that polish for airplanes is more expensive than polish for automobiles. The perception of quality means you can charge more for accessories. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)
hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (06/21/89)
In article <138@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes: > >In glancing through the prices on SIMMs, I am struck by something rather >strange; Why are the SIMM prices for MAC SIMMs (8 chips) more than the price >for IBM (etc.) SIMMs (9 chips). This wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't >been running quite happily for the past 6 months with a bank of IBM (9 chip) >SIMMs in my MAC-II. Are the extra bucks just for the warm fuzzy feeling >given by using "the right stuff" or what? Even if there were a difference, >production costs on the MAC SIMMs should be cheaper (with one less chip). >Please do not flame me for referring to them as "chips", I'm sure everyone >understands what I mean :-) >-=- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Bob DeBula | Internet: bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu >The Ohio State University | Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's I believe this is an "economy of scale" issue. 9 Chip SIMMS are use for all the newer IBM type machines (that is any of them that use SIMMS at all) and for many PC expansion boards. Therefor the total market for these SIMMS is considerably larger. As for using them in a Mac, I would have thought that it was fine, but I do remember a recent posting saying that it wasn't really safe, as there is then a line or 2 that are not tied down (or was it tied high) these supposedly cause potential noise/heat problems. I really dont know how true this is (details anyone who knows?) but it would seem to be supported by one of the rumored design details of the fall version of the cx, that it is specifiacally designed to accept either type of SIMM. Josh ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-5423 (school office)
tims@starfish.Convergent.COM (Tim Simmons) (06/21/89)
From article <138@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, by bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula): > > strange; Why are the SIMM prices for MAC SIMMs (8 chips) more than the price > for IBM (etc.) SIMMs (9 chips). This wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't EVERYTHING for macs is more expensive than the IBM counterparts! > production costs on the MAC SIMMs should be cheaper (with one less chip). Regardless of production costs, it has to do with marketing not manufacturing. Why don't you just stick with the x9 IBM SIMMS?
david@sdacs.ucsd.EDU (Dave the Hirko) (06/21/89)
much discussion has gone on about the difference between the 9 module PC SIMM and the 8 module Mac SIMM. This ninth module has to do with the PC's approach to memory. Consider for every 8 bits of memory, the PC needs a ninth 'parity' bit to fool around with. The Macintosh was not set up the same way. Therefore, without any guarantees (although I have two 9 module SIMMs in my Mac), Macs can go about ignoring the extra bit and still function properly. David A. Hirko Academic Computing Services University of California, San Diego DISCLAIMER (from Hell) : My views are mine. All mine. Just Mine. DB: "I'm going to put Oscar down now." PV: "No, let me do that for you.... You're short, your bellybutton sticks out too far, and you're a horrible burden on your mother."
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (06/22/89)
[stuff about x8 SIMMs being more expensive than x9 IBM SIMMs deleted] Heck, just go with the IBM SIMMs. They work. Besides, according to this week's MacLeak (MacWeek), Apple will be supporting the x9 SIMMs for parity checking real soon now. Ken Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP/ Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | INTERNET: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
granteri@pnet51.cts.com (Grant Erickson) (06/23/89)
>(details anyone who knows?) but it would seem to be supported by one of the >rumored design details of the fall version of the cx, that it is specifiacally >designed to accept either type of SIMM. I notice you speak of the upcoming Mac IICX with the 25 Mhz processor. I have heard it is rumored to have on board 8-Bit color and 25 Mhz 68030. Can you give any more details on this new machine. I was originally going to buy a IICX on the 17th, but opted to wait because I heard of the 25 Mhz IICX. I also heard it will be the cheapest Macintosh to produce, and thus be cheaper than the current IICX. Any comments Apple? Although I know you guys refrain from making comments about upcoming releases. .______________________________________________________________________________. | UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uuner!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!granteri | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!granteri@nosc.mil | | INET: granteri@pnet51.cts.com | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | This Mac Plus isn't mine, I'm just borrowing it, the IIX is in the shop. | !______________________________________________________________________________!
joej@oakhill.UUCP (Joe Jelemensky) (06/23/89)
In article <14031@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >[stuff about x8 SIMMs being more expensive than x9 IBM SIMMs deleted] > >Heck, just go with the IBM SIMMs. They work. Besides, >according to this week's MacLeak (MacWeek), Apple will >be supporting the x9 SIMMs for parity checking real soon now. > Awh - Parity's for farmers! Not computers. The ninth RAM only adds 12.5 % more logic to fail. 1 chance in 9 it's the the parity RAM that's bad. Throw in the Murphy factor and it goes WAY UP.
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (06/23/89)
In article <944@orbit.UUCP> granteri@pnet51.cts.com (Grant Erickson) writes: >I notice you speak of the upcoming Mac IICX with the 25 Mhz processor. I have >heard it is rumored to have on board 8-Bit color and 25 Mhz 68030. Can you >give any more details on this new machine. I was originally going to buy a >IICX on the 17th, but opted to wait because I heard of the 25 Mhz IICX. I also >heard it will be the cheapest Macintosh to produce, and thus be cheaper than >the current IICX. This may or may not be true, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be more expensive than the normal IIcx. The best we can hope for is that they'll lower the price of the normal IIcx. All computer makers seem to do this. The relative prices of their machines are based on their relative "power", and not on their production cost. I believe that the Plus and SE are good examples of this. The Plus, from what I've heard, is actually *more* expensive to manufacture than the SE, because of the SE's newer design that was optimized in part particularly for low production cost. But obviously if they charged more for the Plus than the SE, they wouldn't sell any of them... So by substantially cranking up the cost of the SE, they kill two birds with one stone (the other bird being their profit margin on the SE). Another example is almost certainly the II versus IIx. Besides the Superdrive, the two machines are identical - except that the IIx's motherboard is much less complicated, since it doesn't need to worry about the PMMU. But we all know which machine Apple charges *substantially* more for... It's all a charade, but they'll do it as long as people are willing to pay extra for extra power, which will be always. Trent Lange ********************************************************************** * "UCLA: National Men's Volleyball, Women's Softball, and * * Computer Programming Champs" * **********************************************************************
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/27/89)
How do you define "more expensive"? Looking at prices a Fry's and in the back of MacWeek, it would cost me more to buy a 1 meg x 9 SIMM for our PS/2 model 80 at work than it would cost me to buy a 1 meg x 8 SIMM for my Macintosh. So in terms of cost to get a meg in the machine, the Mac SIMMs are cheaper. On the other hand, the SIMMs for the IBM are using faster memory, so I may be getting a better deal per chip with the SIMMs for the IBM. On a related note, not all SIMMs for MicroChannel machines will work on a Mac. I've seen a machine that uses 1 meg SIMMs that are organized as 256k x 32. I doubt that this would work well in a Mac. Tim Smith