lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) (06/06/91)
I would like to buy a Mac for home use and am trying to decide what model is appropriate. At this point, both the LC and IIsi seem like viable choices and I am trying to determine whether the IIsi is worth the extra $1K to me. Today, my requirements are fairly modest. I expect to use the machine primarily for spreadsheets, word processing, and home finance programs. I will probably get a black&white monitor rather than color. My primary concerns are for longevity and future expandability. I have some specific technical questions about the two Macs but I would also appreciate a pointer to a good technical reference about the Mac line which I could read to answer these and other questions. If these are FAQ or the subject of recent discussions, a pointer to a comp.sys.mac.* archive would be helpful. 1) Memory capacity As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to 10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed requirements? 2) Video performance How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? 3) Expansion slots Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? 4) Other functional differences I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory. However, I can buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the IIsi. This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory. Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the future from running on the LC? Thanks in advance for your insights into these questions and for any other observations on the LC and IIsi which you feel are important. ...Lou -- Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway 503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063 -- Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway 503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063
s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (A. Vanderstock) (06/06/91)
lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: >I would like to buy a Mac for home use and am trying to decide what >model is appropriate. At this point, both the LC and IIsi seem like >viable choices and I am trying to determine whether the IIsi is worth >the extra $1K to me. Even though the IIsi doesn't have a floating point co-processor, it has the expansion capabilities that you will need later. >Today, my requirements are fairly modest. I expect to use the machine >primarily for spreadsheets, word processing, and home finance programs. >I will probably get a black&white monitor rather than color. My primary >concerns are for longevity and future expandability. Go for the IIsi : at least the 68882 cards aren't too expensive. >I have some specific technical questions about the two Macs but I would >also appreciate a pointer to a good technical reference about the Mac >line which I could read to answer these and other questions. If these >are FAQ or the subject of recent discussions, a pointer to a >comp.sys.mac.* archive would be helpful. >1) Memory capacity >As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software >will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to >10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? >Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM >slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed >requirements? Mainly the available space for SIMM slots. With System 7.0 on the IIsi, you don't really need all that much RAM, and you can emulate Virtual memory. See your Apple dealer for RAM upgrades. 70 ns RAM is typical for 20 MHz machines though. >2) Video performance >How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does >using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white >mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? The LC has a custom video controller : it can display 512*342 in 2, 16, and 32768 colours (with VRAM upgrade), and 640*480 in 2, 16, and with the VRAM upgrade 256 colours from 16,000,000. There are performance hits, but this is true with any Mac. It is just that without the 68882, you tend to notice spreadsheet slowness and other tasks. The IIsi is more like the Mac II's original video card : 640*480 in 2, 4, 16, and 256 colours. >3) Expansion slots >Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but >how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you >think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? LC has a little space that is I think a PDS slot. But in a *very* funny formfactor. The IIsi has 1 slot that is more like normal NuBus, but uses a different connector. It also has a PDS slot. >4) Other functional differences >I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory. However, I can >buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the >IIsi. This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits >which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory. In the end, virtual memory is still going to cheaper than real memory, and if you're going to spend an extra $1k, you may as well get the IIsi anyway. >Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the >IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the >future from running on the LC? Not really. Since so many people are already buying LCs I am sure that many low to medium packages will build in support for it, or at least workarounds. High end packages may still need the extra that a 68882 provides, and Mac II compability is always a bonus. >Thanks in advance for your insights into these questions and for any >other observations on the LC and IIsi which you feel are important. >...Lou >-- >Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems >lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 >503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway >503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063 -- Andrew Vanderstock s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) (06/06/91)
s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (A. Vanderstock) writes: >lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: >>I would like to buy a Mac for home use and am trying to decide what >>model is appropriate. At this point, both the LC and IIsi seem like >>viable choices and I am trying to determine whether the IIsi is worth >>the extra $1K to me. >Even though the IIsi doesn't have a floating point co-processor, it has >the expansion capabilities that you will need later. >>Today, my requirements are fairly modest. I expect to use the machine >>primarily for spreadsheets, word processing, and home finance programs. >>I will probably get a black&white monitor rather than color. My primary >>concerns are for longevity and future expandability. >Go for the IIsi : at least the 68882 cards aren't too expensive. >>I have some specific technical questions about the two Macs but I would >>also appreciate a pointer to a good technical reference about the Mac >>line which I could read to answer these and other questions. If these >>are FAQ or the subject of recent discussions, a pointer to a >>comp.sys.mac.* archive would be helpful. >>1) Memory capacity >>As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software >>will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to >>10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? >>Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM >>slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed >>requirements? >Mainly the available space for SIMM slots. With System 7.0 on the IIsi, >you don't really need all that much RAM, and you can emulate Virtual >memory. See your Apple dealer for RAM upgrades. 70 ns RAM is typical for >20 MHz machines though. >>2) Video performance >>How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does >>using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white >>mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? >The LC has a custom video controller : it can display 512*342 in 2, 16, and >32768 colours (with VRAM upgrade), and 640*480 in 2, 16, and with the VRAM >upgrade 256 colours from 16,000,000. There are performance hits, but this is >true with any Mac. It is just that without the 68882, you tend to notice >spreadsheet slowness and other tasks. >The IIsi is more like the Mac II's original video card : 640*480 in 2, 4, 16, >and 256 colours. >>3) Expansion slots >>Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but >>how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you >>think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? >LC has a little space that is I think a PDS slot. But in a *very* funny >formfactor. The IIsi has 1 slot that is more like normal NuBus, but uses >a different connector. It also has a PDS slot. *NONONO* The IIsi has a slot for a card - the 68882 slot. When you buy a 68882 card from Apple, you can buy 2 versions. 1 gives you a PDS slot, the other NuBus slot, so you decide "Do I want NuBus or do I want PDS?". Either way, you have to buy the 68882 card to do this. I think some other companies supply stuff like EtherNet cards for this slot, with 68882 already on them. If you want a bit of speed, get the 68882 card. I think the nubus version would be the way to go. You'll notice the diff. >>4) Other functional differences >>I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory. However, I can >>buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the >>IIsi. This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits >>which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory. >In the end, virtual memory is still going to cheaper than real memory, and >if you're going to spend an extra $1k, you may as well get the IIsi anyway. >>Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the >>IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the >>future from running on the LC? >Not really. Since so many people are already buying LCs I am sure that many >low to medium packages will build in support for it, or at least workarounds. >High end packages may still need the extra that a 68882 provides, and Mac II >compability is always a bonus. >>Thanks in advance for your insights into these questions and for any >>other observations on the LC and IIsi which you feel are important. >>...Lou >>-- >>Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems >>lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 >>503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway >>503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063 >-- >Andrew Vanderstock >s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | Luke Mewburn [Zak] | #disclaimer: I _own_ these opinions, | | s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | No-one else deserves them :-) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dinapoli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ron DiNapoli) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.011802.6074@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) writes: >s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (A. Vanderstock) writes: >>>As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software >>>will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to >>>10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? >>>Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM >>>slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed >>>requirements? The Macintosh IIsi Developer Note put out by Apple says that the IIsi will work with 16MB SIMMS. That would make the maximum memory configuration 65MB, when such chips are available. THe LC Developer Note does not make reference to the 16MB SIMMs, so I do not know if they are supported or not on the LC. Can someone confirm this? The IIsi has four SIMMs slots, and 1 MB of RAM soldered onto the motherboard. The LC has two SIMMs slots, and 2 MB soldered onto the motherboard. >*NONONO* >The IIsi has a slot for a card - the 68882 slot. When you buy a 68882 card >from Apple, you can buy 2 versions. 1 gives you a PDS slot, the other NuBus >slot, so you decide "Do I want NuBus or do I want PDS?". Either way, you >have to buy the 68882 card to do this. I think some other companies supply >stuff like EtherNet cards for this slot, with 68882 already on them. >If you want a bit of speed, get the 68882 card. I think the nubus version >would be the way to go. You'll notice the diff. > I don't think there is any such thing as a "68882 slot". THe IIsi comes with a 68030 PDS slot right on the motherboard. Theoretically, any PDS card could be plugged directly into the motherboard. The problem is that you would not be able to put the cover back on the machine (I have seen some new cards advertised that are *very* short and can be plugged directly into the PDS slot on the motherboard which do not obstruct the cover of the machine). This is where the PDS or NuBus "Adapter" comes in. Both of these adapters come with a 68882 co-processor socket on the adapter, and in most cases that socket will be filled with a 68882 chip (It is possible to purchase a PDS adapter at a very low price without the 68882 included). The PDS "adapter" is really nothing more than an extension of the IIsi's PDS slot which allows a PDS card to be plugged in parallel too the motherboard. And it comes with the 68882. The "NuBus" adapter is truly an adapter--It provides you with a true NuBus slot in which you can place any NuBus card (provided it does not have too high a power rating) Ron D.
ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) (06/07/91)
In <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: >1) Memory capacity >As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software >will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to >10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? >Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM >slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed >requirements? The LC will continue losing ground as progress increases. Currently the si is at the top of the Mac heap for future compatibility. Notice that the LC is NOT a IILC and the si is a IIsi. The si will definately have more longevity than the LC. The si WILL take future 16MB SIMMs, and will also do virtual. You're definately right, the trend is only up for memory requirements. >2) Video performance >How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does >using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white >mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? This is a problem on both machines, same problem. The only extra goody you get with the LC is VGA compatability. I don't need this, so it's wasted on me. >3) Expansion slots >Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but >how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you >think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? No, the si will take a NuBus adapter card and the LC will not. I think the entire LC concept is a dead letter from the get-go. It is intended do directly attack the K-6 market and to replace the Apple IIgs/IIe. While it seems to do this just fine, it doesn't solve my problems or most users'. >4) Other functional differences >I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory. However, I can >buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the >IIsi. This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits >which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory. You cannot buy LOTS of memory for the LC. You are limited by the SIMM support and the number of banks in the LC. Mostly, you are handicapped by that '020. >Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the >IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the >future from running on the LC? I have heard from many places that System 7 loves the si and hates the LC. The si has "clean" ROMs and can really use System 7's features. While the LC will run 7, you won't get virtual and there will be a quite noticable speed difference. All in all, I would reccomend against the LC, unless that extra grand is just impossible to come up with. If money is a real problem, I would rather get a used IIcx and wait until I could afford a new machine. The '020 is bound to be more and more limited as more and more software is written that will only run on an '030 and above. -- Alex Jauch *ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* *ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen *
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/07/91)
In article <284EBD2C.17749@ics.uci.edu> ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: >In <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: >>2) Video performance > >>How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does >>using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white >>mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? > >This is a problem on both machines, same problem. The only extra goody you >get with the LC is VGA compatability. I don't need this, so it's wasted >on me. The LC does NOT have the same problems with video memory contention delays as the IIci/si, because its frame buffer is stored in a separate VRAM, not in the main SIMM memory. And that "extra goody" of VGA compatability means that a vast number of inexpensive 640x480 monitors are available, greatly reducing the minimum cost of a color LC system. >>3) Expansion slots > >>Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but >>how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you >>think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? > >No, the si will take a NuBus adapter card and the LC will not. I think the >entire LC concept is a dead letter from the get-go. It is intended do >directly attack the K-6 market and to replace the Apple IIgs/IIe. While >it seems to do this just fine, it doesn't solve my problems or most users'. You shouldn't generalize your dissatisfaction to "most users". I think that the LC is a very elegant design (it's so SMALL!), and it's cheap. We have three of them here in the office, and the users love them (two were upgrading from SEs and one from a Plus). I think an LC with 4 or 6mb, the Apple 12" monochrome monitor and a 3rd-party VRAM upgrade (to get 256 grays) is an ideal entry-level machine (far superior to the unfortunate Classic). Also, don't forget that there will almost certainly appear more powerful machines using the same case design, which means there will be upgrades available someday. I also think you are wrong when you say Apple is only aiming the LC at K-12 education. The LC is also aimed squarely at 80386SX Windows boxes, and it frequently beats them on both price and performance. >>Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the >>IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the >>future from running on the LC? > >I have heard from many places that System 7 loves the si and hates the LC. >The si has "clean" ROMs and can really use System 7's features. While the >LC will run 7, you won't get virtual and there will be a quite noticable >speed difference. The LC's ROMs are just as "clean" as the IIsi (32-bit clean, 32-bit Quickdraw, etc). What do you mean when you say System 7 "hates" the LC? >All in all, I would reccomend against the LC, unless that extra grand is just >impossible to come up with. If money is a real problem, I would rather get >a used IIcx and wait until I could afford a new machine. The '020 is bound >to be more and more limited as more and more software is written that >will only run on an '030 and above. And what software would that be? The only major change in the 68030 from the 68020, aside from the increased speed, is the built-in MMU, which application software should never be accessing anyway. The vast gulf from the point of view of applications is between the 68000 and the 68020. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun7.130713.26470@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) writes: > I don't completely agree with your enthusiasm for the LC, I have seen > alot of software compatibility problems with it. Also the power > supply is way too small, intentionally crippled by Apple to prevent > 3rd party upgrades. There have been software compatibility problems with the IIsi as well, mostly because of the optional FPU. The IIsi also has a wimpy power supply. I'd love to see some third party come out with a heftier supply as a drop-in replacement in these machines. Oh, and where monitors are concerned, the built-in video of the LC has another advantage: with a VRAM expansion it can support 16-bit direct color. The IIsi is limited to 8-bit color maps. I'm glad I bought a IIsi, but the LC does have its advantages. -- John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476
tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) (06/07/91)
>which means there will be upgrades available someday. MacWeek says that Apple will have a 68030 upgrade available for the LC and the Classic sometime this fall. I don't completely agree with your enthusiasm for the LC, I have seen alot of software compatibility problems with it. Also the power supply is way too small, intentionally crippled by Apple to prevent 3rd party upgrades. >The LC is also aimed squarely at 80386SX Windows boxes, and it frequently beats them on both price and performance. Well the educational price isn't bad but the dealer price is horrendous from what I have seen. Local dealers are selling it for $3200.00 w/2 megs Ram/40 megHD and that crummy little 12 inch color monitor. Thats pretty ridiculous. Educational price is almost half that. I have also read that Apple has licensedat least one computer "superstore" to sell the Classic/SE30/LC/IIsi. It will bevery interesting to see what happens to prices then! I'm sure that a superstore can give the same level of support as a regualr dealer which from what I have seen is non-existent. >
dcall@mithril.wr.tek.com (Dale Call) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun7.130713.26470@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) writes: > I don't completely agree with your enthusiasm for the LC, I have seen alot > of software compatibility problems with it. Also the power supply is way too > small, intentionally crippled by Apple to prevent 3rd party upgrades. The power supply is small because the box is so small. When you aim for an elegant design, that's a tradeoff you make. I don't expect it to limit me very much, and I love the small, compact size. The LC is a great entry level Mac, the first Mac I was willing to purchase with decent performance, screen size, and *affordable* pricing. Beats the hell out of the 386 windows machines around here on price & windowing speed! I would NEVER buy a Classic or SE or plus, the damn 9" screen drives me crazy ... and my friends with SE's are drooling over my 12" mono display ... So far, the only major third party SW with compatibility problems has been Excel 2.2, and Microsoft had a fixed version out within months. This was due to the missing FPU, which kills the IIsi as well unless you fork out more $$. Everything else I've tried works fine, unless it is really outdated stuff that can't cope with Sys 6.0 on any machine. The only real limit is I cannot run VM (no MMU), but I don't consider that a real limit. VM is *SLOW*, I want a fast, snappy machine, not a dog that is continually swapping to disk. So far I have yet to run out of memory on my 4Mb machine with Sys 6.0.7, I plan to upgrade to 4Mb simms before I get Sys 7.0 (10Mb memory total, 8Mb in 24bit mode, 10Mb in 32bit mode). > >The LC is also aimed squarely at 80386SX > Windows boxes, and it frequently beats them on both price and performance. > > Well the educational price isn't bad but the dealer price is horrendous from > what I have seen. Local dealers are selling it for $3200.00 w/2 megs Ram/40 megHD > and that crummy little 12 inch color monitor. Thats pretty ridiculous. > Educational price is almost half that. I have also read that Apple has licensed at > least one computer "superstore" to sell the Classic/SE30/LC/IIsi. It will bevery > interesting to see what happens to prices then! I'm sure that a superstore can > give the same level of support as a regualr dealer which from what I have seen is > non-existent. Pricing around here is VERY competitive, with LC 2/40 w/12" mono monitor going for less than $1900. BTW: on the subject of memory, Apple did design both the LC and the SI to take the mythical 16Mb simms, but until such beasts arrive, no one can really be sure if they will work - Apple tried before with 4Mb simms in the II series, and lost when the vendors added the wonderful "test" mode. Dale "Exterminate! Exterminate!" /~\-* ###--< /***\ /*****\
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/07/91)
tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) writes: >>The LC is also aimed squarely at 80386SX >Windows boxes, and it frequently beats them on both price and performance. >Well the educational price isn't bad but the dealer price is horrendous from >what I have seen. Local dealers are selling it for $3200.00 w/2 megs Ram/40 megHD and that crummy little 12 inch color monitor. Thats pretty ridiculous. It certainly is, considering that many dealers here are selling an equivalent combination for <$2200. In fact, one dealer is selling a 3rd party 14" monitor (with 640 x 480) together with a 2/40 LC for $2090. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics" - Lady Whiteadder
Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: > I would like to buy a Mac for home use and am trying to decide what > model is appropriate. At this point, both the LC and IIsi seem like > viable choices and I am trying to determine whether the IIsi is worth > the extra $1K to me. Well, since you get a good deal more for that extra grand, you have to decide if you need it. > Today, my requirements are fairly modest. I expect to use the machine > primarily for spreadsheets, word processing, and home finance programs. > I will probably get a black&white monitor rather than color. My primary > concerns are for longevity and future expandability. There are some limitations with the LC and some spreadsheet and financial programs... See below... > I have some specific technical questions about the two Macs but I would > also appreciate a pointer to a good technical reference about the Mac > line which I could read to answer these and other questions. If these > are FAQ or the subject of recent discussions, a pointer to a > comp.sys.mac.* archive would be helpful. These should probably go into the FAQ list, and may already be there. I'm not sure.... > 1) Memory capacity > > As memory continues its drop in price, I believe future Mac software > will require much more of it. The literature says the LC is limited to > 10 Mbytes and the IIsi to 17 Mbytes. What are these limits based on? > Will they be different when 16 Mbyte SIMMs are available? How many SIMM > slots does each of these machine have and what are the speed > requirements? The LC comes with 2 MB soldered to the motherboard and 2 SIMM slots. These slots can accept either 256K, 512K, 1Meg, 2Meg, or 4Meg Low Profile SIMMS. You must install the same type of SIMM into both slots, there fore the actual Ram would be 2.5 Meg, 3 Meg, 4 Meg, 6 Meg, and 10 Meg respectively. I will not be possible to put 16 Meg SIMMS into an LC because there isn't enough clearance for the chip within the casing. As it, the 4 Meg Low profile SIMMs just barely fit into my LC. The IISi comes with 1 Meg soldered to the mother board and 4 SIMM slots that must be filed with the same type of SIMM. This is a function of the 68030 architecture. It only recognizes memory in banks of four. Becuase the LC is an 020 it can handle bakes of two. The IIsi can accept all ranges of SIMMs that the LC can handle plus 16 Meg SIMMs once they have been released. This would result in the following RAM configurations: 2 Meg, 3 Meg, 5 Meg, 9 Meg, 17 Meg, and 65 Meg with 16 Meg SIMMs. In terms of speed requirements, I wouldn't put anything slower that 80 Ns in any of the newer Macs. > 2) Video performance > > How do the LC and the IIsi differ in their built-in video support? Does > using the built-in video slow down the machine? Is there a black&white > mode which can be used to reduce this slowdown? The LC has the superior on board video capabilities, because the screen image is stored in a special Video Ram SIMM. The IISi stores the video image in physical RAM and can, when running in 256 color mode, cause certain functions to happen slower than normal. As with all Macs that have color, you can use the Monitors cdev to run in 1 bit (B&W) mode. It is also possible to upgrade the LC Video Ram from the stadard 256k SIMM to a 512K SIMM giving the same video performace that you have with a stock IISi, and if you have the 12" RGB monitor you will have 16 bit(32,000) color. > 3) Expansion slots > > Both the LC and the IIsi appear to have expansion slots of some sort but > how many and what kind? (Neither appears to be a Nubus slot.) Do you > think the expansion slot on the LC is a dead-end? The expansion slot confusion with the new macs is always an issue for novice mac users. the LC comes with a PDS (Processor Direct Slot) for its 68020, and there are cards slowly appearing for the LC by many 3rd partt vendors. The IIsi, when you first get it, comes with an adaptor slot that you must fill with a special adaptor card. This adaptor card comes in two versions: one is a Nubus adaptor the other is an 030 PDS adaptor (the same slot in the SE30). Both of the adaptor cards comes with a 16 mHz 68882 math co-processor, that will improve the speed of many functions, the most important of which is probably spreadsheet programs. > 4) Other functional differences > > I understand that the LC cannot support virtual memory. However, I can > buy LOTS of real memory for the price difference between the LC and the > IIsi. This could still be a problem if the LC has architectural limits > which prevent it from being able to access lots of real memory. It is possible to purchace an expansion card for the LC that contains both the PMMU chip for Virtual Memory, and a 16 mHz 68882 co-processor which the LC also lacks out of the box. With out the PMMU the LC is limited to 10 Mb of real memory. It is a lot of memory, but if you plan on doing any heavy CAD or full color DTP it can become a tight squeeze. > Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the > IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the > future from running on the LC? Functional differences... Well the IIsi, is a mac II the LC isn't. That ,means that you must use the on/off switch in the back to turn the LC off, instead of having shut down do all the work for you. Other than that the only other real difference is the fact that the LC is a 16 mHz 68020, and the IIsi is a 20 mHz 68030. There is a substantial performance difference between the two chips that goes beyond just the clock speeds. Hmm... just thought of another functional difference that the IIsi and the LC both share with respect to earlier Macs. The new mac all have a smaller power supply unit. What this means is there are limits to the size of hard drive you can put into one of them, because of the power needed to keep it running. The IIsi has an 80 Mbyte configuration, and now so does the LC(at least this summer it will), but i wouldn't recommed you put anything larger than an 80 Mbyte drive into one of them. There are also limits on the types of Nubus cards that you can put into a IIsi because of the power supply limitations, although fortunately most vendors are coming out with IIsi compatible versions of there more popular cards. > Thanks in advance for your insights into these questions and for any > other observations on the LC and IIsi which you feel are important. > > ...Lou -Hades hades@Eleazar.Dartmouth.Edu Dartmouth Medical School Macintosh Database Aministrator / Consultant
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.192453.11305@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) writes: >In article <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> >lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: > In terms of speed requirements, I wouldn't put anything slower that >80 Ns in any of the newer Macs. The Apple specs say that the LC needs 120ns and the IIsi needs 100ns. >> 2) Video performance > > The LC has the superior on board video capabilities, because the >screen image is stored in a special Video Ram SIMM. The IISi stores the >video image in physical RAM and can, when running in 256 color mode, >cause certain functions to happen slower than normal. As with all Macs >that have color, you can use the Monitors cdev to run in 1 bit (B&W) >mode. It is also possible to upgrade the LC Video Ram from the stadard >256k SIMM to a 512K SIMM giving the same video performace that you have >with a stock IISi, and if you have the 12" RGB monitor you will have 16 >bit(32,000) color. Quibble: The LC cannot drive the Portrait and 2-Page monitors (no matter how much VRAM there is), while the IIsi can. >> Are there other important functional differences between the LC and the >> IIsi? Which of these might prevent some software which I buy in the >> future from running on the LC? > > Functional differences... Well the IIsi, is a mac II the LC isn't. >That ,means that you must use the on/off switch in the back to turn the >LC off, instead of having shut down do all the work for you. Other than >that the only other real difference is the fact that the LC is a 16 mHz >68020, and the IIsi is a 20 mHz 68030. There is a substantial >performance difference between the two chips that goes beyond just the >clock speeds. The main reason for the LC's slower speed is that the 68020 is connected to a 16-bit data bus (which, BTW, is the real reason you replace its SIMMs in groups of two) -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
michael@otago.ac.nz (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.192453.11305@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) writes: > The IISi comes with 1 Meg soldered to the mother board and 4 SIMM > slots that must be filed with the same type of SIMM. This is a function > of the 68030 architecture. It only recognizes memory in banks of four. > Becuase the LC is an 020 it can handle bakes of two. The IIsi can I'm afraid its nothing to do with the '020 v '030. Both CPUs have dynamic bus sizing and will talk to any width of RAM *if* the hardware design is set up to do this. The LC has been designed with 16-bit wide RAM to cut costs. The IIsi has 32-bit wide because its faster. Both of them would work with other widths of RAM if the hardware told them to. One could (I presume) stick a 32-bit wide RAM expansion card in an LC and get a speed-up as well as the additional capacity... >> 2) Video performance The most important difference for my money is that the IIsi will drive the Portrait display and the LC won't... > an 030 PDS adaptor (the same slot in the SE30). Both of the adaptor > cards comes with a 16 mHz 68882 math co-processor, that will improve > the speed of many functions, the most important of which is probably > spreadsheet programs. Mmph. I have trouble thinking of many "other functions". The Finder, no. I would be surprised if any word processors would gain the slightest advantage from the FPU. CAD packages, yes. MacDraw, anyone? Michael(tm) Hamel, Computing Services Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand HAMBLEDON (n.) The sound of a single-engined aircraft flying by, heard whilst lying in a summer field in England, which somehow concentrates the silence and sense of space and timelessness and leaves one with a profound feeling of something or other.
crum@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) (06/09/91)
The Mac LC seems to have two floppy disk insertion slots in the front of its case. Is anyone out there using or seen a Mac LC with two internal floppy disk drives? (Presumably such a system would be obtained by removing the 3.5" hard disk drive that Apple sells with LC systems and replacing it with a 3.5" floppy disk drive.) I'm interested in such a configuration because I don't like hardwired internal hard disk drive -- it makes it difficult (or at least less easy) to distinguish between software and hardware problems, and noisy big external hard disk drives can be placed far away from the console. I think the length limit of SCSI is around 9 meters. I have had no problems using my 10 foot SCSI entension cable with Macintosh systems, anyway. Thanks, Gary
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (06/10/91)
Actually, I wonder about the economics of the LC design. In today's world of single-board CPUs, and falling memory prices, I can't see how a 16-bit bus saves much money. Apple has included a separate video ram in the LC, probably due to the slowness of the 16-bit bus, which increases the cost of the design. Last I checked, 256K of video DRAM was in the $30-$40 price range. How much money would it have cost apple to provide two extra simm sockets and more wires on the PC board of the LC? Less than $40? --
ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.091308.506@otago.ac.nz> michael@otago.ac.nz writes: >In article <1991Jun9.203402.15701@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >> Actually, I wonder about the economics of the LC design. In today's >> world of single-board CPUs, and falling memory prices, I can't see how >> a 16-bit bus saves much money.... >> How much money would it have cost >> apple to provide two extra simm sockets and more wires on the PC board >> of the LC? Less than $40? > >It may be the "more wires" that are the problem, making the board more >expensive. I find this difficult to believe, though. They manage to get 32 bits >to the ROMs, so why not to the RAM? I fear we are seeing the dead hand of >marketing in action, i.e this is a low cost machine ergo it must have lower >performance... > Maybe marketing was considering the target market and that adding memory in 2Meg increments instead of 4Meg would be very attractive to the cost sensitive educational market. Just a thought. Mike Ching
DON.NOLL@p3425.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (DON NOLL) (06/10/91)
TL> From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) TL> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware TL> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana TL> I don't completely agree with your enthusiasm for the LC, I have seen alot TL> TL> of software compatibility problems with it. Also the power supply is way TL> too TL> small, intentionally crippled by Apple to prevent 3rd party upgrades. I would say that Apple made the LC the way they did because of maunfacturing costs. It is cheap and built to stay that way........... If you want an SI or a CI, Buy one, don;t gripe. TANSTAAFL * Origin: Don's Point, Get it? (1:109/421.3425)
michael@otago.ac.nz (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun9.203402.15701@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: > Actually, I wonder about the economics of the LC design. In today's > world of single-board CPUs, and falling memory prices, I can't see how > a 16-bit bus saves much money.... > How much money would it have cost > apple to provide two extra simm sockets and more wires on the PC board > of the LC? Less than $40? It may be the "more wires" that are the problem, making the board more expensive. I find this difficult to believe, though. They manage to get 32 bits to the ROMs, so why not to the RAM? I fear we are seeing the dead hand of marketing in action, i.e this is a low cost machine ergo it must have lower performance... Michael(tm) Hamel, Computing Services Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand MAVESYN RIDWARE (n.) The stuff belonging to a mavis enderby (q.v.) which keeps turning up in odd corners of your house.
ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) (06/10/91)
ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: >I think the >entire LC concept is a dead letter from the get-go. It is intended do >directly attack the K-6 market and to replace the Apple IIgs/IIe. While >it seems to do this just fine, it doesn't solve my problems or most users'. It seems like you have looked at the LC, asking yourself "Do I really get a Mac II for half the price?", and of course you didn't. If we look at the price ranges, the Classic replaced the Plus and the LC replaced the SE. (Note that Plus and Classic are not expandable, while SE and LC has one slot.) Quite a good replacement for an SE, I'd say. 3 times as fast, much larger screen (12" grayscale), can take max 10 megs instead of 4. Of course the IIsi is better, but it is much more expensive. There is a good reason why Apple didn't name the LC "IIlc". It just isn't a Mac II. It isn't priced as one, either. -- Ingemar Ragnemalm Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se
hodas@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.091308.506@otago.ac.nz> michael@otago.ac.nz writes: >In article <1991Jun9.203402.15701@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >> Actually, I wonder about the economics of the LC design. In today's >> world of single-board CPUs, and falling memory prices, I can't see how >> a 16-bit bus saves much money.... >> How much money would it have cost >> apple to provide two extra simm sockets and more wires on the PC board >> of the LC? Less than $40? > >It may be the "more wires" that are the problem, making the board more >expensive. I find this difficult to believe, though. They manage to get 32 bits >to the ROMs, so why not to the RAM? I fear we are seeing the dead hand of >marketing in action, i.e this is a low cost machine ergo it must have lower >performance... Perhaps, god forbid, they had the consumer in mind as well. Perhaps, with a target in the lowend market, they wanted to allow the consumer to upgrade the machine without laying out for four simms. I know all of you "Apple is the root of all marketing evil" folks will disagree, but I remeber back a little while when II owners were whining about how much they had to lay out when they felt they really only needed a small upgrade. Just an idea Josh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Hodas Home Phone: (215) 222-7112 4223 Pine Street School Office Phone: (215) 898-9514 Philadelphia, PA 19104 New E-Mail Address: hodas@saul.cis.upenn.edu
tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) (06/10/91)
DON.NOLL@p3425.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (DON NOLL) writes: >TL> From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel) >TL> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware >TL> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana >TL> I don't completely agree with your enthusiasm for the LC, I have seen alot >TL> >TL> of software compatibility problems with it. Also the power supply is way >TL> too >TL> small, intentionally crippled by Apple to prevent 3rd party upgrades. >I would say that Apple made the LC the way they did because of maunfacturing >costs. It is cheap and built to stay that way........... >If you want an SI or a CI, Buy one, don;t gripe. >TANSTAAFL There have been many. many complaints about the power supply in the LC which is often described by reviewers and users as "anemic". Many of us remember the crummy power supply in the Mac Plus which was well know for needing replacement. I know several people who had to replace their Mac Plus power suply 2 and 3 times at a cost of several hundred dollars each time. If I were to buy an LC I would expect to have a decent power supply that I wouldn't have to worry about replcaing. I doubt very much that a power supply is an expensive item. If they can do it for the SE/30 surely they can do it for the LC. BTW I don't want an si or ci, I have an SE/30 with 24 bit color and am happy with that. I > * Origin: Don's Point, Get it? (1:109/421.3425)
@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) (06/11/91)
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.192453.11305@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) writes: >> >> The LC has the superior on board video capabilities, because the >> ... >Quibble: The LC cannot drive the Portrait and 2-Page monitors (no matter >how much VRAM there is), while the IIsi can. What prevents the LC from being able to drive the larger monitors? Is it possible to use large monochrome or black & white monitors with the LC? >-- >John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu -- Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway 503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063
crum@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) (06/11/91)
Today's Wall Street Journal mentioned that Macintosh Classic and Macintosh LC computers will be sold by CompUSA, a large discount retailer. Does CompUSA take orders by phone (and credit card)? Does anyone know if or when CompUSA is selling Macintosh computers, and how to contact them? I have some relatives and friends to refer to them if their prices are closer to educational/developer prices than list prices. Gary
dinapoli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ron DiNapoli) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun7.214930.9822@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.192453.11305@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) writes: >>In article <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> >>lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: >> In terms of speed requirements, I wouldn't put anything slower that >>80 Ns in any of the newer Macs. > >The Apple specs say that the LC needs 120ns and the IIsi needs 100ns. > The LC needs 100ns or faster SIMMs. This is clearly documented in Technical Note #176 "Macintosh Memory Configurations" on page 6. On the upper left hand corner of the page there is a picture of the LC motherboard showing the location of the SIMMs slots. The caption reads Macintosh LC (RAM SIMMs must be 100nS RAS-access time or faster) This is stated again on page 7 under the heading of "Macintosh LC" --Ron D.
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun11.114430.6225@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, dinapoli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ron DiNapoli) writes: > In article <1991Jun7.214930.9822@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > >In article <1991Jun7.192453.11305@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Brian.V.Hughes@dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) writes: > >>In article <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> > >>lff@sequent.com (Lou Fernandez) writes: > >> In terms of speed requirements, I wouldn't put anything slower that > >>80 Ns in any of the newer Macs. > > > >The Apple specs say that the LC needs 120ns and the IIsi needs 100ns. > > > > The LC needs 100ns or faster SIMMs. This is clearly documented in Technical > Note #176 "Macintosh Memory Configurations" on page 6. On the upper left > hand corner of the page there is a picture of the LC motherboard showing the > location of the SIMMs slots. The caption reads > > Macintosh LC > (RAM SIMMs must be 100nS RAS-access time or faster) > > This is stated again on page 7 under the heading of "Macintosh LC" > > --Ron D. This back and forth stream intrigues me because it is fully likely that Apple has made both claims in different advertisements. They are well known for this. I don't think it is really worth arguing about. I can tell you however, that I have put 120ns SIMMs into many Mac LC's and have never seen any problems. However unless you already have the SIMMs this should not be an issue because many places would charge you more for 120 (or even 100ns) SIMMs than 80ns. This is because the 80ns are available in higher quantity. Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu PS. Interesting footnote. In Apple's repair manual which they give to Apple Authorized repair centers, the CPU in the Mac IIfx is listed as a 33MHz 68030. This is understandable because that is what was orignally going to be used. It is still funny that Apple shipped these repair guides with that mistake in them. Have a good day!!
michael@otago.ac.nz (06/12/91)
In article <44397@netnews.upenn.edu>, hodas@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) writes: > Perhaps, god forbid, they had the consumer in mind as well. > > Perhaps, with a target in the lowend market, they wanted to allow the > consumer to upgrade the machine without laying out for four simms. Actually it wouldn't have been difficult to deal with that as well: just have the bit that tells the CPU whether its talking to a 16-bit or a 32-bit port for the DRAM configurable, either by way of a jumper on the board or better yet in software when the ROM starts up. So you could have two or four SIMMs according to your budget, although folks might complain about the slowdown when they swapped from 4 1M SIMMs to 2 4M SIMMs - imagine all the messages saying "You mean I put more memory in this thing and now it runs *slower*?"... Michael(tm) Hamel, Computing Services Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand FINUGE (vb.) In any division of foodstuffs equally between several people, to give yourself the extra slice left over.
ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.094617.517@otago.ac.nz> michael@otago.ac.nz writes: >In article <44397@netnews.upenn.edu>, hodas@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) writes: > >> Perhaps, god forbid, they had the consumer in mind as well. >> >> Perhaps, with a target in the lowend market, they wanted to allow the >> consumer to upgrade the machine without laying out for four simms. > >Actually it wouldn't have been difficult to deal with that as well: just have >the bit that tells the CPU whether its talking to a 16-bit or a 32-bit port for >the DRAM configurable, either by way of a jumper on the board or better yet in >software when the ROM starts up. So you could have two or four SIMMs >according to your budget, although folks might complain about the slowdown >when they swapped from 4 1M SIMMs to 2 4M SIMMs - imagine all the messages >saying "You mean I put more memory in this thing and now it runs *slower*?"... > Why not make the base machine 16 bits wide and have the 2 expansion SIMMs change it to 32 bits? Isn't Apple lucky to have all of us designing their machine for them? :-) Mike Ching