unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/24/90)
In article <2176@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >In some article w/a# nobody understands, I wrote: >>[I made a statement about how the //e is redundant with the IIc+ out] >Not so fast, there! Can you expand a IIc Plus? How much RAM can you stick in >it? A RamWorks III is supposed to be able to take up to 16 megs, plus RGB and >a 65816. How fast can you make a IIc Plus go? A Zip Chip probably won't work >in it, and I know a TransWarp III won't work. Well I think you can put as much memory in a //c as you can in a //e but I may be wrong. Do you have any reasons as to why you know/think a Zip Chip wouldn't work in a //c??? You --seem-- to imply that it's obvious that it wouldn't work, and I don't see that it is, when a //e is basically the same as a //c... >Five years ago I picked a IIe over a IIc for one simple reason: the IIe can be >easily and cheaply upgraded and expanded. The same, IMHO, holds true for any >comparison between a IIe and IIc Plus. Given a choice between those two >computers, I would still buy a IIe. (Add a IIGS to those choices, though, and >I would probably decide differently. :-) ) Well, your statement about adding a GS to the choices is also part of my point too.. The GS is the 'high end' Apple II, and the IIc+ is the low end/ portable Apple II... We got our //e the Christmas before the IIc came out I believe.. At -first- I was sort of disappointed that we didn't get the 'state of the art' (i.e. NEWEST, which were equivalent in my head.. which wasn't true) Apple II. But then I realized it was good I had the //e.. But that same exact argument doesn't work now since the GS is out. The //e and the IIc are virtually identical, I believe.. I mean from a user perspective.. The IIc has built in serial ports right?! So you don't need serial cards... So, them being virtually identical (from a user-standpoint), it's silly to sell two computers that are the same... Apple does it all the time seemingly with the Macs but that's the same silliness.. -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (10/25/90)
In article <8140@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > Well I think you can put as much memory in a //c as you can in a >//e but I may be wrong. A RamWorks III will hold up to 3 megs. A RamFactor will hold up to 5 megs. You can put one RamWorks III and one or more RamFactors in a IIe. A Z-Ram, on the other hand, is limited to 1 meg. (Same for the Ram Express, if I remember right.) > Do you have any reasons as to why you know/think a Zip Chip wouldn't >work in a //c??? You --seem-- to imply that it's obvious that it wouldn't >work, and I don't see that it is, when a //e is basically the same as a >//c... Actually, I think I said that the Zip Chip probably wouldn't work in a IIc _Plus_. (<--very big difference there) Looking at any ad for a Zip Chip will tell you that the Zip Chip will indeed work in a IIc. The IIc Plus's built-in increased speed would probably wreak havoc with a Zip Chip. > So, them being virtually identical (from a user-standpoint), >it's silly to sell two computers that are the same... Apple does it all >the time seemingly with the Macs but that's the same silliness.. The point I'm making, though, is that the IIe and IIc/IIc Plus are _not_ the same. They are hardly identical, either. Did the bit about music cards, A/D-D/A boards, etc. go by without your noticing it? More memory, more speed (the TransWarp III is supposed to be upgradable), more this-and-that... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/25/90)
In article <8140@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > The //e and the IIc are virtually identical, I believe.. I >mean from a user perspective.. The IIc has built in serial ports right?! >So you don't need serial cards... You may not need a serial card, but you could well use many other peripherals that have no provisions built into the //c. The //c was intended to be used like an "appliance", but was underpowered and undersupported for that purpose. With peripheral slots, a ][+, //e, or IIGS owner could easily add functionality.
ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu (Visual Editor) (10/26/90)
In article <2195@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >A RamWorks III will hold up to 3 megs. A RamFactor will hold up to 5 megs. >You can put one RamWorks III and one or more RamFactors in a IIe. A Z-Ram, >on the other hand, is limited to 1 meg. (Same for the Ram Express, if I >remember right.) I thought I remembered ads for 16 Megabyte Memory Cards on the //e. Did I imagine that? I thought it was Ramworks III, but I guess it could be Checkmate Memory Expansion, or some such thing. Eric Hsu ehsu@husc9.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (10/27/90)
In article <4523@husc6.harvard.edu> ehsu@husc9.UUCP (Visual Editor) writes: >I thought I remembered ads for 16 Megabyte Memory Cards on the //e. Did I >imagine that? I thought it was Ramworks III, but I guess it could be >Checkmate Memory Expansion, or some such thing. I used to see AE ads long ago (long before I got my RamWorks III) that said to call for prices on a RamWorks with 3-16 megs. The capability is probably there, but it's mainly workstations (Sun, NeXT, etc.) that would use anywhere near 16 megs. All they advertise anymore are the card itself (which takes up to 1 meg in either 64K or 256K DRAMs), a 512K piggyback (using 256K DRAMs), and a 2-meg piggyback (using 1 meg DRAMs). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/