kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (11/29/88)
Since I'm probably at the end of the line with my 512, I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Mac II with a 40 Mbyte hard drive or the Mac IIx with the 68030 and super drive. Both machines would have 4 Mbytes and both configurations are the same price. Since I have a 60 Mbyte external drive I don't need the disk space. Do you think it's best to go with the 030 and it's memory management for future OS's or is this a waste of money if you're only going to run Mac software (not A/ux)? Thanks for your thoughts. Shirley Kehr
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (11/29/88)
In article <71934@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >Since I'm probably at the end of the line with my 512, I'm trying to decide >whether to buy a Mac II with a 40 Mbyte hard drive or the Mac IIx with the >68030 and super drive. Both machines would have 4 Mbytes and both >configurations are the same price. Since I have a 60 Mbyte external drive >I don't need the disk space. > >Do you think it's best to go with the 030 and it's memory management for >future OS's or is this a waste of money if you're only going to run Mac >software (not A/ux)? Oh drool.... Go for the IIx; it may seem like a ripoff now, but in one or two years, you'll be glad you have the MMU and SuperDrive. Supposedly, future versions of MacOS will require an MMU; I think this was even officially announced. It only makes sense, since without it the Mac won't really be able to compete with high-end workstations, or even (gag) OS/2. Of course, in one or two years having only 4 megabytes will seem like a tight squeeze, but for now I think it should do.... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
rcbaab@eutrc3.UUCP (Annard Brouwer) (12/02/88)
In article <71934@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >Do you think it's best to go with the 030 and it's memory management for >future OS's or is this a waste of money if you're only going to run Mac >software (not A/ux)? Well, I think the IIx is just an interim machine. But of course if you can afford one... I don't know anything about compatibility problems (I hate such a term!). But if I could get one, I would buy it! Especially the new programs like Fullwrite will apprecitae the speed... >Thanks for your thoughts. No problem! Ur welcome.. Annard
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (12/03/88)
In article <71934@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >Since I'm probably at the end of the line with my 512, I'm trying to decide >whether to buy a Mac II with a 40 Mbyte hard drive or the Mac IIx with the >68030 and super drive... Since I have a 60 Mbyte external drive >I don't need the disk space. Good. The only problem I know of with the IIx is that the ROM SIMM stands up high enough that the drop-platforms used for full-height internal drives interfere with it. So you are restricted to half-height drives. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (12/05/88)
In article <389@eutrc3.UUCP> rcbaab@eutrc3.UUCP (Annard Brouwer) writes: <In article <71934@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: <>Do you think it's best to go with the 030 and it's memory management for <>future OS's or is this a waste of money if you're only going to run Mac <>software (not A/ux)? <Well, I think the IIx is just an interim machine. But of course if you <can afford one... I don't know anything about compatibility problems (I hate <such a term!). But if I could get one, I would buy it! <Especially the new programs like Fullwrite will apprecitae the speed... >Annard In response to an earlier article (on my system) that noted lack of summaries by those requesting email, I'll summarize what I learned from this question. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of the IIx because future versions of Mac software would use the PMMU, saving me the trouble of upgrading the Mac II in the future. However, I did not rush out and buy it yet because others suggested that I wait until after the first of the year and see what new models would be available and what that would do to the prices of older models. In particular people mentioned the 3-slot Mac II and the SE with the 68030. They think that the superdrive will be the standard floppy on all new machines. Now, if I can only wait! These 60-mile drives on the weekend are getting to me. Shirley Kehr
zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) (12/06/88)
Okay. I asked this question before, and got a clear answer, but this recent discussion has confused me again. Shirley Kehr (sp?) says that she was told that future MacOS releases might use the PMMU in the Mac IIx, so she should get that and not worry about having to upgrade a Mac II. Now, I was told that the Mac II has a slot for the 68851 PMMU; would this be the 'upgrade' that other folk are talking about? If the MacOS does indeed begin to utilize a PMMU, would a 68851 stuck in a Mac II fill the bill? Thanks all... -JBZimmerman! -- ___________ | "A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut || | with no holes is a danish." || ||acob Zimmerman!+> <zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> INTERNET === | <zimerman@PUCC> BITnet
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (12/07/88)
In article <4717@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) writes:
<Okay. I asked this question before, and got a clear answer, but this
<recent discussion has confused me again. Shirley Kehr (sp?) says that
<she was told that future MacOS releases might use the PMMU in the Mac
<IIx, so she should get that and not worry about having to upgrade a Mac
<II. Now, I was told that the Mac II has a slot for the 68851 PMMU;
<would this be the 'upgrade' that other folk are talking about? If the
<MacOS does indeed begin to utilize a PMMU, would a 68851 stuck in a Mac
<II fill the bill?
<
<Thanks all...
< -JBZimmerman!
According to what I've read (here? magazines?), the 68851 PMMU is the upgrade
path for the original Mac II. Some say it doesn't have the same performance,
which we probably wouldn't notice in most Mac software. However, the point
in my case was why buy something I'd have to upgrade in a year; why not just
be ahead of the game for once, as one of my repliers put it.
Shirley Kehrsysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) (12/18/88)
in article <4717@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) says: > > Okay. I asked this question before, and got a clear answer, but this > recent discussion has confused me again. Shirley Kehr (sp?) says that > she was told that future MacOS releases might use the PMMU in the Mac > IIx, so she should get that and not worry about having to upgrade a Mac > II. Now, I was told that the Mac II has a slot for the 68851 PMMU; > would this be the 'upgrade' that other folk are talking about? If the > MacOS does indeed begin to utilize a PMMU, would a 68851 stuck in a Mac > II fill the bill? > Here's how I understand the situation. There is a motherboard upgrade for a Mac II that replaces the existing motherboard with the 68030 board. An alternative is to add the 68551 PMMU; the existing 68020 plus added PMMU should work with future OS upgrades just as well as moving to the 68030 motherboard. Now, if I'm wrong about this, somebody let me know, please. Jan Harrington, sysop Scholastech Telecommunications UUCP: husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop BITNET: JHARRY@BENTLEY ******************************************************************************** Miscellaneous profundity: "No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai ********************************************************************************