ar4@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (01/22/90)
In the next month or so I will be afforded the opportunity to buy a new Mac.
My questions are:
1) Is the IIci worth $1000 more than the IIcx?
I know that the IIcx would require a video card, and that puts the two
within $500 of each other.
2) What is the real FEEL of the difference in performance?
I would rather have a FEEL of speed comparison than a benchmark
comparison.
3) Is there enough software out there that doesn't work with the IIci to
make it not as attractive a buy as the IIcx??
P.S. Keep in mind that I work regularly on an SE and that either computer will
be a tremendous step up in the world for me.
--Piper Keairnes
ar4@mace.cc.purdue.eduwilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (01/22/90)
In article <3892@mace.cc.purdue.edu> ar4@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: >In the next month or so I will be afforded the opportunity to buy a new Mac. >My questions are: > >1) Is the IIci worth $1000 more than the IIcx? > I know that the IIcx would require a video card, and that puts the two > within $500 of each other. > >2) What is the real FEEL of the difference in performance? > I would rather have a FEEL of speed comparison than a benchmark > comparison. > >3) Is there enough software out there that doesn't work with the IIci to > make it not as attractive a buy as the IIcx?? Since you say you normally work on an SE, I'm not sure that speed would be the big issue for you. However, the IIci does have a couple of advantages, including updated and bug-fixed ROM that has much better support for 32-bit addressing, which will be useful in the future. That and the speed were worth $500 to me when I bought mine. :-) However, there are compatibility issues with products which fiddle with low-level things. Certain programs, for example Cricket Graph 1.3.1 (for which a patch was recently posted to the Info-Mac Digest) access the ROMs directly, which because of the updates is a problem. Probably the biggest non-speed issue is that now, and in the future, you will have to deal with fewer ROM patches which means that your system heap will be smaller and you will have more memory to play with. If you are on a 1 meg system this is important now. If you want a 2 meg or greater system, this probably won't matter so much until new system software is released, but that won't be more than a year AT WORST, probably 6 months, and I guess you will probably have your system longer than that. If the extra $500 causes you any qualms at all, though, you probably will be happier with a IIcx. I'd say unless the speed is an issue for you, as it is for me, you will find it's a close call. -- Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (01/22/90)
Sorry to post multiple messages, but I forgot to say that in my view the difference in feel between a IIcx and a IIci is probably not noticeable unless you have used a IIcx regularly for a few months and move to a IIci. Working on a IIci for a while, though, makes a IIcx seem quite slow. Again, either way you probably won't mind.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (01/23/90)
There is supposed to be a workstation mac released this spring, see
MacWeek. You might wait to make a decision.
My opinion is that a IIci is a poor design because it is unbalanced.
It's got this blazing CPU, but the disk I/O and NuBus are no faster,
and the primitive 640*480*8 bit display card slows down the CPU (must
be that Apple graphics card sales are waning...), and for all this, you
get to pay a lot of extra money (and even more later, when cache cards
get popular).
For the money, you could get a IIcx and 32-bit graphics (supermac),
and have the option of adding a quickdraw graphics accelerator later.
The IIci *should* have heralded a new generation of macintoshes, with
disk DMA interface at the very least, or perhaps a 20Mhz Nubus, or a
56000 signal processor, or a QuickDraw accelerator, or just about
*anything* but what they released.
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesnews@calgary.UUCP (Network News Manager) (01/23/90)
From: sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) Path: cpsc!sharp ar4@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: The questions ... and my answers >1) Is the IIci worth $1000 more than the IIcx? YES YES YES !! (he comments on the video card) >2) What is the real FEEL of the difference in performance? I have used everything from a 128 to the IIci (I now own one). I regularly paper prep (MacDraw II, Word 4.0), programming (LSC, ParcPlace smalltalk), I also play games (Flacon, Patton vs. Rommel, etc), and I do some database development (4D). The later stuff I have done regularly on everything from a Plus to the IIci. The bottom line.... The IIci HUMS, she really COOKS. But do not bother with less than 5 megs (I had 5 and went to 8 due to development work). I am told that with a cache card, she really humms. >3) Is there enough software out there that doesn't work with the IIci to > make it not as attractive a buy as the IIcx?? Absolutley pointless point. There is no important piece of software that either does not work now or is soon to work. After all, the software companies want their money. >P.S. Keep in mind that I work regularly on an SE and that either computer will > be a tremendous step up in the world for me. Your final point is taken, but if you can afford the Penthouse for a few percent more bucks than the Bridal suite, take it ! It is a much better investment of your money. Of all the machines, the IIci has the most upgradeable architecture. maurice Maurice Sharp MSc. Student University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp
jay@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Jay O'Conor) (01/24/90)
In article <135600013@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >There is supposed to be a workstation mac released this spring, see >MacWeek. You might wait to make a decision. > >My opinion is that a IIci is a poor design because it is unbalanced. >It's got this blazing CPU, but the disk I/O and NuBus are no faster, >and the primitive 640*480*8 bit display card slows down the CPU (must >be that Apple graphics card sales are waning...), and for all this, you >get to pay a lot of extra money (and even more later, when cache cards >get popular). I'm not sure that I agree. While there is certainly room for greater hardware performance improvement, the IIci is certainly a credible system. I could understand your complaint if it used 100-120ns memory, but with the 80ns memory and the option of a cache card, the CPU/memory part of the system is certainly balanced. There is nothing that keeps the CPU from running at near full speed. The use of the '030s burst mode is also necessary to achieve a balanced CPU/memory system, and the IIci uses it. > >For the money, you could get a IIcx and 32-bit graphics (supermac), >and have the option of adding a quickdraw graphics accelerator later. Bleecch! The IIcx is only a 16Mhz '030, and 100ns memory speed. No burst mode, and no option for a cache card. You can always put a 32-bit graphics card in the IIci and you still have the option of adding a quickdraw graphics accelerator later - just like the IIcx. What's the difference? > >The IIci *should* have heralded a new generation of macintoshes, with >disk DMA interface at the very least, or perhaps a 20Mhz Nubus, or a >56000 signal processor, or a QuickDraw accelerator, or just about >*anything* but what they released. I don't think that these _features_ really make a balanced system. They are just that - features. Yes I would like DMA and a Quickdraw accelerator - but those are additional features that would go into an even higher performance system. The IIci hits a certain price/performance point and it's a good one. DMA, 20Mhz Nubus, 56000 DSP, and Quickdraw accelerator hit a totally different price/performance point - one that I doubt that _I_ could afford! > > >Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois >1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 >ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies Jay O'Conor Unisys/Convergent