ews356@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (12/01/88)
I'm considering the purchase of a new Mac Plus. I have considerable experience working with Macs, but I've never owned one. Anyway, can anyone advise me as to the wisdom of buying a Plus ? Is it doomed to obsolesence ? What are the most useful and significant things that can be done on an SE that can't be done on a Plus ? How about programming ? From the technical side, is the Plus a bad machine to program on ? And finally, has Apple really stopped making them ? If this is all old business, my apologies and please email instead of posting. I do suspect however, there might be other people with similar questions unless this has been discussed recently and I missed it. Thanks in advance... [ I haven't gotten around to making a cute signature ] Eric W Sink ews00461@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ews356@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu
hofbauer@csri.toronto.edu (John Hofbauer) (12/04/88)
>I'm considering the purchase of a new Mac Plus. > ... >Anyway, can anyone advise me as to the wisdom of buying a >Plus ? Is it doomed to obsolesence ? What are the most >useful and significant things that can be done on an SE that >can't be done on a Plus ? How about programming ? From the >technical side, is the Plus a bad machine to program on ? >And finally, has Apple really stopped making them ? > >If this is all old business, my apologies and please email >instead of posting. I do suspect however, there might be >other people with similar questions unless this has been >discussed recently and I missed it. I was about to make a posting asking the same questions, so post or cc your e-mail replies. Thanks.
NETOPRRW@NCSUVM.BITNET (Rich Wood) (12/05/88)
Hello, first off understand this is my personal opinion, do don't
take it as gospal. I have owned a mac plus for about a year and a
half. At the time I purchased it I also woried about it being
obsolete. I now work in a lab with several SE's and II's. To tell
you the truth I have found that there is very little that a plus can't
do that these can. The latest models are slightly faster, but not
much. Also having two drives on a SE is nice. The only major gripe
I have about the Plus is the difficulty of working with a hard drive.
I have heard many complaints about this. So in closing let me say
if you have big plans about upgrading your internal boards (ie.
memory, accelorators, etc) you may want to get something better.
Richgandreas@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Glenn Andreas) (12/06/88)
I bought my Plus back around May, and have no regrets (though I wish I had more memory). It was cheap and does everything I need - there are very few things that need an SE (such as extra boards). And as for programming, if you've seen the game Theldrow, I did that on my Plus, and LSP is plenty fast on it. The only thing I don't have is the ADB mouse and keyboard, so if you need these things (or the boards) get the SE, otherwise there is no reason (that I can think of) not to get the Plus. BTW: Theldrow version 2.0 and the next scenario "The Undercity" are due out sometime in January - I will send them to Sumex and post when I'm done, so don't bother asking for them before then. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = "Whether you like it, or don't like it, sit | - gandreas@ub.d.umn.edu - = = back and take a look at it, because it's the | Glenn Andreas = = best going today! WOOOOoooo!" - Ric Flair | = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hellerst@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Joe Hellerstein) (12/06/88)
From article <508NETOPRRW@NCSUVM>, by NETOPRRW@NCSUVM.BITNET (Rich Wood): > The only major gripe > I have about the Plus is the difficulty of working with a hard drive. > I have heard many complaints about this. What difficulty? There's no difficulty hooking up a SCSI drive (esp. an external one, although internal ones are ususally fine) to the Plus. In fact, the Plus has the advantage of being bundled with only one floppy drive, whereas the SE has either 2 floppy drives, or one floppy and a ridiculously overpriced apple hard drive. If you get the Plus, you save yourself the cost of Apple's peripherals -- there are equally good, and *much* cheaper drives (hard or floppy) available from third party dealers. The Plus allows you this flexibility; the SE's marketing scheme rips you off. (It is true that you can't get an SE without either the 2 floppies or a built-in HD, true? That's the way it is through Harvard, and in all the ads I've seen.) It is true that the SE allows you to work effectively at a higher interleaf than the Plus, allowing marginally faster hard disk response time. But it's hardly worth $1000, which is about what the difference is between an SE with apple hard disk, and a Plus with a 3rd party hard disk. Joe Hellerstein
twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (12/07/88)
All computers are doomed to obsolescence.
Before I would buy any Mac right now, I would wait until after MacWorld.
New models may be introduced, old models may be obsoleted, and prices may
change. Or none of the above may happen.
Anyway, back to your subject. The advantages of an SE over a +
1) 10 to 15% faster {Noticable???}
2) can have second disk drive internal if no internal hard drive
is present.
3) Internal hard drives are plentiful (I'm not sure anyone is making
internal hard drives for the + anymore} Internal hard drives tend
to be about $70 cheaper then external drives.
4) The SE has a space for a dealer installed card.
On the other hand, the + like the SE can be upgraded to 4 Meg RAM {same cost}.
Both use the same microprocessor, have the same screen size & resolution.
The + has a LARGE installed base & will probably run anything that the 6800
SE can run. You might save enough buying a + instead of an SE to purchase
a hard drive {I haven't priced them lately}.
I am suprised that Apple hasn't discontinued the + a year ago. When they do,
I suspect that they will be heavily discounted for quick sale.
Considering the price difference, and simularity, I would go ahead & purchase
a + over an SE even if the Plus is obsoleted in the near future. There's a
ton of software, and it new software should remain compatable as long
as Apple is still producing 6800 Macs (All bets are off if Apple discontinues
all 6800 Macs next month}.
I think the real question is not a SE vs a + but how much RAM to get.
1 Meg just isn't what it used to be...sigh.
TeriAnnbillkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) (12/07/88)
In article <771@husc6.harvard.edu> hellerst@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Joe Hellerstein) writes: >From article <508NETOPRRW@NCSUVM>, by NETOPRRW@NCSUVM.BITNET (Rich Wood): >> The only major gripe >> I have about the Plus is the difficulty of working with a hard drive. >> I have heard many complaints about this. > >What difficulty? There's no difficulty hooking up a SCSI drive (esp. an >external one, although internal ones are ususally fine) to the Plus. The difficulty is a problem with the Mac Plus ROMs. This was a problem only with Mac Pluses that aren't platinum (No, it has nothing to do with the color of the case, it just happens that Apple changed the ROMs at the same time that they changed the case. Any SCSI drive connected to one of these Pluses must have the 'Unit Attention' feature disabled. Because of Apple, most drives have the option of turning this feature off. Also because of this, if your drive is not up to speed and ready when the Mac Plus looks for it, it won't boot, you have to press the reset switch. I won't explain exactly why this happens, because it isn't that interesting. Suffice to say, the Platinum Plus will work with any hard drive that the SE will. But the SE will do so more than 50% faster. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/07/88)
If all the rumors are correct..... Perhaps you should wait until january, when the 68020/030 SE is introduced. (1) The price of an SE might go down soon afterwards, or (2) you might want to get an SE so that you can upgrade to a superdrive (1.4Mb) / accelerator / large screen display later. If you're broke, then by all means, buy a MacPlus. Do you currently use a computer more than 10-20 hours a week? Do you current program a microcomputer frequently? If both answers are "yes", then maybe you qualify to buy an SE. Otherwise, you may not get your $$$$$$$$$ (in the case of Apple) money's worth.
ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) (12/07/88)
In article <401920b8.1285f@maize.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes: >Suffice to say, the Platinum Plus will work >with any hard drive that the SE will. But the SE will do so more than >50% faster. > > Steve Bollinger billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu Huh? I've got a Mac Plus (platinum, born February 1988) with an external Everex EMAC-20DL hard disk. My roommate has a Mac SE with Apple's internal hard disk. We tested the machines for speed differences. We put the same several-page long Microsoft Word document on each disk and then opened it at the same time. The SE beat the Plus only by 3 seconds. That's probably average for most routine operations. I maintain a lab on campus with twenty hard-disk equipped Mac SEs. They don't seem to work noticably faster than my Mac Plus. Rumors once called for the phase-out of the Plus. But didn't Apple just retool its factory to build Plus's cheaper? Doesn't sound like something a company would do right before discontinuing a product. John O'Malley / Macintosh / Purdue University / (317) mace.cc.purdue.edu!ajq / Project Specialist / Computing Center / 494-9944
billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) (12/07/88)
In article <1282@mace.cc.purdue.edu> ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) writes: >In article <401920b8.1285f@maize.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes: >>Suffice to say, the Platinum Plus will work >>with any hard drive that the SE will. But the SE will do so more than >>50% faster. >Huh? I've got a Mac Plus (platinum, born February 1988) with an external >Everex EMAC-20DL hard disk. My roommate has a Mac SE with Apple's internal >hard disk. Apple's internal drive is notoriously slow, 85ms. >We tested the machines for speed differences. We put the same several-page >long Microsoft Word document on each disk and then opened it at the same >time. The SE beat the Plus only by 3 seconds. That's probably average >for most routine operations. You didn't test the machines for SCSI speed differences. Included in your 'open' is a lot of processing by Word to show the file in a coherent format. So a lot of the speed-up is masked. But, that does seem reasonable for a file open difference. > >I maintain a lab on campus with twenty hard-disk equipped Mac SEs. They >don't seem to work noticably faster than my Mac Plus. You haven't looked hard enough. Run 'The Colony' on a Plus and an SE (not even necessarily side-by-side), you will notice quite a speed difference (this is in the processor speed). As for disk speed, there really is no test for transfer rate except for SCSI evaluator, the next best might be DiskExpress, the 'verify media' option. first, I'd like to start with an errata, I meant to say 'up to 50% faster', sorry about that. Second, I said that the disk access would be about 50% faster, not MS-Word. Some people think that speeding up their HD will speed up their throughput the same amount, a common misconception. On the other hand, many people look at the SE and say the because the processor is only 16% faster, the machine is only 16% faster, but the 50% speed up in the SCSI makes a difference too. I can back my speed claims. But first, I was unaware the Mac Plus supported blind reads (in a very poor way). The SE has a 2:1 interleave, the Plus, a 3:1, there is a 50% speedup already (2 turns per track as opposed to 3 turns per track). Also, the SE has hardware for SCSI blind reads (and writes), and I quote from IM V- 'The blind mode does not poll the DRQ line and is therefore about 50% faster', so properly written drivers can write 50% faster on the SE than the Plus. No, you can not add the 50% from interleave and the 50% from transfer rate and say the SE is 100% faster, but 50% is not wildly ridiculous. > >Rumors once called for the phase-out of the Plus. But didn't Apple just >retool its factory to build Plus's cheaper? Doesn't sound like something >a company would do right before discontinuing a product. Apple has said that they would be producing the Plus until December '89, and I believe them. But that does not that you would want to buy one. Apple will soon probably come out with a machine equivalent to the SE that is about the price of the Plus. Why? Because costs no more to produce. Apple could save money by switching totally over to the ADB (the ADB mouse costs less to produce than the Plus mouse), and the SCSI and processor speedups/changes don't cost more to produce, they just cost money to develop. Also, the Plus uses an older clock chip than the SE, Apple could save money by changing to the new one (they did it with the 512KE, some late ones had the Plus clock chip because Apple could get a better price on it). In short, the only reasons Apple hasn't done all this is that they could no longer justify the price differential between the Plus and the SE to its customers. But the SE is soon to change, and won't be comparable to the Plus anymore. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (12/08/88)
>Apple has said that they would be producing the Plus until December '89, and >I believe them. But that does not that you would want to buy one. Apple >will soon probably come out with a machine equivalent to the SE that is about >the price of the Plus. Why? Because costs no more to produce. It is widely believed that the SE is *already* cheaper to produce than the Plus. Anyone who looks at Apple's margins knows that price of production bears little relationship to retail price. The retail price difference between comparably equipped Mac Plus and SE models is very large, while the difference is performance is modest. The disadvantages of the Mac Plus are as follows: 1) slightly slower processor 2) slower disk xfer due to higher interleave 3) spongy keyboard 4) no expansion slot 5) no provision for internal hard disk I suspect that for most users, items 1) and 2) are not all that significant. 3) can be rectified for about $140 (the cost of a 3rd party replacement keyboard). 4) is a bit troubling, but the SE expansion slot is a funny beast (being non-NuBus), and most add-ons for the SE are also available for the Plus. Unless you travel a lot with your Mac item 5) is not really an issue. It's a call only the individual can make, but I think that the Plus is the clear price-performance leader. Sam Cramer sun!cramer cramer@sun.com
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/09/88)
If you buy an SE with a 20Mb drive you'll get:
(1) A measly 3 month hard-disk warranty.
(2) Pathetic 85ms access time (no slower in the industry).
(3) For this you "get to" spend about $200 more than is necessary.
If you buy a 3rd-party drive, open the case & snap it in, you can
probably get 40ms access time, pocket the $200, and relax because you
get a 1-year or 2-year warranty.
On the other hand, for the extra $200, you could move up to a 30- or
40- megabyte drive, and perhaps get 28ms access time.
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (12/09/88)
In article <46700090@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> ews356@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >I'm considering the purchase of a new Mac Plus. : : >Anyway, can anyone advise me as to the wisdom of buying a >Plus ? Is it doomed to obsolesence ? Well, of course it is - just like *all* computers are :-) The real question is will it do what you need today? As recently as a month ago, we've been told by Apple that there is no software they know of that runs on an SE that won't run on a Plus with comparable memory (with the exception of full-page displays, etc that require add-on hdw). As a person who often aids students in their choice through the users group here, I personally have a hard time recommending an SE to someone on any kind of a budget. For example (at University Purchase Program prices) an SE with the standard keyboard and internal 20MB drive costs $2567 (including tax & shipping). By contrast, a Plus with third-party 20MB external SCSI drive (65ms) can be had for $1698. I don't know about you, but there aren't many students (or faculty) here who couldn't put up with any of the Pluses "limitations" for $868! >And finally, has Apple really stopped making them ? > As of this Monday our Apple contact has assured us no. However, we have been told to expect a 14-16 week delay in all Plus orders and 6-8 weeks for SE's. The "official" line we were given is that they just can't keep up with the demand. On the other hand, *if* I were a cynic (thank God I'm not) I *might* observe that Apple doesn't mind having the use of your cash-in-advance for 14-16 weeks while they wait to ship your Mac :-) [OF COURSE, these are my personal, biased opinions - not SUNY Oswego's] ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Boyd Ostroff, Technical Director :::::: System Operator, "The CallBoard" ::: :::: Dept of Theatre, SUNY Oswego ::::::: (315) 947-6414 300/1200/2400 baud ::: ::::: ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU :::::::: rutgers!sunybcs!oswego!cboard!sysop :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
kwan@io.ics.uci.edu (Andrew Kwan) (12/10/88)
In article <401a38a0.129dc@blue.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes: > >I can back my speed claims. But first, I was unaware the Mac Plus supported >blind reads (in a very poor way). The SE has a 2:1 interleave, the Plus, a >3:1, there is a 50% speedup already (2 turns per track as opposed to 3 turns >per track). Interleave refers to how many sectors (on the track) must be skipped over by the read/write head between sector accesses. The difference in access time between the SE and Plus is a function of the disk's rotation speed and the number of sectors per track. It is not dependent on the number of turns it has to make - sector accesses do not require having to wait until the track makes a full turn to get to the next sector to be accessed, only for the next one or two sectors to pass (to get to the one you want).
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (12/10/88)
In article <1136@paris.ics.uci.edu> Andrew Kwan <kwan@io.ics.uci.edu> writes: >rotation speed and the number of sectors per track. It is not >dependent on the number of turns it has to make - sector accesses do >not require having to wait until the track makes a full turn to get to >the next sector to be accessed, only for the next one or two sectors >to pass (to get to the one you want). Assuming that you want to read all the sectors in a track, which happens quite often when reading a contiguous {sp??} sequence of sectors then the interleave does make a difference!! The SE can read a whole track of information in two disk rotations {latency time}, while it would take the plus at a 3:1 interleave 3 disk rotations to read the same information. ie. approx. 50% longer on the plus for the same about of information. I think your basic premise is correct if you want to only read one sector, but this rarely happens. I believe if you think disk accessing through just a little farther than you did in your previous posting. When accessing several sectors in a row, latency can make a significant diffence is access time and effective throughput. If interleave didn't make any difference then what point would there be in having it. :-) -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) (12/10/88)
In article <1136@paris.ics.uci.edu> Andrew Kwan <kwan@io.ics.uci.edu> writes: >>I can back my speed claims. But first, I was unaware the Mac Plus supported >>blind reads (in a very poor way). The SE has a 2:1 interleave, the Plus, a >>3:1, there is a 50% speedup already (2 turns per track as opposed to 3 turns >>per track). > >Interleave refers to how many sectors (on the track) must be skipped >over by the read/write head between sector accesses. The difference >in access time between the SE and Plus is a function of the disk's >rotation speed and the number of sectors per track. It is not >dependent on the number of turns it has to make - sector accesses do >not require having to wait until the track makes a full turn to get to >the next sector to be accessed, only for the next one or two sectors >to pass (to get to the one you want). That is true to a point, but if you want to read the data on an entire track, as you often do when loading a large program or file, interleave makes a big difference. On a 1:1 Interleave drive, you can read the whole track in one revolution. On a 2:1 Interleave, you can read every other sector on the first rotation, and have to let them spin by again (another rotation) to get the other sectors you skipped the last time. On a 3:1 interleave, it takes 3 rotations for the same reason. This is why a 1:1 interleave is 3 times faster than a 3:1 interleave in many cases. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
hgw@julia.math.ucla.edu (Harold Wong) (12/16/88)
In article <76000317@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >If all the rumors are correct..... > >Perhaps you should wait until january, when the 68020/030 SE is >introduced. (1) The price of an SE might go down soon afterwards, or Right, They'll just lower it to the price before the last increase and eyerybody will be happy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT