lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (04/03/88)
I have a question for all those satisfied Mac users out there -
why should I join your ranks?
Now this is not a general question, I come from a somewhat
unusual background, I have very specific needs. There are some serious
constraints on my decision (mainly $$$), and I am also very afraid of
buying a machine that will soon become obsolete (for my needs).
I am presently using a 8088 based PC system, and I would be using
the Mac for mainly two purposes: word processing (where any old Mac
will do), and developing Educational Software using A.I techniques in
PROLOG. This later business requires both lots of speed and power.
It seems to me that at the very least the Mac plus is ruled out by
the lack of memory. The Mac SE looks better, but it isn't all that
fast and the expansion options are limited.
So it is the Mac II for me, right? - Wrong. First, the Mac II is
a very pricey animal, second it is using a CPU that has already been
superceded, third the cost of accessories for that machine make it
impossible for me to put together a complete system.
As I see it, I have 4 options:
1.) Buy a Mac SE and risk outgrowing it.
2.) Buy a half equipped Mac II, and hope that I am able to eventually
upgrade it.
3.) Wait until Apple comes out with a Mac II+ (or whatever) with a
68030 CPU and a 25 Mhz (or so) clock speed.
4.) Buy an 80386 CPU based AT clone. Save myself a healthy chunk of
dough, and hope that the software mess for those machines gets
finally strengthened out someday.
Some further notes. Because of the way Apple has cornered the
educational computer market, I expect to be delivering my software on
something like a Mac+. Also, while I am using A.I. techniques, I don't
think that my software is particularly demanding on hardware (I have a
demo system that runs just fine on my PC). Finally, I abhor the
thought of accelerator cards! If I bought a Mac II now, I would much
rather swap motherboards, than to lose an expansion slot, and have two
CPUs when I need only one!
Okay folks fire away. Be forewarned that, while I am reasonably
knowledgeable computer nut, I am basically a Mac neophile. Also,
please reply directly to me unless you are certain your comments are of
general interest. I will post a summary or replies if there is enough
interest.chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/03/88)
> I have a question for all those satisfied Mac users out there - > why should I join your ranks? Because we'll kill your dog? No, that was yesterday. Never mind.... > I am presently using a 8088 based PC system, and I would be using > the Mac for mainly two purposes: word processing (where any old Mac > will do), and developing Educational Software using A.I techniques in > PROLOG. This later business requires both lots of speed and power. > It seems to me that at the very least the Mac plus is ruled out by > the lack of memory. The Mac SE looks better, but it isn't all that > fast and the expansion options are limited. I don't agree with this assessment. The big differences between the Mac Plus and the SE is the speed increase because of the video circuitry and the slot. You can happily (and inexpensively) put 4 meg in a mac plus. It'll be somewhat slower than an SE, but much, much cheaper. You can put an accelerator into an SE, giving you an 020 and even more speed, if you really think you need speed. In fact there are accellerator boards available that make the SE faster than the II. > So it is the Mac II for me, right? - Wrong. First, the Mac II is > a very pricey animal, second it is using a CPU that has already been > superceded, third the cost of accessories for that machine make it > impossible for me to put together a complete system. If you aren't considering the II because the processor is superceded, why are you even thinking of an SE or Plus? They're double obsolete. I also think this is a silly argument. Does the chip do the job? If so, unless you have a neurosis of being state of the art, who CARES if it's "obsolete." Technology is obsolete only when it can no longer do what needs to be done, not when something newer and niftier comes along. And besides, the mac II can't be obsolete until the 68030 mac is announced... Just because they have chips doesn't mean they have systems... > 1.) Buy a Mac SE and risk outgrowing it. An SE gives you the option of accelerator, big screen, lots of memory, and large disks. If you're on a budget, I think it's a good risk. > 2.) Buy a half equipped Mac II, and hope that I am able to eventually > upgrade it. I think it's important to buy a machine you'll be happy with at the outset. If you buy half a machine and it can't really do what you want, then you won't be happy. You're better off buying an SE and selling it when you really outgrow it, unless you think that (1) the stuff you can't afford on the II isn't important, or (2) the budget restrictions you have will go away fairly quickly. If you're talking six months, it's one thing. But a year? Two? That's too long. > 3.) Wait until Apple comes out with a Mac II+ (or whatever) with a > 68030 CPU and a 25 Mhz (or so) clock speed. What if they don't? And expect it to be more expensive than the Mac II, so if you think you have budget crunches now.... I'm not a big believer in "waiting for the next toy" unless the current toys can't do what you want. If you wait six months for the next machine, that's six months where you get no work done, no development. Consider the lost man hours against the advatanges of waiting. In dollar¢ numbers, there aren't any. > 4.) Buy an 80386 CPU based AT clone. Save myself a healthy chunk of > dough, and hope that the software mess for those machines gets > finally strengthened out someday. Except that all real development is in OS/2, and the AT clone is even more obsolete than the MacPlus. > Some further notes. Because of the way Apple has cornered the > educational computer market, I expect to be delivering my software on > something like a Mac+. Optimally you should develop on the kind of machine you're delivering to. It's very possible that a program that is 'good enough' on the MacII is so sludgey on a Plus that it's unusable. That's something that needs to be considered, and if I could only afford one machine to develop stuff for low end Mac's, I'd go for an SE even if I could afford a II. Because I want to use what the market does, so I know if the performance is acceptable. If you're under a budget (and who isn't) buy an SE. I see no reason to buy high end equiptment unless you really need high-end performance (and the only real high end needs for the II are A/UX and color, in my eyes -- speed is relative). I'm very strongly against buying half a machine and hoping, and even more strongly against buying rainbows and hoping that the next machine does everything. It won't, and waiting for something new is just an excuse to not get work done. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Even with my limited Chuq I got into a few conversations, and one man wanted to argue politics with me. -- Lisa Goldstein (After the Master, Asim, 5/88)
dave@hpdstma.HP.COM (Dave Waller) (04/04/88)
Hmmm..... My point of view: I bought an SE in December, and have been IMMENSELY happy with it. It is, at times, a little slow in processing FP numbers (i.e. Mandelbrot plots, etc.) but overall I have been quite impressed with the speed of the windowing environment, graphics interface, etc, etc, etc. Anyway, having a personal grudge against accelerators is a bad idea. As someone else mentioned, it is generally a GOOD idea to develop on the same or similar machine to which you intend the S/W to ultimately run on, and with many accelerators you can disable the high power CPU and run the original CPU for compatability reasons. This to me seems to be a marraige of the best of both worlds: you can get premium compile speed with the accelerator, and then chech your application on the original CPU to see if it is up to snuff, all with one system. Sounds good to me... In addition, several accelerators DO NOT use up the expansion slot space, so you can throw away that argument. Dave Waller