eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) (11/29/90)
I am puzzled. I have seen the new Macs, and I appreciate the price cuts. But it seems that every one of the three machines has something awkward. It seems like Apple has been making strange decisions, and I can't understand them. Can somebody shed light? Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Is it that more expensive? If so, was it absolutely impossible to speed up that old timer? And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that much more expensive than a 68020? Will Motorola continue for long to produce that chip, or will it not streamline to fewer models, like Intel did? Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture? How much more would it have been to support eight bit color on the 13 inch monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one? 10$? 20$? And that would have been compatible with the IIsi and the IIci... And why does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? How much did that save? Is there a good reason for not having the same slot as the IIsi? Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? Is it only so that it does not cannibalize the IIci, or is there a real difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot? Maybe there are good answers to these questions. I have been waiting for them ever since the new Macs were first described in MacWeek in September. It's been almost three months now, and I'm still waiting. Until I get those answers, I will fight that nasty thought crawling to my mind that Apple has been either greedy, lazy, or incompetent. You see, before I can convince myself, or anyone else, to spend big money on those computers, I need to reasonably understand why they are so awkward. Or why they're not. Eric. ========= Oh, and while we're at it, why hasn't Apple come out with a "IIcfx", a 3-slot fx? Hasn't it learned from the huge success of the IIcx that most people don't need 6 slots but only three? Don't we all long for that small footprint? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Brunelle | "Une civilisation repose BNR-Montreal (Recherches Bell-Northern)| sur ce qui est exige des hommes, Verdun, Quebec H3E 1H6 | non sur ce qui leur est fourni" eric%bnrmtl@iro.umontreal.ca | -- St-Ex ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes: > I am puzzled. I have seen the new Macs, and I appreciate the price cuts. > But it seems that every one of the three machines has something awkward. > It seems like Apple has been making strange decisions, and I can't > understand them. Can somebody shed light? Apple is in business to make money. This isn't all that strange, it happens to a lot of companies. > Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it > possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? I would have thought they'd go with something faster too. On the other hand (from what I understand) they can't manufacture enough classics to keep up with the demand for the machine as it is. To me this sounds like they made a smart enough business decision. > And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that > much more expensive than a 68020? Will Motorola continue for long to > produce that chip, or will it not streamline to fewer models, like Intel > did? Depends on how well the LC does, I imagine. If Apple is selling thousands of LC's per month, I imagine Motorola might be willing to keep the production going. They're in business to make money too, after all. > Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of > having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture? Not quite sure what you're saying here. The 68020 isn't all that weird an architecture (if you're refering to the 68020 here...), there's plenty of accelerator boards that use it, for instance. I've got one. Nobody adapted any programs so I could run them on my 68020 machine. Some games don't work, but then the same games don't work on a 68030 either. > How much more would it have been to support eight bit color on the 13 > inch monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one? 10$? 20$? And > that would have been compatible with the IIsi and the IIci... And why > does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? How much did that save? Is there > a good reason for not having the same slot as the IIsi? I'd expect it's more than $20. Not a lot more, but if you sell enough machines then $20-$70 per machine can mean millions of dollars to your profit margin. If they don't sell enough machines, well, then they goofed and they will pay for it in lost sales. > Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? > Is it only so that it does not cannibalize the IIci, or is there a real > difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot? Why not a 50Mhz one? Why not 8 Meg in the minimum configuration? Why not sell it for $1500? Why not give you a case of really great beer with it? They could probably do all those things and still make a few bucks per machine, and we'd all be thrilled. Apple is not in business to thrill us, it's in business to make money. The machines, as is, are apparently thrilling enough people that Apple is selling them at a pretty rapid rate. And Apple is making a good profit per machine. Sounds like a smart business move. I suppose we could sit here and answer every one of these individual points (assuming somebody knows the answers), but none of these are the real issue. There's one and only one question you have to answer, "Is this machine worth enough to me that I want to buy it?". All other questions are somewhat meaningless. If the IIsi, as is, has more value to you than the $$$ it costs to get one, buy the machine. If not, don't buy it. If the machine, as is, is worth enough to you that you will buy the machine, as is, then you have answered all the above questions with the statement "Whatever reason they had, they made the right decision". The important question is not "why did you build the machine you built?", it's "will people buy the machine you built?". If the answer to that is "no", then the next question is "why won't they buy it?". Both of those important questions are answered by the marketplace. > ... I will fight that nasty thought crawling to my mind that Apple has > been either greedy, lazy, or incompetent. Greedy? Perhaps (at least with the LC and IIsi). Lazy? Incompetent? The marketplace at the moment is saying those accusations are wrong (though it would have agreed with you a year ago, and it may agree with you again a year from now...). Capitalist? Yes. Certainly. Were you expecting something else? Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca>, eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes... >I am puzzled. I have seen the new Macs, and I appreciate the price cuts. Greedy compromises? I'd say smart business decisions. Our site has many $5000-era Mac II's that we'd gladly swap for some of the "compromised" new Macs. Our techies use IIci's and IIcx's -- only one of them has more than one board; the lone second does 8-bit video; that's on board in the IIsi. Our secretaries use $2000-plus SE's -- not a single PDS card in use. Classics would have saved us alot of money, not to mention that they will be compatible with Apple system software for much longer. For the odd bird that uses the Mac II in order to have simple color, the LC is a great buy! The real ugly ducklings in the Mac product line were, in retrospect, the Mac II -- a 6-slot schoolbus with a VW engine, and the original SE -- ever look inside on of those suckers? By the time a large enough selection of boards was available to allow us to consider 'special board' tasks on the Mac instead of IBM-PCs, the newer Macs like the IIcx fit the need better. The IIx probably doesn't need to be mentioned ... Our site never used any of the expandability features of these Macs ... they just gave the old ones to less demanding users and bought new ones to satisfy demanding users (or administrators .... ;-) ) For the individual that is worried about missing a chance at upgrading down the road -- remember that no super upgrade deals emerged as a result of the inclusion of slots in SE's and II's. Sure, you can buy an accelerator board for an SE or a plus -- but after you fry the analog board you've basically paid alot of money to keep the plastic casing from your old computer! So send us your new Mac's from 'greedy, compromising' Apple! We have some great, expandable, uncompromising Mac's that will solve all your problems ... Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) (11/29/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> > eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes: >Apple is in business to make money. This isn't all that strange, it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >production going. They're in business to make money too, after all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >us, it's in business to make money. The machines, as is, are apparently ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> been either greedy, lazy, or incompetent. ^^^^^^ >Greedy? Perhaps (at least with the LC and IIsi). Lazy? Incompetent? ^^^^^^ >Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu >ITS Systems Programmer >Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA I'm quite sure Apple exist to make money, it would be nice if they could give us something back for it too. I'm sorry, but a while back many people were complaining that one university or other was charging $10 or $20 more or less than another one and I just have to laugh. I live in Australia and the prices that Apple Australia charge for a Macintosh you would not believe. We wind up paying roughly 2 to 2.5 times what you do in the U.S. I was considering investing in an LC with 13" AppleColor Hi-Res monitor and the 512K Video DRAM card when I heard about the new Macs and inquired about the price. Just $AUS 4972. And that's at consortium prices. I hate to think what one of the local dealers would shaft me for, probably add another couple grand easy. Just to give you an idea the Apple Australia recommended price in 1990 for an SE/30 2mb/HD40 was $AUS 9,950 (that's from the official price list). A Mac IIfx Colour System (IIfx 4/80, 4-8 display card, Hi-Res RGB Monitor, extended keyboard) set you back $AUS 19,025. Is Apple greedy? YOU BET THEY ARE. (P.S. I don't need any accusations of being a Mac-hater. I've got a 512K(not E) and an SE - I wouldn't use anything else.) -- + John Mazzocchi + "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, + + Melbourne, Victoria + but a fire to be lighted" - Plutarch + + Australia + + rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au +
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (11/29/90)
eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes: >Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it >possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Is it that more >expensive? If so, was it absolutely impossible to speed up that old timer? As a matter of interest, does anyone know how difficult it will be for Apple to redesign the Classic motherboard to put in a 16MHz 68000? My feeling, when the 8MHz number became fact, was that surely Apple will bring out an upgraded Classic (the Classic Plus??) within a short time frame, which will increase the processor speed to a more respectable 16MHz. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Dear Fascist Bully Boy, Give me some money, or else. Neil. P.S. May the seed of your loins be fruitful in the womb of your woman..."
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> > How much more would it have been to support eight bit color on the 13 > inch monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one? 10$? 20$? And > that would have been compatible with the IIsi and the IIci... You *can* get 8-bit color on the 13-inch monitor; all you have to do is install an additional VRAM SIMM, which I believe sells for ~$100. > And why does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? How much did that save? > Is there a good reason for not having the same slot as the IIsi? Because the LC was designed to compete directly against the IBM PS2 Model 55SX, which has a 16-bit data bus and uses the 16/32-bit i80386SX. Rumor had it, at one time, that the LC would use 16/32-bit version of the 68030 (sort of a 030SX) called the 68025, but that chip apparently failed to materialize, so Apple used the 68020, which is available, instead. Perhaps something like the 68025 might be used on a future version of the LC. > Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? Probably because the cost of designing and manufacturing a circuit board goes up so quickly as you increase the clock speed. Besides, it replaces a 16-Mhz machine.
hodas@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (11/30/90)
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >Our secretaries use $2000-plus SE's -- not a single PDS card in use. >Classics would have saved us alot of money, not to mention that they >will be compatible with Apple system software for much longer. What do you mean here? The SE and the Classic (and the plus for that matter) should be virtually identical with regards to system software support. I am not aware of any hardware changes that were made that should increase the ability of the classic to run future systems over the SE. (unless you consider the ability to control brightness from the control panel a vital system software enhancement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) (11/30/90)
you cannot answer all question about why company a did b by saying they did it to make money. It's true, of course. It's also stupid. It's like answering "why did the chicken cross the road" with "to get to the other side" it is possible to get more detailed answers and it is possible to derive benfit from those answers We cannot say "x million people bought the classic, therefore apple was right not to use a 16mz 68000" We have to ask "would x+y million have bought it if they had gone 16mz?" You can bet apple asked. They need to hear from those "y" people if they were wrong about how big "y" is. The issues raised here need to be voiced and people from apple DO read this. they need our feed back if they are going to decide how to sell us more macs. We want them to make a prodect we will buy so we win too! Ranting on about how all apples decisions are made to increase profits doesn't tell US anything we don't know and doesn't tell THEM anything they don't know. for example - here at Academic computing at OSU we probably would have bought a ton of LCs if it had a 68030 - even with the needed price increase. very likely we will buy ms-dos machines instead. Why ? - we want big screens (for word processing-color is only a minor factor), and something close to current technology, at a reasonable cost. I love macs. Amazingly, OSU will not spend huge amounts of money on them for that reason alone. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! | |_____________________________________________________________________________| | Microcomputer software support, | treeves@magnus.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU |
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) (11/30/90)
I must admit, I am not thrilled with Apple's new machines either. One of the nice things about Macintosh computers was that they did what you wanted them to do, without a whole lot of hastle. Like the wonderful GUI. But these new machines... yikes! Just keeping up with all the little "oddities" of each machine is enough to make you go crazy. Like.... * "OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to the ROM." * "And "The IIsi comes with 2 meg and has color, but unlike the other machines, it uses main memory for video, so you loose up to 320K for 256 colors. So 2 meg on a IIsi isn't like 2 Meg on another machine. Will it have enough room for System 7.0?" * "Then the IIsi is very fast and has color, but Mac II machines with seperate NuBus video cards do graphics faster because they have their own memory." * "To get a numeric coprocessor for the IIsi you have to buy an adapter card. Either one which allows you to connect a NuBus card, or one that allows you to connect an SE/30 board. The LC has no Numeric Coprocessor option, unless someone comes out with one on an expansion card. The Classic doesn't have one, as expected." * I won't even try to sort out all the monitor options for the LC. Yikes! * The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, and can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, and is expandable to 17 Meg. Then there are all the different configurations and new SIMM sizes.... And one thing you almost never had to worry about on any computer was power. Expansion cards on the LC and IIsi will have to have very small power budgets, and it looks like many NuBus cards will have problems. To quote Andrew Lewis, president of DayStar Digital (MacWeek 11/6/90), "'Almost all the products we've done have busted the power budget.'" According to MacWeek, many times when this happens, you'll have to replace the whole motherbaord! How many NuBus cards available now list power useage? Yet another thing we have to watch out for.... My point is this. Indeed, as many people have pointed out, much of this complexity is a result of Apple trying to minimize cost. Apple has always been expensive, and I've always been willing to pay their prices, because you would get a machine that was powerful and yet elegant. It had much of the hardware abilities of AT clones, but it wasn't such a mess to get a full system together. On top of its GUI, I felt it was well worth it. But now that Apple is making life much more complicated (in my opinion), espcially considering that at least two of these machines are meant for people who don't want to buy big complicated systems, and the recent advent of that "new machine" (I won't dare mention it's name :-) with, what I consider, as good and maybe better GUI, I'm not as pro-Mac as I used to be. Not to mention its price.... I teach introductory computer courses to some people who have never even used a computer before. One lady came and took one of my classes because she couldn't use the computer card system in our local library. At the end of the course, I usually give the students a run down of the Macintosh line, because many enjoyed using it so much they wanted to buy one. It was getting a little difficult for a while there with so many different models. But trying to explain the differences and little things to be aware of about these new machines is going to give me one big headache. With the original Macintosh lines, there wasn't all these "catches" you had to watch out for. As I've said before, I don't think Apple is the same company it used to be. They used to be very concerend with quailty and innovation. You had to pay for it, but I thought it was worth it. Now Apple is showing signs of making the Mac line look as clouded as the IBM clone market. Money is more important to them than it used to be. This I think is at our expense. And except for maybe the Classic, these machines still aren't as super-cheap. If anyone can cheer me up now ;-( I'd really appreicate it.... :-) __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: > you cannot answer all question about why company a did b by saying they did it > to make money. It's true, of course. It's also stupid. It's like answering > "why did the chicken cross the road" with "to get to the other side" > > it is possible to get more detailed answers and it is possible to derive benfit > from those answers Yes, right. One of the drawbacks of this "It makes money therefore it's good" logic is it is too short-term. Here's a little homework exercise. Fill in the following table: model 128K 512K 512Ke Plus SE SE/30 II IIx IIcx IIci IIsi Classic Portable slot type (check all that apply) none PDS PDS/20 PDS/30 PDS/40 NuBus RAM installation (check all that apply) soldered SIMM card CPU 68000 68020 68030 Clock speed 8MHz 16MHz 20MHz 25MHz 40MHz PMMU extra in CPU none Cache extra built in none DMA (y/n) Floating point unit 68881 68882 optional none Power Supply 90-250V fixed voltage battery QuickDraw color original I will be interested if you can see any pattern in this (no, please _do not_ send me the completed table). The point I am making is Apple lacks a clear sense of direction. This must be very disturbing for third-party hardware manufacturers, who have to decide which of 6 methods of adding hardware to support. And surely this unnecessary proliferation of variations hurts Apple's ability to bring products quickly to market, and to further develop them. (Including system software.) -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: >for example - here at Academic computing at OSU we probably would have bought >a ton of LCs if it had a 68030 - even with the needed price increase. > >very likely we will buy ms-dos machines instead. Why ? - we want big screens >(for word processing-color is only a minor factor), and something close to >current technology, at a reasonable cost. > If you take an LC, put in a 68030 and bump up the clock speed a smidgeon, you have an si. The price differential between the si and the LC *is* the needed price increase for the 68030 in Apple's view. Which is to say if the LC had almost the same characteristics as an si, then the former would take away sales from the latter and the profits would decrease. As others have noted, Apple is in business to make money and at present seems to be doing a pretty good job at it. (and indeed would have done a much better job if it had more accurately gauged the demand for the Classic). Why do you need a 68030 for word processing anyway? -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca writes: >I am puzzled. I have seen the new Macs, and I appreciate the price cuts. >But it seems that every one of the three machines has something awkward. >It seems like Apple has been making strange decisions, and I can't >understand them. Can somebody shed light? This is the way Apple has always done business. Do you remember the firsts Macs? Apple was shocked when a third party added a hard drive to it. Why? Because the Mac was not supposed to have a hard drive, because that would make it compete with the Lisa. >Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it Take the Classic ... Please :) You wanted an inexpensive Mac, so Apple came out with a cheap one. >And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that The point of the LC is to kill the Apple II line. Perhaps they should have named it the Mac //e. >Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? >Is it only so that it does not cannibalize the IIci, or is there a real yes >difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot? New slot == New way to suck money from users. >It's been almost three months now, and I'm still waiting. Until I get those >answers, I will fight that nasty thought crawling to my mind that Apple has >been either greedy, lazy, or incompetent. You see, before I can convince Why fight it? It's the truth. >myself, or anyone else, to spend big money on those computers, I need to >reasonably understand why they are so awkward. Or why they're not. Apple has never been known for a good price/preformance ratio and they never will. I can't wait for the 040's to be out in mass. People will go to Apple asking for a good upgrade path, and they will be told: "There is a very easy upgrade path, sell your old Mac and buy a new one" Rick
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: > We cannot say "x million people bought the classic, therefore apple was > right not to use a 16mz 68000" We have to ask "would x+y million have > bought it if they had gone 16mz?" You can bet apple asked. They need > to hear from those "y" people if they were wrong about how big "y" is. My point is not that they sold <x> machines, my point is that they can not keep up with the demand for the machines they have released. <x>+<y> machines would *not* be sold, because Apple can't even build the <x> number. Once the demand falls below their capacity, then they'll (presumably) trot out a better machine to entice more of those people in the <y> camp. Even if they could mean the demand of <x>+<y> people, your comments overlook another point. It's not how many people own Macs, it's how much profit they (Apple as a company, in business to make money) get out of it, long term. This is not some weird aberration of Apple, Inc. This is capitalism in action. > The issues raised here need to be voiced and people from apple DO read > this. they need our feed back if they are going to decide how to sell > us more macs. We want them to make a prodect we will buy so we win too! > Ranting on about how all apples decisions are made to increase profits > doesn't tell US anything we don't know and doesn't tell THEM anything > they don't know. Indeed, the issues raised here may very well need to be raised. But this is not the most effective way to raise them. You raise them by not buying their machines. My ranting and raving (about how they are in business to make money) was done for a reason. You can write up megabytes of usenet articles to say how stupid the machines are, and it won't do a damn thing unless Apple has trouble selling those machines. And, on the flip side, we could sit here and praise Apple for making wonderful machines, and *that* would not mean a thing to Apple if those machines were in fact not selling. The original poster asked a long line of questions of "Why did Apple do such-and-such?". I think those minor side issues of historical interest. For all I know, Apple went with a 68020 because they were nervous about the Motorola/Hitachi legal disputes. Or maybe they did it because John Scully didn't get a christmas card from the guy at Motorola who runs the 68030 line. Who cares *why* they did it? The major issue is "Will enough people buy it?". Will you buy the machine if the *reason* they did it was because of the legal battles, but NOT buy that very same machine if the *reason* was a missing christmas card? Don't get me wrong here, I agree that they could and should have done these machines differently. The only machine that looks interesting to me (and my wallet) is the Mac IIsi. I just don't think we can call them stupid or lazy, given the success of the machines so far. In some sense this success annoys me, because I would have thought that a 8Mhz 68000 machine would bomb in this day and age. It hasn't bombed though. Their business sense seems better than mine (for these machines, at least, the Mac portable is a different story :-). As to the question in the subject of this article, my answer would be "They sure are. What did you expect?". Apple would love to sell Mac Classics for over $10,000 (I imagine), while Mac users want something faster than a Mac IIfx for under $700 (or at least I do...). Both sides are greedy, in their own way. Any machine that comes out will be a compromise between the two extremes, because neither extreme is sustainable. I think the current machines are a shrewd compromise between the extremes. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
sandy@snoopy.cs.umass.edu (& Wise) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes:
And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that
much more expensive than a 68020? Will Motorola continue for long to
produce that chip, or will it not streamline to fewer models, like Intel
did? Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of
having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture?
According to a recent MacWorld article, the original plans for the LC
called for a 68000. The '020 was later added because the demands of
color were too high for the 68000. The most important motivation
behind the LC was damage control. Apple was losing the educational
market... they needed a Mac that could replace the Apple II.
/s
--
Alexander Erskine Wise /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Software Development Laboratory
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ WISE@CS.UMASS.EDU /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\ This situation calls for large amounts of unadulterated CHOCOLATE! /\/\/\das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: >for example - here at Academic computing at OSU we probably would have bought >a ton of LCs if it had a 68030 - even with the needed price increase. You wrote a very lucid message. But I have to ask, why do you want a 68030 instead of a 68020? Don't list a bunch a technical specs like more pipelining or extra addressing modes. What benefits does a user see from a 68030 instead of a 68020? As far as I can see, the user can't tell which processor is in the machine. Perhaps you want the 030 because its faster. However, its only about 15% faster, which is hardly noticeable to the user. There are much more effective ways of speeding up the system than putting in a higher model processor. David
thetroll@rata.vuw.ac.nz (The Troll) (11/30/90)
eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes: >Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it >possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Is it that mor>expensive? If so, was it absolutely impossible to speed up that old timer? When I asked this question of the team that put together the new macs, the reply was that they didn't want to reduce software support for MacPlus and SE owners. The rational was that software developers try and write their programs to perform "well" on the bottom end machines (the Plus and SE). If Apple increased the speed of the base machine then software developers would create software that ran "well" on the new baseline. If that happened then all the SE and Plus owners out there would enjoy perfomance hits when they went out brought the next upgrade of their software packages. For example Pagemaker 4.0 performs ok on a MacPlus but it's not swift. If Aldus assumed that the new baseline was a 16MHz 68000 then Pagemaker 5.0 probably wouldn't be usable on a MacPlus, because they wouldn't put any effort into tuning performance for a 8MHz 68000 instead tuning Pagemaker to work "well" (but not swiftly) on a 16MHz 68000. Was it a good decision? I don't know, but I do know that this group sees a lot of complaints about how Apple keeps orphaning its low end machines. About how it doesn't give automatic upgrades. With a commitment to the 8MHz 68000 in a new machine Apple is commited to making system 7.0 work "well" on not only the Classic but also the Mac Plus and SE, and seems to be making an effort to preserve a usable software base for the Plus and SE. The other question is: Do most users really need a faster chip than the 8Mhz 68000? In the MS-DOS world, the most popular model that this University sells is the original 8088 version, our users seem happy with not being able to run speed hungry programs, all they want is a word-processing platform. -- Alex Heatley Computing Services Centre Domain: alex@rata.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington Path: I don't support bang paths P.O Box 600, New Zealand. "My guru card was eaten by my homework, but I think I can help." - J Greely
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.203507.25984@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >* "OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but >oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to >the ROM." The CPU spends a large percentage of time executing code out of ROM, so it has a wider path to the ROM. It has a 16 bit path to RAM to save a little money. Believe it or not, you run out of room for traces on a PC board, and either you have to make a bigger board (which costs more for the board material and the bigger case to hold it) or you cut out some traces. Anyway, why do you care? The user has no clue how wide the data path is, in fact the programmer doesn't even know how wide the data path is. The processor just gets the right bits for them. >* "And "The IIsi comes with 2 meg and has color, but unlike >the other machines, it uses main memory for video, so you loose up to >320K for 256 colors. So 2 meg on a IIsi isn't like 2 Meg on another machine. What do you mean unlike other machines? I'm writing this on a IIci, which uses main memory for the on board video. >* "Then the IIsi is very fast and has color, but Mac II machines with seperate >NuBus video cards do graphics faster because they have their own memory." What a bunch of crap. Have you done any benchmarks? Graphics go faster with on board video, not Nubus video, because the processor can access the video RAM directly, instead of going through the 10MHz Nubus controller. Anyway, if you feel that way, you can put a seperate viedo card in, and not use the on board viedo. >* "To get a numeric coprocessor for the IIsi you have to buy an adapter >card. Either one which allows you to connect a NuBus card, or one that >allows you to connect an SE/30 board. The LC has no Numeric Coprocessor >option, unless someone comes out with one on an expansion card. The Classic >doesn't have one, as expected." Motorola doesn't make an FPU for the 68000. Why don't you complain to them? Or is that somehow Apple's fault anyway? Most users don't do anything that requires an FPU, so its not included standard, to save the average user money. You can add one if you run something like Mathematica (on a IIsi, God help you). Third parties are going to sell FPU boards for the LC. >* I won't even try to sort out all the monitor options for the LC. Yikes! What's wrong with the monitor options? You can get a really cheap 12" black and white monitor, or a slightly more expensive 12" color monitor, or an even more expensive 13" color monitor. What's the problem, you want Apple to say "It only works with this new, incompatible, monitor. Buy it and shut up, but don't try use your old Mac II monitor on it, because it won't work"? That would make all the users real happy, I'm sure... >* The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, and >can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the board, >expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, and is >expandable to 17 Meg. Then there are all the different configurations >and new SIMM sizes.... Like all Mac Plus based machines (including the SE), the Classic is limited to 4MB total RAM. If you put 2 4MB SIMMs in, you'd get 8MB, thus wasting 4MB. Why should Apple support such a stupid memory configuration? The memory is soldered in because its cheaper and more reliable to not use sockets. You got a problem with reliability engineering? >And one thing you almost never had to worry about on any computer was >power. Expansion cards on the LC and IIsi will have to have very small >power budgets, and it looks like many NuBus cards will have problems. >To quote Andrew Lewis, president of DayStar Digital (MacWeek 11/6/90), >"'Almost all the products we've done have busted the power budget.'" >According to MacWeek, many times when this happens, you'll have to replace >the whole motherbaord! How many NuBus cards available now list power >useage? Yet another thing we have to watch out for.... Wait a minute. Look at this statement. The board manufacturer admits that his board is over the stated power limit. This power limit has been published to board developers since the Mac II. Its not new. Why aren't you mad at the board developer for trying to sell you a board which HE KNOWS will mess up your Mac! The power limits haven't changed since the Mac II. In previous machines, the board developers used more than their allotment, expecting to draw the extra power reserved for other, hopefully unused, slots. But put 6 of those boards in a Mac II, or 3 in a IIcx, amd you'll have exactly the same problem. >I teach introductory computer courses to some people who have never even >used a computer before. One lady came and took one of my classes because >she couldn't use the computer card system in our local library. At the >end of the course, I usually give the students a run down of the Macintosh >line, because maone big headache. >With the original Macintosh lines, there wasn't all these "catches" >you had to watch out for. Ok, suppose Apple went back to a nice, simple line. A Mac Plus or a Mac II, or nothing. Would that make you happy? I can tell you one thing, it would cause a shareholder lawsuit. You think life is complicated, try using a DOS machine. Do you want 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX, or 80486? 4MHz, 6MHz, 10MHz, 12MHz, 16MHz, 20MHz, 25MHz, or 33MHz? Lets talk video. Do you want a monochrome card, a monochrome Hercules graphics card, an CGA graphics card, an EGA graphics card, a VGA graphics card, or a PGA graphics card? (Or the new video "standard" IBM introduced a few weeks ago, I think its called XGA.) Don't forget to set the dip switches when you install the video card! When's the last time you set a dip switch on a Mac? And don't worry about configuring multiple monitors on the same machine, because the system won't support that. Since you probably can't fit all your programs in 640K, you'll need more memory. Do you want extended memory, expanded memory, extended expanded, or the RAM du jour? Since you probably didn't buy a True Blue machine, because you don't like being gouged, you got a clone. Does it have a good BIOS, from a reputable compoany like Pheonix, or some noname job? What kinds of slots do you have? 8 bit XT standard? 16 bit AT standard? Half height? 32 bit MCA? 32 bit EISA? I'm not even going to get into networks, because I don't know enough to make them work on a PC. David
lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) (11/30/90)
In article <14568@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) writes: > > >difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot? > > New slot == New way to suck money from users. What new slot? The IIsi takes either NuBus boards or SE/30 compatible boards (you have your choice). Also, from what I've read, an adapter card isn't necessary if the board is a PDS board and if it can fit into the machine without the adapter.
reinoud@duteca (Reinoud Lamberts) (11/30/90)
eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) writes:
I am puzzled. I have seen the new Macs, and I appreciate the price
cuts. But it seems that every one of the three machines has something
awkward. It seems like Apple has been making strange decisions, and I
can't understand them. Can somebody shed light?
Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't
it possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Is
it that more expensive? If so, was it absolutely impossible to speed
up that old timer?
I don't think Apple made strange decisions. These new machines show a
consistent design strategy: build a machine that satisfies the needs
of most potential users as cheaply as possible.
Take the Classic: the speed of the Mac Plus was, and is, good enough
to do many useful things. Add an ADB port, a superdrive, and more than
SE speed, subtract $$$ from its price, and there is a *very* nice
entry level Mac.
A 16 MHz 68k may be less attractive than it seems to you. The chip is
significantly more expensive than an 8 MHz one (about 4 times as
expensive if I remember well). What is worse, a 16 MHz 68k has
HORRIBLE timing specs, because not all signals scale up to the new
clock the same way. This means that either waitstates must be added
when accessing memory, what would undo the gain in clock speed, or you
would have to use expensive memory, which is something you don't want
on a cheap machine.
And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that
much more expensive than a 68020? Will Motorola continue for long to
produce that chip, or will it not streamline to fewer models, like
Intel did? Will the cut in material price be worth more than the
trouble of having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible
architecture? How much more would it have been to support eight bit
color on the 13 inch monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one?
10$? 20$? And that would have been compatible with the IIsi and the
IIci... And why does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? How much did
that save? Is there a good reason for not having the same slot as the
IIsi?
The 68020 has a feature called 'dynamic bus sizing', allowing it to
work with 32, 16 or 8 bit busses at any time, something a 68030 can't
do. A narrower memory bus greatly reduces system cost: fewer memory
chips necessary, fewer bus buffers, cheaper printed circuit board
(smaller, fewer traces, maybe fewer layers). A 68020 is nearly as fast
as a 68030, and if the 16 bit bus accesses are handled cleverly (doing
a fast page mode access on every second 16 bit word when possible) you
can tweak a very nice performance out of it. And don't forget that the
68020 is the cheapest processor capable of running Color QuickDraw at
any reasonable speed.
What do you mean by 'incompatible architecture'? The 68020 instruction
set is actually a SUPERSET of the 68030!
As for the video: I don't know (yet) how the video of the LC is
implemented, I don't even know whether it is going to be 8 or 16 bit
video. But video with many colors sure is expensive. Take a look at
prices of 8 bit video cards for example. And a small increase in video
capability may be very costly, if the increase in video data bandwith
or size requires an increase in the number of (expensive!) video RAMs.
Anyway, I read that the LC supports 8 bit video on the 13 inch monitor
with an extra bank of VRAM.
Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz
one? Is it only so that it does not cannibalize the IIci, or is there
a real difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot?
Why not a 60 MHz 68040? Remember that this is a _cheap_ Mac II!
Maybe there are good answers to these questions. I have been waiting
for them ever since the new Macs were first described in MacWeek in
September. It's been almost three months now, and I'm still waiting.
Until I get those answers, I will fight that nasty thought crawling to
my mind that Apple has been either greedy, lazy, or incompetent. You
see, before I can convince myself, or anyone else, to spend big money
on those computers, I need to reasonably understand why they are so
awkward. Or why they're not.
Of course Apple is greedy ;-), they want to make money. I don't think
Apple is lazy or incompetent. They have obviously put a lot of effort
in designing nice new machines with nice prices, and I think they have
done well. Now I can finally recommend a lot of people to take a look
at Macs instead of low quality systems.
- Reinoud
email: reinoud@duteca.tudelft.nl
No disclaimer: sue me if you like. I'll buy you a beer if you win.gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/30/90)
----- In article <46966@apple.Apple.COM>, das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes... [...] >Wait a minute. Look at this statement. The board manufacturer admits >that his board is over the stated power limit. This power limit has >been published to board developers since the Mac II. Its not new. >Why aren't you mad at the board developer for trying to sell you a >board which HE KNOWS will mess up your Mac! I basically agreee with what you said (most of which I've admitted for brevity). But I think it's unfortunate that people are needing to worry about power limits with the IIsi, etc. It shouldn't be necessary and IMHO this problem should have been avoided. You probably shouldn't be quite so quick to blame board manufacturers: Apple's own 24 bit accelerated video board is -- according to MacWeek -- not really usable with the IIsi due to power draw. That's unfortunate. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005944.17800@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca writes: >I am puzzled. No kidding! >Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it >possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly become self-degreed hardware engineers after reading MacWeek? If they knew as much about systems as they think they did, then they'd know that CMOS is more expensive than TTL, and that you can't just drop in a faster clock without upgrading all the supporting circuitry with faster (translation: more expensve) components. For Pete's sake...do you want low cost or high performance? I know...I know...I can hear you now... "We want BOTH! We want fx's at Classic prices! No...we want fx's at NINTENDO prices...yeah!" Well, sorry, kids. This is the real world. You pay your money, and you take your choice. You don't get a discount for whining. >And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that >much more expensive than a 68020? Yes. The name is "LC", for LOW COST COLOR. Why not an 020? It's a perfectly good, inexpensive CPU. We have a reduced-cost 030 machine, called the MacIIsi. >Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of >having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture? Huh? "New, incompatible architecture"? Incompatible with WHAT? InfoWorld, in their reviews of the new machines, said all the software they tested worked fine. >How much more would it have been to support eight bit color on the 13 inch >monitor, rather that only on the 12 inch one? 10$? 20$? And that would have >been compatible with the IIsi and the IIci.. Sigh. If we added support for the 13", you'd whine that you couldn't put a 24-bit card in it... >And why does it have a 16 bit wide RAM bus? The same reason a Volkswagen doesn't have a fuel-injected V-8 engine... >Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? Sigh. If it was 25mhz, you'd be whining that it wasn't 30... >You see, before I can convince myself, or anyone else, to spend big >money on those computers, I need to reasonably understand why they >are so awkward. Sounds to me like you need to understand a helluva lot more that that. >Oh, and while we're at it, why hasn't Apple come out with a "IIcfx", >a 3-slot fx? Oh...uh...let's see....what was the reason...OH...yeah... the name "Macintosh IIcfx" is too long, and won't fit on the box. Besides, we'd charge more for it than a NINTENDO system, so you wouldn't buy it anyway. David
anderson@Apple.COM (Clark Anderson) (11/30/90)
From: das@Apple.COM (David Shayer)
Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises?
[lots of stuff replying to Eric Brunelle's Greedy
Compromises article on the new Mac models....]
David, I couldn't have said it better myself...
--clark
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clark Anderson InterNet: anderson@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc AppleLink: C.ANDERSON
BellNet: 408-974-4593
"I speak only for myself, much to my employers relief..."
-----------------------------------------------------------freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (11/30/90)
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >As I've said before, I don't think Apple is the same company it used to be. NeXT is the company Apple used to be... Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (11/30/90)
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes: >Why do you need a 68030 for word processing anyway? I need a 68030 because with a 68030 maybe someday I shall have a computer that can't be crashed by its applications. One of these applications is a word processor. Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) (12/01/90)
In article <37562@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > The real ugly ducklings in the Mac product line were, in retrospect, > the Mac II -- a 6-slot schoolbus with a VW engine, and the original > SE -- ever look inside on of those suckers? By the time a large and... > The IIx probably doesn't need to be mentioned ... > > Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) Maybe for you the Mac II and Mac IIx are ugly schoolbuses, but some people really do use much of the expansion capability of those machines. My employer produces a variety of I/O boards for things like digital I/O, analog I/O (i.e. digitize signal and generating waveforms from digital data), counter/timers, DMA, and even a DSP board. There are people out there using those machines to take and process data, and the six slot Mac II's are the only Macs that fit their needs. I'm not saying everybody needs them, but even schoolbuses have their uses. I think you do have a good point, though, in that many people want/need the horse power of the Mac II but don't need all the slots. That's why there are the IIcx, IIci, and now the IIsi. Russell Davoli National Instruments Corp. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: >for example - here at Academic computing at OSU we probably would have bought >a ton of LCs if it had a 68030 - even with the needed price increase. Oh? SO, tehn, why aren't you buying a ton of si's instead?
philip@pescader.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (12/01/90)
In article <46972@apple.Apple.COM>, anderson@Apple.COM (Clark Anderson) writes: |> From: das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) |> Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? |> |> [lots of stuff replying to Eric Brunelle's Greedy |> Compromises article on the new Mac models....] |> |> David, I couldn't have said it better myself... Heavy sounds of mutual back-slapping reverberate through the corridors of Apple computer. Maybe some of the complaints about the new models are based on ignorance of engineering, economics, etc. but I find it surprising that no one at Apple seems concerned that their product line is going off into so many different directions at once. Sort of like the Montey Python race for people with no sense of direction. OK, so these guys know what they're doing, and they don't need our help in pointing out potential weaknesses in their product line. Just like everyone complaining about the need for a low-cost Mac was being told they were silly a few months ago. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
wittelw@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Walter I. Wittel-Jr) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov29.203507.25984@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >I must admit, I am not thrilled with Apple's new machines either. One of >the nice things about Macintosh computers was that they did what you wanted >them to do, without a whole lot of hastle. Like the wonderful GUI. > >But these new machines... yikes! Just keeping up with all the little >"oddities" of each machine is enough to make you go crazy. Like.... > [bunch of stuff deleted] > >As I've said before, I don't think Apple is the same company it used to be. >They used to be very concerend with quailty and innovation. You had to >pay for it, but I thought it was worth it. Now Apple is showing signs >of making the Mac line look as clouded as the IBM clone market. Money is >more important to them than it used to be. This I think is at our expense. >And except for maybe the Classic, these machines still aren't as super-cheap. > >If anyone can cheer me up now ;-( I'd really appreicate it.... :-) > I don't know if this will help, but I think Apple made the right decision. As you have said, they have always been overpriced. This has eliminated many personal users, or caused them to go to IBM clones -- too bad. Every new machine (going back to the Apple II+) has had some problems with existing hardware/software compatability. It usually takes about 6 months for the manufacturers who really support their products to respond with modifications and stickers for their boxes listing compatability. That's just part of bringing out a new line. Most users going for the "cheeper" machines probably won't add any cards anyway (many of the existing "power user" models still exist). Judging from the waiting list to get a Classic, a lot of people have been waiting for this type of price/performance package. Even though the prices still aren't competitive with the clones (I think Apple should allow them), you are getting a big name product (i.e. "compare to IBM"). In the long run, this should help everyone. How about a HyperCard stack to simplify hardware/software compatability for the new models? >__________________________________________________________________ >Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| >Computer Engineering / / | >Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| >____________________________________________________ ///. / |. Walter I. Wittel, Jr.
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov30.180123.8414@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes:
!Heavy sounds of mutual back-slapping reverberate through the corridors of
!Apple computer. Maybe some of the complaints about the new models are based
!on ignorance of engineering, economics, etc. but I find it surprising that
!no one at Apple seems concerned that their product line is going off into
!so many different directions at once.
Oh? Like the general population and THEIR use for any kind of
machines?
Sort of like the Montey Python race
!for people with no sense of direction.
Aha! Sounds like the marketplace for sure!geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) (12/01/90)
anderson@Apple.COM (Clark Anderson) writes: >From: das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) >Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? > >[lots of stuff replying to Eric Brunelle's Greedy > Compromises article on the new Mac models....] > > David, I couldn't have said it better myself... I agree! (And I don't even work for Apple. :^) ) -- Geoff Allen \ Computers are useless. uunet!pmafire!geoff \ They can only give you answers. geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \ -- Pablo Picasso
rfischer@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) (12/01/90)
In article <6376@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >Just to give you an idea the Apple Australia recommended price in 1990 for an >SE/30 2mb/HD40 was $AUS 9,950 (that's from the official price list). >A Mac IIfx Colour System (IIfx 4/80, 4-8 display card, Hi-Res RGB Monitor, >extended keyboard) set you back $AUS 19,025. > >Is Apple greedy? YOU BET THEY ARE. Either that, or your government is being greedy and charging high import duty taxes. From what I know about how Apple works and how Australia works, I'd say it's more likely that it's the Australian government that is making the money. Either that or the US gov't making money on export duties. Maybe both. Maybe all three. Ray Fischer rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
wcarroll@encore.com (Mr. New Dad) (12/01/90)
eric@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle): > > Take the Classic. Why does it still have the old 8MHz 68000? Wasn't it > possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? Is it that more > expensive? If so, was it absolutely impossible to speed up that old timer? This may have to with RAM speed. A fast CPU with slow RAMs is stupid. With RAM at $40/Meg, the increase in cost (CPU + RAM) would probably be something less than $50, which would increase retail by about $150. The $1000 line may have been more important than faster chips. > > And then the LC. Why in heaven does it have a 68020? Is a 68030 that > much more expensive than a 68020? My guess would be around $50-70. '020s are a commodity by now. '030s may get all the press, but if they get 1/3 the sales I'd be surprised. > Will Motorola continue for long to > produce that chip, or will it not streamline to fewer models, like Intel > did? Don't bet on Motorola to eliminate 68k products, especially the '020. The 68k's success has been in the embedded market. The '000 has always done well there, and Motorola has spent the last few years convincing the market that they need the power of the '020. It will probably outlast the '030, which offers only an MMU over the '020. Very few embedded applications need MMUs. Once the '040 sales are humming, I don't imagine '030 sales will be very spectacular. Intel's 80x86 family is almost exclusively a PC engine. How many XTs are being sold these days? That's why Intel streamlines. > Will the cut in material price be worth more than the trouble of > having to adapt all software to this new, incompatible architecture? What's incompatible? The only '030 instructions the '020 won't execute are the MMU instructions. Unless the software is stupid and does hardware specific things, the is no incompatibility. > And why does it have a 16 bit > wide RAM bus? How much did that save? That's harder to judge. It could be space. How packed is the motherboard? It could be back to RAM cost. A 32-bit memory path need a 32-bit wide memory. That doubles the RAM chip count. Just my $.02 worth. William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me -- William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) (12/01/90)
"ME>>" Things I said "das>" Things das@Apple.COM said ME>>* "OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but ME>>oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to ME>>the ROM." das>The CPU spends a large percentage of time executing code out of ROM, das>so it has a wider path to the ROM. It has a 16 bit path to RAM to das>save a little money. Believe it or not, you run out of room for das>traces on a PC board, and either you have to make a bigger board das>(which costs more for the board material and the bigger case to hold das>it) or you cut out some traces. Yes, I know you run out of traces on a PC board. I have made some single-layer boards by hand. No fun! 8-) So is this the reason the path is smaller to RAM? If so, that seems like a major "cut" to save space. A lot of time is spent reading RAM too. das> das>Anyway, why do you care? The user has no clue how wide the data path is, das>in fact the programmer doesn't even know how wide the data path is. The das>processor just gets the right bits for them. Because now when I try to compare the speed between two machines, it becomes much more difficult. Which is faster, the Mac II (16 MHz, 68020) or the LC (16 MHz, 68020)? I can look at benchmarks and see the Mac II generally is, but how will it affect the specific things I may want to do. Will the smaller path not be much influence, or will the programs I want to use happen to make it a significant bottleneck. For example, take the article in MacWorld on the LC (December 1990). On page 187 it shows two benchmarks, one for "Fit Image to Window" and one for "Preview Image". According to MacWorld, they both excersize the processor similarily, but the first test was faster on the Mac II, and the second faster on the LC. ME>>* "And "The IIsi comes with 2 meg and has color, but unlike ME>>the other machines, it uses main memory for video, so you loose up to ME>>320K for 256 colors. So 2 meg on a IIsi isn't like 2 Meg on another machine. das>What do you mean unlike other machines? I'm writing this on a IIci, das>which uses main memory for the on board video. Good point. I did forget about the IIci. One of those little things that you have to remember. ME>>* "Then the IIsi is very fast and has color, but Mac II machines with ME>>seperate ME>>NuBus video cards do graphics faster because they have their own memory." das>What a bunch of crap. Have you done any benchmarks? No, but MacWorld does. MacWorld, Dec 1990, page 195. "Display Adapters Compared." It compares the speed of a NuBus display and the IIsi display. According to them, "...As a result, the Macintosh IIsi using built-in video is about half the speed in 256-color mode as the Macintosh IIsi using a NuBus video board." das>Graphics go faster with on board video, not Nubus video, because the das>processor can access the video RAM directly, instead of going through das>the 10MHz Nubus controller. das> Yes, but the keyword is video RAM. The 68030 is slowed down because it often has to wait to use main memory because the Memory Decoder Unit (MDU) is accessing the same memory while creating images on the screen. There is no seperate "video RAM". (This is on page 193 of the MacWorld article.) das>Anyway, if you feel that way, you can put a seperate viedo card in, das>and not use the on board viedo. Then the IIsi isn't as inexpensive. Not to mention the $249 you have to put out just to be able to plug a NuBus card (must buy an adapter board). And there goes your one slot. ME>>* "To get a numeric coprocessor for the IIsi you have to buy an adapter ME>>card. Either one which allows you to connect a NuBus card, or one that ME>>allows you to connect an SE/30 board. The LC has no Numeric Coprocessor ME>>option, unless someone comes out with one on an expansion card. The Classic ME>>doesn't have one, as expected." das>Motorola doesn't make an FPU for the 68000. Why don't you complain das>to them? Or is that somehow Apple's fault anyway? That's why I said "as expected". Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. das> das>Most users don't do anything that requires an FPU, so its not das>included standard, to save the average user money. You can add one das>if you run something like Mathematica (on a IIsi, God help you). das>Third parties are going to sell FPU boards for the LC. Yes, but it used to be that if you had a 68030 you knew you also had a FPU. Now this is another one of those "little things" you have to remind yourself of. ME>>* I won't even try to sort out all the monitor options for the LC. Yikes! das>What's wrong with the monitor options? You can get a really cheap 12" das>black and white monitor, or a slightly more expensive 12" color monitor, das>or an even more expensive 13" color monitor. das> das>What's the problem, you want Apple to say das>"It only works with this new, incompatible, monitor. Buy it and shut up, das>but don't try use your old Mac II monitor on it, because it won't work"? das>That would make all the users real happy, I'm sure... I'm sure too. But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different resolutions. Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor? (I know, money.) Try helping a computer novice pick between 512x384 pixels and 640x480 pixels. Their first question: "What's a pixel?" Why didn't Apple lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of putting in time and resources (== $$) into making a new one? ME>>* The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, and ME>>can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the board, ME>>expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, and is ME>>expandable to 17 Meg. Then there are all the different configurations ME>>and new SIMM sizes.... das>Like all Mac Plus based machines (including the SE), the Classic is limited das>to 4MB total RAM. If you put 2 4MB SIMMs in, you'd get 8MB, thus wasting das>4MB. Why should Apple support such a stupid memory configuration? Becuase now if Classic users ever run out of memory, they have to buy a new machine instead of throwing out four 1 Meg SIMMS. das> das>The memory is soldered in because its cheaper and more reliable to not das>use sockets. You got a problem with reliability engineering? Nope. But why 1 Meg in the Classic, and 2 Meg in the LC, and none in the IIsi? Again, it makes the buyer's life a little more complicated. Q:"If memory goes bad, how much of a hastle will it be to replace it?" A:"On the Classic...., on the LC...., on the IIsi...." Q:"If I want to expand memory to x amount, how much will it cost?" A:"On the Classic...., on the LC...., on the IIsi...." (This depends on whether any SIMMS will have to thrown out, and what sizes they are.) All these things are simple enough if you are looking at one computer, but if you're trying to compare different models, all these little questions become overwhelming. ME>>And one thing you almost never had to worry about on any computer was ME>>power. Expansion cards on the LC and IIsi will have to have very small ME>>power budgets, and it looks like many NuBus cards will have problems. ME>>To quote Andrew Lewis, president of DayStar Digital (MacWeek 11/6/90), ME>>"'Almost all the products we've done have busted the power budget.'" ME>>According to MacWeek, many times when this happens, you'll have to replace ME>>the whole motherbaord! How many NuBus cards available now list power ME>>useage? Yet another thing we have to watch out for.... das>Wait a minute. Look at this statement. The board manufacturer admits das>that his board is over the stated power limit. This power limit has das>been published to board developers since the Mac II. Its not new. das>Why aren't you mad at the board developer for trying to sell you a das>board which HE KNOWS will mess up your Mac! das> das>The power limits haven't changed since the Mac II. In previous das>machines, the board developers used more than their allotment, das>expecting to draw the extra power reserved for other, hopefully das>unused, slots. But put 6 of those boards in a Mac II, or 3 in das>a IIcx, amd you'll have exactly the same problem. Yes, this is true. But didn't Apple's 8-24 GC card (or one of the new ones) also go over budget? The point is though, there are a lot of cards out there that can cause problems. Is Apple saying well they shouldn't be like that, so that's not our problem? That's just denying reality I think. You end up punishing the people buying the computers for their practices. But even worse: what about the poor users who don't even think about power, plug in there old NuBus board, and ruin their computer. Once again, another little thing you have to watch out for. And a very serious one at that. ME>>I teach introductory computer courses to some people who have never even ME>>used a computer before. One lady came and took one of my classes because ME>>she couldn't use the computer card system in our local library. At the ME>>end of the course, I usually give the students a run down of the Macintosh ME>>line, because maone big headache. ME>>With the original Macintosh lines, there wasn't all these "catches" ME>>you had to watch out for. das>Ok, suppose Apple went back to a nice, simple line. A Mac Plus or a das>Mac II, or nothing. Would that make you happy? No, but instead of Apple trying to cut every little penny, keep the simplisitic elegance of the Macintosh computer as a whole, and maybe cut their profit margin a little more. das> das>I can tell you one thing, it would cause a shareholder lawsuit. das> das>You think life is complicated, try using a DOS machine. Do you want das>8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX, or 80486? 4MHz, 6MHz, 10MHz, das>12MHz, 16MHz, 20MHz, 25MHz, or 33MHz? Lets talk video. Do you want das>a monochrome card, a monochrome Hercules graphics card, an CGA graphics das>card, an EGA graphics card, a VGA graphics card, or a PGA graphics card? das>(Or the new video "standard" IBM introduced a few weeks ago, I think das>its called XGA.) Don't forget to set the dip switches when you install das>the video card! When's the last time you set a dip switch on a Mac? das>And don't worry about configuring multiple monitors on the same machine, das>because the system won't support that. das>Since you probably can't fit all your programs in 640K, you'll need more das>memory. Do you want extended memory, expanded memory, extended expanded, das>or the RAM du jour? Since you probably didn't buy a True Blue machine, das>because you don't like being gouged, you got a clone. Does it have das>a good BIOS, from a reputable compoany like Pheonix, or some noname das>job? das>What kinds of slots do you have? 8 bit XT standard? 16 bit AT standard? das>Half height? 32 bit MCA? 32 bit EISA? das>I'm not even going to get into networks, because I don't know enough das>to make them work on a PC. Exactly! Yes! Don't you see this is beginning to happen to you! These new machines are creeping in all these little exceptions and things to be careful of. Frankly, I am very surpised your reaction was so nasty. I can understand Apple getting sick of people complaining all the time. But that's our job as consumers. My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac, and I am very sad about that. I feel it is my responsibility to point out things I consider mistakes, otherwise how do I expect you to avoid/fix them? Maybe I'll think twice about it next time. __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com (Brandon Lovested) (12/01/90)
In article <16864@natinst.natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) writes: > >Maybe for you the Mac II and Mac IIx are ugly schoolbuses, but some >people really do use much of the expansion capability of those machines. Agreed. Though I believe the IIx will not be available (generally) for consumers, it will be available from Apple, because it's just too important for hardware/software prototyping and evaluation. ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED ::::=:::==::===:==== FOR EVERY VISION, Software Design Engineer ::::=:::==::===:==== THERE IS AN Grass Valley Group ::::=:::==::===:==== EQUAL AND OPPOSITE brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ::::=:::==::===:==== REVISION. ==============================================================================
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (12/02/90)
Just some more fuel for the flames... The Stanford Bookstore has notices up announcing a 2-month wait for delivery of Classics (complete with Apple's customer service number for anyone who wants to complain). So it seems that Apple has vastly _underestimated_ the demand for a low-end machine (does this support the argument that Apple has good business sense? I don't know). Presumably the si and LC will also do well. Great. But I still wonder why Apple has not managed to do better at maintaining the conceptual simplicity of the Mac line. It's all very well to argue that the PC range is worse, but Apple has had much tighter control over its software/hardware line than IBM has. Could it be that Apple is trying to create its own clones? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov30.201432.19210@Neon.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > Either that, or your government is being greedy and charging high import > duty taxes. From what I know about how Apple works and how Australia > works, I'd say it's more likely that it's the Australian government > that is making the money. Either that or the US gov't making money on > export duties. Maybe both. Maybe all three. I can't speak for Australia, but here in New Zealand, Mac prices are also very high, and the only government rake-off in the price is the standard 12.5% GST that is charged on everything. -- Bruce Hoult Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov30.201432.19210@Neon.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: >In article <6376@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >>Just to give you an idea the Apple Australia recommended price in 1990 for an >>SE/30 2mb/HD40 was $AUS 9,950 (that's from the official price list). >>A Mac IIfx Colour System (IIfx 4/80, 4-8 display card, Hi-Res RGB Monitor, >>extended keyboard) set you back $AUS 19,025. >> >>Is Apple greedy? YOU BET THEY ARE. > >Either that, or your government is being greedy and charging high import >duty taxes. From what I know about how Apple works and how Australia >works, I'd say it's more likely that it's the Australian government >that is making the money. Either that or the US gov't making money on >export duties. Maybe both. Maybe all three. How much is an australian dollar worth in US $? If it is export duties, find yourself a constitutional lawyer with nothing better to do than beat his head against the wall... "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."-- Article I, Section 9, US Constitution. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >>>"OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but >>>oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to >>>the ROM." >>Anyway, why do you care? The user has no clue how wide the data path is, >Because now when I try to compare the speed between two machines, it becomes >much more difficult. Which is faster, the Mac II (16 MHz, 68020) or the >LC (16 MHz, 68020)? I can look at benchmarks and see the Mac II generally >is, but how will it affect the specific things I may want to do. Will the >smaller path not be much influence, or will the programs I want to use >happen to make it a significant bottleneck. For example, take the article >in MacWorld on the LC (December 1990). On page 187 it shows two benchmarks, >one for "Fit Image to Window" and one for "Preview Image". According to >MacWorld, they both excersize the processor similarily, but the first >test was faster on the Mac II, and the second faster on the LC. If one test is faster on one machine, and the other test is faster on the other machine, my conclusion would be that MacWorld is wrong when they say that both tests exercise the processor similarly. But the real test is, is the machine fast enough for you, when you do your work on it? >>Graphics go faster with on board video, not Nubus video, because the >>processor can access the video RAM directly, instead of going through >>the 10MHz Nubus controller. >Yes, but the keyword is video RAM. The 68030 is slowed down because it often >has to wait to use main memory because the Memory Decoder Unit (MDU) is >accessing the same memory while creating images on the screen. There is >no seperate "video RAM". (This is on page 193 of the MacWorld article.) Yes, video access is faster with on board video, while non-video computing is slower. You have to decide if you want faster number crunching or faster redraw. I mainly compile, so I want faster processing, thus I use a nubus video card on my Mac IIci. I know people who want faster redraw time, so they use the on-board video. But I think this type of decision is beyond what most customers care to learn about the computer. >>Most users don't do anything that requires an FPU, so its not >>included standard, to save the average user money. You can add one >>if you run something like Mathematica (on a IIsi, God help you). >>Third parties are going to sell FPU boards for the LC. >Yes, but it used to be that if you had a 68030 you knew you also had >a FPU. Now this is another one of those "little things" you have to >remind yourself of. Again, I disagree completely. Apple has been putting out tech notes for a long time saying don't assume that if the machine has one feature (a 68030) it will have another feature (a 68882). Instead, use the system calls to check for the exact feature you want. >I'm sure too. But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different >resolutions. Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor? (I know, >money.) Try helping a computer novice pick between 512x384 pixels and >640x480 pixels. Their first question: "What's a pixel?" Why didn't Apple >lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of putting in time >and resources (== $$) into making a new one? Helping someone pick between the two monitors is easy. You show them how much text shows up in MacWrite on one screen, and show them how much more shows up on the other screen. Then you tell them the price difference and let them decide if the extra screen size is worth the money. >Nope. But why 1 Meg in the Classic, and 2 Meg in the LC, and none in >the IIsi? Again, it makes the buyer's life a little more complicated. How does it make the buyer's life more complicated? They tell the dealer how much memory they would like in their new Mac, and the dealer puts it in before they ever see the machine. That's what we did in the dealership I worked in. We didn't worry the customer with what Apple's standard confidurations were, we asked them what they wanted, and put that system together for them. >Exactly! Yes! Don't you see this is beginning to happen to you! These >new machines are creeping in all these little exceptions and things >to be careful of. I think we have a couple of basic disagreements here. First, I don't think an average buyer should buy a computer based on technical specs like MHz, MIPS, processor type, data path width, on-board vs nubus video, or any of that crap. They should buy a machine that has things they care about. They should decide if they need a color screen, and how large a screen. They should try the software they plan on using, and buy a machine that's fast enough for them when it runs their software. Finally, they need to balance what they want with what they can pay for. Second, I think its inevitable that the Mac line become, in your words, more complicated. Apple has to bring out new machines, and the new machine have to have more features, or be different in some way, or else why bother to bring them out at all. Thus you inevitably get a bunch of machine with slightly different features. But I think this is good, it gives the user a large range of choices. I think you are advocating stagnation. David No disclaimer- screw the lawyers.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov30.221018.15018@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >Exactly! Yes! Don't you see this is beginning to happen to you! These >new machines are creeping in all these little exceptions and things >to be careful of. > >Frankly, I am very surpised your reaction was so nasty. I can understand >Apple getting sick of people complaining all the time. But that's our >job as consumers. My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac, and I am very >sad about that. I feel it is my responsibility to point out things I consider >mistakes, otherwise how do I expect you to avoid/fix them? Maybe I'll >think twice about it next time. Will that be an '030 or an '040? Cube or slab? Optical drive or 2.8MB floppy? Grayscale, 16 bit color, or perhaps 24? See, it's a fairly new machine, and you already have complications. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >The IIsi comes with 2 meg and has color, but unlike >the other machines, it uses main memory for video, so you loose up to >320K for 256 colors. So 2 meg on a IIsi isn't like 2 Meg on another machine. >Will it have enough room for System 7.0? First, it's the same arrangement as with the IIci. Second, with RAM costing US$39/MB from the cheapest mail-order places, who cares how much Apple put in? Third, the elimination of the need for a video card is an improvement in simplicity, and one reason for the IIci's popularity. >Then the IIsi is very fast and has color, but Mac II machines with seperate >(sic) NuBus video cards do graphics faster because they have their own memory. Benchmark tests in the major magazines showed no decrease in video performance compared to old-style Mac II machines with 8-bit video cards. The integrated video on the IIci and IIsi is speeded up compared to NuBus video by the elimination of the narrow NuBus lines and the bottleneck they create. This effect, as I understand, is offset by arbitration between the CPU's and the video circuitry's use of RAM, so there is no significant net change either way. Certainly, I'm not noticing any. >As I've said before, I don't think Apple is the same company it used to be. >They used to be very concerend with quailty and innovation. You had to >pay for it, but I thought it was worth it. Now Apple is showing signs >of making the Mac line look as clouded as the IBM clone market. Money is >more important to them than it used to be. This I think is at our expense. >And except for maybe the Classic, these machines still aren't as super-cheap. The new machines are competitive with DOS boxes across the line. Remember that the IIsi beats the fastest 386 machines and has video that puts Super-VGA to shame. Apart from that, the Mac is a vastly better platform than DOS, not least because of its interface consistency and (relative to DOS) ease of use. While I agree that Apple has made some decisions that make life unnecessarily complex (such as the trivially-cheap extra amount of VRAM that they could have just put into the LC to start with and be done with it, instead of having to go through an upgrade), users without money to burn have always turned to third-party products when shopping for RAM, storage, monitors, keyboards, mice. You could buy a fully-configured, fully-Apple-labeled system, but it would cost you much more. The new models still give you this option. The wealthy and computer-illiterate user would, as you suggest, be better off buying the NeXT machine, where everything he'll ever need is bundled and the machine itself is powerful enough to become an heirloom passed down to his children. Oh, and, incidentally, the IIsi does have 1MB RAM soldered to the motherboard. With four slots, it is upgradeable to 5MB, 9MB or 17MB.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> > treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: >> We cannot say "x million people bought the classic, therefore apple was >> right not to use a 16mz 68000" We have to ask "would x+y million have >> bought it if they had gone 16mz?" You can bet apple asked. They need >> to hear from those "y" people if they were wrong about how big "y" is. >My point is not that they sold <x> machines, my point is that they can not >keep up with the demand for the machines they have released. <x>+<y> >machines would *not* be sold, because Apple can't even build the <x> >number. Once the demand falls below their capacity, then they'll >(presumably) trot out a better machine to entice more of those people in >the <y> camp. >Even if they could mean the demand of <x>+<y> people, your comments >overlook another point. It's not how many people own Macs, it's how much >profit they (Apple as a company, in business to make money) get out of it, >long term. This is not some weird aberration of Apple, Inc. This is >capitalism in action. For some reason, all the "Apple is in business to make money" defenders of capitalism show an incomplete understanding of its realities. Apple's margin on the new machines is adequate. The machines can easily be assembled at automated plants (the IIsi in Fremont, the Classic and LC in Singapore). All that is required to meet higher demand is to rent a factory, rent robots, connect them to computers running the same program as the existing plants, and start churning out more low-cost Macs, all of which will also bear an adequate profit margin. If the Classic were to be brought out as a faster machine, it would still have a pretty high profit margin and Apple could have opened another plant (possibly with leased equipment to minimize risk) and make many more Macs, much more money, and really threaten DOS. The market is not static. Manufacturing capacity is not static. For an example of how markets can be expanded, look at the NeXT machine. Did you see all this I'm-defecting-to-NeXT material on the comp.sys.mac groups when NeXT first came out with its way-overpriced, way-underpowered cube? Its new line, by being cheaper and faster, means that the company will survive. Now THIS is capitalism at work.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.203507.25984@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >>* "OK the LC has at 68020 so that puts it in line with Mac II power, but >>oh, is has 16-bit pathway instead of 32-but, but it does has 32-bit to >>the ROM." >The CPU spends a large percentage of time executing code out of ROM, >so it has a wider path to the ROM. It has a 16 bit path to RAM to >save a little money. Believe it or not, you run out of room for >traces on a PC board, and either you have to make a bigger board >(which costs more for the board material and the bigger case to hold >it) or you cut out some traces. Are you saying the extra inch of board space and the extra inch of case required to accomodate the extra traces would significantly add to the cost of making the LC? >Anyway, why do you care? Because a 16-bit data path slows the LC down. Perceptibly, according to those reviewers who actually tested one. Regarding your assertion that the average user doesn't do anything that uses an FPU: besides spreadsheets, there are Adobe Type Manager and TrueType (I don't know for a fact that TrueType makes use of the FPU, but if it doesn't, it must be really slow). Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic (ATM) splines to display text on the screen is a very floating-point-math-intensive process.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
reinoud@duteca (Reinoud Lamberts) writes: >A narrower memory bus [on the LC's 020 CPU] greatly reduces system cost: >fewer memory chips necessary, fewer bus buffers, cheaper printed circuit board >(smaller, fewer traces, maybe fewer layers). A 68020 is nearly as fast >as a 68030, and if the 16 bit bus accesses are handled cleverly (doing >a fast page mode access on every second 16 bit word when possible) you >can tweak a very nice performance out of it. As a result of its narrower memory bus, the LC delivers only roughly 75% of the Mac II's performance in non-FPU tasks. The 030 is roughly 25% to 30% faster than an 020 running at the same clock speed.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
reinoud@duteca (Reinoud Lamberts) writes: >Take the Classic: the speed of the Mac Plus was, and is, good enough >to do many useful things. Add an ADB port, a superdrive, and more than >SE speed, subtract $$$ from its price, and there is a *very* nice >entry level Mac. Actually, about 93% of the SE's performance, according to MacWeek's testing.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/02/90)
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >>possible to give it the same CMOS 16MHz 68000 as the Portable? > Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly become self-degreed > hardware engineers after reading MacWeek? If they knew as much about > systems as they think they did, then they'd know that CMOS is more > expensive than TTL, and that you can't just drop in a faster clock without > upgrading all the supporting circuitry with faster (translation: more > expensve) components. For Pete's sake...do you want low cost or high > performance? I know...I know...I can hear you now... > "We want BOTH! We want fx's at Classic prices! > No...we want fx's at NINTENDO prices...yeah!" > Well, sorry, kids. This is the real world. You pay your money, and you > take your choice. You don't get a discount for whining. Your frustration with insatiable users is understandable (after all, Apple stops treating its customers like dirt for the first time since the early eighties, and what do you get? Gratitude? No - whining!) but NeXT, which lives in the same real world you do (you can drive there from Cupertino) manages to sell a 25MHz 040 machine with reportedly twice the power of the IIfx and superior everything except color (but admittedly not too many software titles) for $3,500 at the educational price, and still make a profit. In fact, everybody expects this new price to assure the company's survival. This is not unreasonable. This is not whining. This is NOW. Why can't you do that? Do you really believe that there will always be a Great Software Gap between you and them? Look at the slowly-fading-away IBM micro division. If you ignore the whining, irritating though it may be, you will share their fate (and there won't be any corporate pinstriped pointy-headed types who will buy YOUR products because of brand loyalty to the company in which their family owned stock for three generations). > Sigh. If we added support for the 13", you'd whine that you couldn't > put a 24-bit card in it... David, be serious, that extra 256kB of VRAM costs you $25! Instead you make it into this big-deal upgrade, have to distribute it, have to have it installed (at extra cost) by authorized dealers... Why couldn't you put in this $50 part, instead of a $25 part, in the LC at the factory and be done with it? Look at all the public-relations damage you're suffering because of this petty-looking decision!
rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) (12/03/90)
rfischer@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: >In article <6376@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >>Is Apple greedy? YOU BET THEY ARE. >Either that, or your government is being greedy and charging high import >duty taxes. From what I know about how Apple works and how Australia >works, I'd say it's more likely that it's the Australian government >that is making the money. Either that or the US gov't making money on >export duties. Maybe both. Maybe all three. >Ray Fischer >rfischer@cs.stanford.edu To my knowledge, the Australian government puts on 20% sales tax and with an exchange rate of roughly $US 0.80c = $AUS 1.00, there's no way in hell that that explains our prices. An example: Mac LC, 512K Dram card, 13" monitor = $AUS 4972 (consortium) Subtract 20% sales tax and allow for exchange rate above = $US 3,182. How does that compare to YOUR consortium prices? -- + John Mazzocchi + "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, + + Melbourne, Victoria + but a fire to be lighted" - Plutarch + + Australia + + rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au +
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (12/03/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes in a message on 29 Nov 90: > Finally, the IIsi. Why does it have a 20MHz 68030, and not a 25MHz one? > Is it only so that it does not cannibalize the IIci, or is there a real > difference in cost? How much? And why that strange new slot? GD> Why not a 50Mhz one? Why not 8 Meg in the minimum configuration? GD> Why not sell it for $1500? Why not give you a case of really GD> great beer with it? um, would that be Keystone Beer? :-) **************************************************************** * "But Windows slows performance, and its interface isn't as * * elegant as the Mac's. It's a little like listening to * * Bruce Willis play the blues: technically correct but * * soulless." * **************************************************************** * CIS: 70721,504 * * America OnLine: AdamFrix * * Internet: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG * **************************************************************** -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (12/03/90)
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes in a message on 30 Nov 90: > For Pete's sake...do you want low cost or high performance? > I know...I know...I can hear you now... > > "We want BOTH! We want fx's at Classic prices! > No...we want fx's at NINTENDO prices...yeah!" Well, OK, I'll compromise--how about a Classic (2/40) at Nintendo prices? :-) (good post, btw.) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
n67786@assari.tut.fi (Nieminen Tero) (12/03/90)
I'd like to add my share of the knowledge of high mac prices outside us. Up till very lately the Mac prices in Finland seem to follow a very simple rule: the price here in fmk is egual in number to ten times the dollar price. It make one wonder a bit since the official exchange rate for us dollars is: 1 dollar = 3.7 fmk. Now if thy're not greedy then I'm presiden Eisenhower, right? Just lately the prices have dropped dropped some 20 % so that now it's only eight times the price in dollars, but dollar now counts to 3.6 fmk. I might add that the government charges some 20 to 23 % on taxes and such for imported computer stuff, but still they aoud very greedy to me. And the formula I mentioned earlier used retail prices in states that allready have the dealer cut in them! Sure makes one wonder.. -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >Good point. I did forget about the IIci. One of those little things that >you have to remember. Look at the Macintosh product line again. Every Macintosh except for the IIfx now has onboard video, and I suspect the fx's successor will also. And except for the LC, with its VRAM, all use the main RAM for this video. Is that clear enough? >Yes, but it used to be that if you had a 68030 you knew you also had >a FPU. Now this is another one of those "little things" you have to >remind yourself of. It used to be that if you had a Macintosh you knew you also had a 68000. No this is another one of those "little things" you have to remind yourself of. How awful of Apple to come out with the Mac II! >I'm sure too. But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different >resolutions. Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor...? Why >didn't Apple lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of >putting in time and resources (== $$) into making a new one? No matter how you look at it, the higher-resolution monitor costs more to manufacture. Sure you can say maybe Apple should reduce its profit margins on the 13" monitor, but you can also say Apple should reduce its profit margins on the 12" and make that cheaper as well. If you give both monitors equal markups, the 12" is always going to be cheaper. >ME>>* The Mac Classic has 1 Meg soldered to the board, expandable to 4 Meg, >ME>>and can't use 4 Meg SIMMS. The LC comes with 2 Meg soldered to the >ME>>board, expandable to 10 Meg. To IIsi has no memory soldered on board, >ME>>and is expandable to 17 Meg. Heh? The IIsi does have 1M soldered to the board. That's why the standard configurations are 2M, 5M, and 17M -- 1M soldered in, plus four 256K, 1M, or 4M SIMMs. >das>The power limits haven't changed since the Mac II. In previous >das>machines, the board developers used more than their allotment, >das>expecting to draw the extra power reserved for other, hopefully >das>unused, slots. But put 6 of those boards in a Mac II, or 3 in >das>a IIcx, amd you'll have exactly the same problem. > >Yes, this is true. But didn't Apple's 8-24 GC card (or one of the new >ones) also go over budget? The point is though, there are a lot of cards >out there that can cause problems. That's the "but Johnny does it" argument. Just because Johnny (or Apple) does it, doesn't mean it's right. >But even worse: what about the poor users who don't even think about power, >plug in there old NuBus board, and ruin their computer. Once again, another >little thing you have to watch out for. And a very serious one at that. ??? If the computer can't supply the power that the board is trying to draw, the board won't work. I've never heard of equipment getting fried because of too *little* power. >No, but instead of Apple trying to cut every little penny, keep >the simplisitic elegance of the Macintosh computer as a whole, and maybe >cut their profit margin a little more. Again, that's a separate argument. You say Apple should have cut its profit margins on the old systems; I could just as easily say that Apple should cut its profit margins on the new ones. No matter what margin we agree upon, the new machines are going to be cheaper. >My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac... So you will get to choose between optical disks and hard disks, floppies (in a nonstandard 2.8M format) or no floppies, two types of color hardware or monochrome... I'm not sure I see the "simplistic elegance" here.
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec2.084149.25494@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: > [ a lot of stuff ] >Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic (ATM) splines to >display text on the screen is a very floating-point-math-intensive process. I thought that splines, as used in text operations, worked in very small numeric ranges. Is there a reason that fixed-point math can't be used? I'd guess that TrueType would use fixed-point math; it ought to be faster than floating-point, to, at least until Motorola's FPUs speed up a bit. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec2.084149.25494@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: > [ a lot of stuff ] >Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic (ATM) splines to >display text on the screen is a very floating-point-math-intensive process. I thought that splines, as used in text operations, worked in very small numeric ranges. Is there a reason that fixed-point math can't be used? I'd guess that TrueType would use fixed-point math; it ought to be faster than floating-point, too, at least until Motorola's FPUs speed up a bit. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (12/04/90)
rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >An example: Mac LC, 512K Dram card, 13" monitor = $AUS 4972 (consortium) >Subtract 20% sales tax and allow for exchange rate above = $US 3,182. >How does that compare to YOUR consortium prices? A similar situation exists in NZ (which sources its Apple products via Apple Australia). For example, a IIsi 5/80 bare CPU box (no keyboard) costs $NZ 8,625... consortium price to students... Subtract off 12.5% sales tax and allowing for an exchange rate of $NZ 1 = $US 0.60 gives a US cost of $US 4,600. Compare that to Stanford's price here, which INCLUDES an Extended Keyboard II, and goes for $US 2,934... Now can freight, shipping, costs etc really explain a >50% increase in cost? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
n67786@assari.tut.fi (Nieminen Tero) (12/04/90)
In article <RANG.90Dec3133606@nexus.cs.wisc.edu> rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: > I thought that splines, as used in text operations, worked in very > small numeric ranges. Is there a reason that fixed-point math can't > be used? I'd guess that TrueType would use fixed-point math; it ought > to be faster than floating-point, too, at least until Motorola's FPUs > speed up a bit. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Huh? Where did you get that one? Fixed point surely is faster than SANE floating point on a machine without 881/882, but 882 is almost as fast in floating point as 030 is in integer calculation and most surely faster than fixed point that's been emulated by integer calculations. You can verify the speed difference yourself with a copy of the MandelZot, if you don't believe my word for it. > Anton > > +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ > | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | > +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ > -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (12/04/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: >>Good point. I did forget about the IIci. One of those little things that >>you have to remember. >Look at the Macintosh product line again. Every Macintosh except for the >IIfx now has onboard video, and I suspect the fx's successor will also. >And except for the LC, with its VRAM, all use the main RAM for this video. >Is that clear enough? Isn't it strange how what is probably the better engineering design (namely the separate video RAM in the LC eliminating memory bus contention between the processor and the video circuitry) ends up in the lowest performing Mac II... On-board video in the high end machines is just begging for separate VRAM and an on-board graphics coprocessor... (maybe in the II/040??) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (12/04/90)
In article <109755@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) writes: > >>My NeXT computer isn't going to be a Mac... > >So you will get to choose between optical disks and hard disks, floppies >(in a nonstandard 2.8M format) or no floppies, two types of color >hardware or monochrome... I'm not sure I see the "simplistic elegance" here. This is the second time in as many days that this little bit of misinformation has been spread, so it's time to correct it. - *All* NeXT machines come with floppies. - If you don't like the "non-standard" 2.8 megabytes available on the floppies (since having only half as much disk space is *so* attractive), then you can use the standard 1.44MB format (admittedly it's the IBM standard - you can't win them all - but at least it's as standard you can get). - *All* NeXT machines come with hard disks. Well, at least you didn't say that buyers had to choose between a 68030 and the 68040, as somebody did yesterday. As for all those other "nasty choices" (color and whether to get an optical), the average user doesn't have to worry about them. The NeXTDimension color is a production-quality 32-bit board, coprocessor, and monitor system that is priced accordingly. No average user will have to bother with it. So for them, the choice is color (get a NeXTStation color), or no color (get a basic NeXTStation). Pretty simple. The fact of the matter is that NeXT has stuck pretty well to its guns on the issue of keeping the lowest common denominator at a high level. All pieces of software written for the NeXT can count on having a floating-point processor, at least 8 megs of RAM, a DSP chip, unix, protected virtual memory, display postscript, ethernet, and a screen with at least 1120x832 resolution. So can NeXT users. Software that can count on using more advanced features can take more liberties and therefore do more things. Apple used to be that way too. Even the old 128K Macs came loaded with more features than most of its competing IBM systems could shake a stick at. And they have *slowly* raised the common denominator since. But they've gone away from that philosophy since, and each machine now has strange combinations of present and missing pieces of hardware and hence abilities. Yes, of course they've done it to save money, and sometimes for the all-important "line positioning" factor. However, a few dollars more here and there could have made a big difference in consistency and lessening consumer confusion (e.g. raising the price of the LC by $25 to pay for the added VRAM needed to support the 13" color monitor fully). So now Apple has lost much of that "simplistic elegance". They're still much better in that regard than IBM and it's compatibles (thank God), but they don't approach that of NeXT or the old Apple. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Perfecting the art of arthroscopic surgery. * ************************************************************************
simogori@titisa.is.titech.ac.jp (shimogori nobuhiro) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec4.063839.13805@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes: > For example, a IIsi 5/80 bare CPU box (no keyboard) costs $NZ >8,625... consortium price to students... Subtract off 12.5% sales >tax and allowing for an exchange rate of $NZ 1 = $US 0.60 gives a US >cost of $US 4,600. Don't worry. The situation doesn't much differ in Japan either. The same thing costs approximatly $US 4,500 at the shop which is said to be the cheapest in Tokyo. If you include the sales tax(3%) it becomes expensive than yours. Only the rich has a color mac at home. -- Nobuhiro Shimogori Dept. of Information Science, simogori@is.titech.ac.jp Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, JAPAN
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.092217.26859@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >This is the second time in as many days that this little bit of misinformation >has been spread, so it's time to correct it. > >- *All* NeXT machines come with floppies. Funny, I have a brochure for the original NeXT cube -- still being sold at discount prices -- right in front of me and the only removeable media it mentions is the optical disk. >As for all those other "nasty choices" (color and whether to get an >optical), the average user doesn't have to worry about them. The >NeXTDimension color is a production-quality 32-bit board, coprocessor, >and monitor system that is priced accordingly. So NeXT eliminates those nasty choices by making them so expensive no one can afford them, huh? Well, at $20 million a pop, the average user doesn't have to worry about buying a Cray, either. I'm sorry you feel Apple is offering the users too many choices. Some people *like* having this flexibility. Yesterday, I had to make the choice of whether to continue using the 8-bit internal video on my Mac IIsi or buy a 24-bit RasterOps graphics board for $399. >The fact of the matter is that NeXT has stuck pretty well to its >guns on the issue of keeping the lowest common denominator at >a high level. All pieces of software written for the NeXT can >count on having a floating-point processor, at least 8 megs of >RAM, a DSP chip, unix, protected virtual memory, display postscript, >ethernet, and a screen with at least 1120x832 resolution. >So can NeXT users. Software that can count on using more advanced >features can take more liberties and therefore do more things. There is nothing stopping you from writing a program that will only run on a Mac IIfx. But doing that will limit your market to the small number of users who can afford a IIfx. Similiarly, writing for the NeXT limits you to writing for users who can afford a NeXT. The NeXT station defines the *highest* possible denominator in computing; there is (unfortunately) no such thing as a low-end NeXT. >Apple used to be that way too. Even the old 128K Macs came loaded >with more features than most of its competing IBM systems could shake >a stick at. And they have *slowly* raised the common denominator since. And losing market share as a result because fewer and fewer users could afford a Mac. It was becoming to expensive even for the Fortune 500. >a few dollars more here and there could have made a big difference in >consistency and lessening consumer confusion (e.g. raising the price of >the LC by $25 to pay for the added VRAM needed to support the 13" color >monitor fully). First of all, I don't think VRAM chips are quite that cheap, but I could be wrong on that. While we're at it, though, why not add another $25 worth of hardware to support sound input in stereo? And since we've done that, another $50 for 16-bit CD-quality sound. Changing the data bus to 32 bits surely wouldn't cost more than $100. Neither would adding an FPU. Of course, we want to use the 68030 to support virtual memory. Adding a second slot probably wouldn't be that expensive. And since we've already raised the price by several hundred dollars, a few hundred more would buy us 24-bit video.... You can always add features to any product, but you've got to stop somewhere.
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec2.081412.25053@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >For some reason, all the "Apple is in business to make money" defenders >of capitalism show an incomplete understanding of its realities. > >Apple's margin on the new machines is adequate. The machines can easily be >assembled at automated plants (the IIsi in Fremont, the Classic and LC in >Singapore). All that is required to meet higher demand is to rent a factory, >rent robots, connect them to computers running the same program as the existing >plants, and start churning out more low-cost Macs, all of which will also bear >an adequate profit margin. If the Classic were to be brought out as a >faster machine, it would still have a pretty high profit margin and Apple >could have opened another plant (possibly with leased equipment to minimize >risk) and make many more Macs, much more money, and really threaten DOS. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what it takes to set up a factory. It costs a *LOT* of money, and takes a lot of time. Deciding to make a new factory, and then actually making it, is a big decision, even for a $5B company like Apple. There aren't computer factories sitting around waiting to be rented by companies like Apple whenever they need a little more production capacity. >The market is not static. Manufacturing capacity is not static. For an >example of how markets can be expanded, look at the NeXT machine. Did you >see all this I'm-defecting-to-NeXT material on the comp.sys.mac groups >when NeXT first came out with its way-overpriced, way-underpowered cube? >Its new line, by being cheaper and faster, means that the company will >survive. Now THIS is capitalism at work. What have you been smoking? Next may have a technically nice machine, but InfoWorld reports that they sell around 800 units a month. They have a factory with a capacity to procude 800 a day. They are not making money, and are not even close. The only reason they are still in business is that Jobs and Perot have deep pockets. BTW, Apple sells 80,000 Macs a month. David
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec2.085558.26111@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >The 030 is roughly 25% to 30% faster than an 020 running at the same clock >speed. I have to disagree with you. When I upgraded from a MacII to a IIx I only saw a 15% increase in speed, which was not really noticeable to the user. David
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.092217.26859@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >As for all those other "nasty choices" (color and whether to get an >optical), the average user doesn't have to worry about them. The >NeXTDimension color is a production-quality 32-bit board, coprocessor, >and monitor system that is priced accordingly. No average user will >have to bother with it. So for them, the choice is color (get a >NeXTStation color), or no color (get a basic NeXTStation). FLAME ON: Isn't that interesting? When Next charges so much for a machine that you couldn't afford one even if you sold your sister into white slavery, its understandable because its "production quality". When Apple does it, they're a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards. David
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (12/05/90)
In article <47110@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >In article <1990Dec4.092217.26859@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >>As for all those other "nasty choices" (color and whether to get an >>optical), the average user doesn't have to worry about them. The >>NeXTDimension color is a production-quality 32-bit board, coprocessor, >>and monitor system that is priced accordingly. No average user will >>have to bother with it. So for them, the choice is color (get a >>NeXTStation color), or no color (get a basic NeXTStation). > >FLAME ON: Isn't that interesting? When Next charges so much for a >machine that you couldn't afford one even if you sold your sister into >white slavery, its understandable because its "production quality". >When Apple does it, they're a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards. > >David My, my. A little touchy, aren't we? As a matter of fact, to get a NeXTCube with the production quality NeXTDimension board and monitor, you don't have to sell your sister into slavery. Though you might have to sell your IIfx. At UCLA student prices, the NeXTCube ($5800) with the 32-bit NeXTDimension color board and a 16" color monitor ($5100) will cost you a total of $10,900. Of course, if you're a person that needs that kind of quality, you better get a IIfx and attempt to equip it similarly. That will be $7250 (you want a decent hard disk, right?) for the IIfx, plus $1350+$380 for the 8-24gc card (not nearly as fast as the 80 MIP i860 on the NeXTDimension board, but it will have to do), plus, I don't know, what does a third-party 16" color monitor with 1120x832 resolution cost these days, at least another $2500? That's $11,500 dollars so far, and we haven't gotten to the NeXTDimension's JPEG video compression chip (lets you play back full-motion video from your hard drive). Not to mention Unix, the fact that the NeXTCube itself is three times as fast as the IIfx, has a better development environment, comes with Unix, etc, etc. Oops. The 8-24gc doesn't let you use 24 bit color on monitors larger than 13". Back to the drawing board. Get the picture? So, once again, we see NeXT giving a strikingly reasonable price on each member of their line. The i860 RISC chip in the NeXTDimension *alone* is a very expensive chip. Some posters in comp.sys.next were thinking of getting the NeXTDimension *just* to use that chip, since it is one of the most powerful chips around and they hadn't found anybody selling a card with one on any machine for less than $10,000. NeXT is selling it for $5100, and it comes with a $2500 monitor. Your flame, as you see, is wrong. About the greedy capitalists thing: *Of course* Apple is run by a bunch of greedy capitalists. So is NeXT. Their approaches, however, are different. Apple seems to believe in squeezing every last drop of blood out of their customers (the high profit-margin approach). NeXT, partially out of necessity, and partially out of Steve Jobs philosophy, is trying to give the best value possible compared to other machines and therefore making them available to as many people as possible (the market-share approach). Both are greedy. Which leaves a better taste in your mouth, and which gives customers the better value? I've been a fanatic about Apple computers since 1979, and I know which approach I like better -- and which one is going to get my money. Now, if people would stop making these inflammatory and patently wrong comments about the NeXT, this thread could stop. Defending a company's policies by making false attacks about anothers will get you nowhere, except with the ignorant. (This isn't a congressional race, you know.) - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: 1990 NCAA Football Champions (yes, the other kind). * ************************************************************************
bengaard@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Jens Martin Bengaard) (12/05/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>I'm sure too. But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different >>resolutions. Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor...? Why >>didn't Apple lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of >>putting in time and resources (== $$) into making a new one? >No matter how you look at it, the higher-resolution monitor costs more >to manufacture. Sure you can say maybe Apple should reduce its profit >margins on the 13" monitor, but you can also say Apple should reduce its >profit margins on the 12" and make that cheaper as well. If you give >both monitors equal markups, the 12" is always going to be cheaper. There is a very good reason why Apple should have sold a cheap high-resolu- tion monitor with the LC: When you type something in your word processor which has to come out on an ordinary piece of paper, the word processor has to scroll the image sideways because of the limited space on a 512-pixel screen. This is extremely annoying! Since the quality of the display is a much more vital part of a computer than e.g. the processor, it is a ridicu- lous idea to save money on the display. So, cheap high resolution = more LC's sold = higher profits for Apple. Jens Bengaard bengaard@diku.dk
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (12/05/90)
I certainly don't want to get into an ongoing thread about this, but... In article <109822@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <1990Dec4.092217.26859@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: > >>This is the second time in as many days that this little bit of misinformation >>has been spread, so it's time to correct it. >> >>- *All* NeXT machines come with floppies. > >Funny, I have a brochure for the original NeXT cube -- still being sold >at discount prices -- right in front of me and the only removeable media >it mentions is the optical disk. Funny, I have a brochure on the original 128K Mac -- still being sold used at discount prices -- and it only has 128K. NeXT is not making or selling the original NeXT cube anymore. They were selling a few leftovers from their warehouses at good prices for a while, but they only sold them in systems that included 68040 upgrades and an external floppy. How Businessland sells their few remaining old cubes is another story. However, I'd hardly expect somebody to fault Apple for selling Macs with non-standard 800K drives now simply because some stores are still getting rid of their last Mac Pluses. >>As for all those other "nasty choices" (color and whether to get an >>optical), the average user doesn't have to worry about them. The >>NeXTDimension color is a production-quality 32-bit board, coprocessor, >>and monitor system that is priced accordingly. > >So NeXT eliminates those nasty choices by making them so expensive no >one can afford them, huh? Well, at $20 million a pop, the average user >doesn't have to worry about buying a Cray, either. I'm sorry you feel >Apple is offering the users too many choices. Some people *like* having >this flexibility. Yesterday, I had to make the choice of whether to >continue using the 8-bit internal video on my Mac IIsi or buy a 24-bit >RasterOps graphics board for $399. I'm sorry that I didn't explain this in detail originally, but I was trying to avoid being tedious. Since you took that as an opportunity to attack, I'll explain it here as quickly as possible: The NeXTDimension Color is a production-quality 32-bit board with a 80 MFLOP i860 coprocessor, a JPEG video compression chip (allowing playing of full-motion video from a hard disk), and a 1120x832 pixel 16" color monitor. The average user doesn't need this. However, if he *does* need it, he can get it for his NeXTCube for $5100 (at educational prices). The total price for the NeXTCube and the NeXTDimension is less than the total price for the relatively anemic IIfx, 8-24gc graphics coprocessor, and 16+" color monitor, which anybody that needs the performance of the NeXTDimension board will surely have to buy. *However*, if the user is a mere mortal for which 16-bit, 1120x832 16" color monitor will do, then he only has to choose a NeXTStation Color machine for about $5200, and have a far more powerful machine and graphics than, for instance, a Mac IIci for nearly the same price with a hard disk and a 13" color monitor. >>The fact of the matter is that NeXT has stuck pretty well to its >>guns on the issue of keeping the lowest common denominator at >>a high level. All pieces of software written for the NeXT can >>count on having a floating-point processor, at least 8 megs of >>RAM, a DSP chip, unix, protected virtual memory, display postscript, >>ethernet, and a screen with at least 1120x832 resolution. >>So can NeXT users. Software that can count on using more advanced >>features can take more liberties and therefore do more things. > >There is nothing stopping you from writing a program that will only >run on a Mac IIfx. But doing that will limit your market to the small >number of users who can afford a IIfx. Similiarly, writing for the >NeXT limits you to writing for users who can afford a NeXT. The NeXT >station defines the *highest* possible denominator in computing; there >is (unfortunately) no such thing as a low-end NeXT. I assume you've seen the prices lately; the lowest cost NeXTStation costs about $3200. You're right, the Classic costs less than that. However, anybody that can afford a IIsi can afford a NeXTStation. And, like you said, with that he gets the highest possible common denominator in computing. Notice the trend here: two years ago, the original NeXT cube cost over $7000. Now it is less than half that. And yet the NeXT's common denominator has stayed the same (and risen in the current machines with the 68040). Five years from now, when the newest NeXT machine costs $1500, and is within the reach of most users, their common denominator will *still* have the same high level that there is today, because NeXT never went and decided to sell 030 machines without a FPU or 68020 and 68000 machines that can't handle virtual memory but which the software houses must cater to by neutering their programs. NeXT's high common denominator is why Lotus is able to come out with a highly-innovative program like Improv that requires high processor performance: they know that all the NeXT machines can handle it. But pity the poor sap who goes out and spends $3000 on a Mac LC system, and later decides that he wants to run Unix or Mathematica (decently) or Improv-for-the-fx. Yes, he *might* be able to get an upgrade from Apple at their normal turnip-squeezing prices, but he better not get a third-party upgrade, because Apple won't support it. >>a few dollars more here and there could have made a big difference in >>consistency and lessening consumer confusion (e.g. raising the price of >>the LC by $25 to pay for the added VRAM needed to support the 13" color >>monitor fully). > >First of all, I don't think VRAM chips are quite that cheap, but I could >be wrong on that. While we're at it, though, why not add another $25 worth >of hardware to support sound input in stereo? And since we've done that, >another $50 for 16-bit CD-quality sound. Changing the data bus to 32 bits >surely wouldn't cost more than $100. Neither would adding an FPU. Of course, >we want to use the 68030 to support virtual memory. Adding a second slot >probably wouldn't be that expensive. And since we've already raised the >price by several hundred dollars, a few hundred more would buy us 24-bit >video.... You can always add features to any product, but you've got to >stop somewhere. You're right, but there are some things that are so commonly used that it *is* worth it to include. For instance, people tend to use a SCSI interface, so even Apple makes one standard. People tend to need the equivalent of an 4-8 display card, so Apple builds one in to the IIsi and the IIci. They do that because simplicity of building it in to the machine and the cost benefits of mass production make it much less costly than they would be as an upgrade or a card. This would seem to be the case with the added VRAM needed to support 8-bit color or grayscale on the 12" b/w or 13" color monitors. *Lots* of people use those monitors (even more so if the 12" color monitor is as bad as it sounds). Apple has *always* provided 8-bit color for their color monitors. And yet everybody buying an LC is going to go home, plug in their 13" monitors, and wonder why they "can't get very many colors". (Oh sorry, they can all depend on their competent salesmen to tell them everything. Right.). This one is almost petty on Apple's part. I won't argue the merits of all of the other little corners and feature cuts that Apple has made. Other somewhat disillusioned people here have done so. All I know is that NeXT manages to sell a machine for the price of a IIsi that doesn't include any of its design compromises and has even more hardware and software features than the twice-as-expensive IIfx. So basically, yes, I think that Apple should spend the $100 or so extra dollars necessary to have enough RAM to be useable, to have as many machines as possible be able to run virtual memory, and in general have a consistent and solid common denominator that both software developers and customers can count on. Or at least limit it to two tiers (68000 and II/SE 30/LC class machines) rather than the four+ there are now. Even if it means having to have only a 45% profit margin rather than a 50% profit margin. The name of the game is long-term market share, and Apple is barely starting to realize this. The hodge-podge of corner-cutting found on the new machines is what you get when they try to do it without getting their feet wet, rather than trying to give more value for the money. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: 1990 NCAA Football Champions (yes, the other kind). * ************************************************************************
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/06/90)
In article <47110@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes:
FLAME ON: Isn't that interesting? When Next charges so much for a
machine that you couldn't afford one even if you sold your sister into
white slavery, its understandable because its "production quality".
When Apple does it, they're a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards.
David
Please read Bruce Webster's article in the January 1991 issue of
MacWorld for a price comparison of Macs and NeXTs. Your facts seem to
be wrong. Also, would you care to post the prices Apple was charging
at this time last year for the Macs? NeXT offers an incredible
machine at a good price.
-Mikedaveo@apple.com (David M. O'Rourke) (12/06/90)
> Not to mention Unix, > the fact that the NeXTCube itself is three times as fast as the > IIfx, has a better development environment, comes with Unix, > etc, etc. What benchmark are you using for that comparsion?? If you're using the performance of Mathmatica then that's not adequite since Mathmatica has an admitted bug on the Macintosh version that slow it down _SIGNIFICANTLY_. As for the matter of coming with Unix, I think that's a debatible advantage for the average user, etc, etc. The funny thing about NeXT coming with Unix is that the real advantage is that you can run software that doesn't take advantage of _ANY_ of NeXT's features. So you got this great windowing box and you run text based software on it, yeah that's a real advantageI just my $0.02 worth daveo@apple.com I do not speak for Apple Computer, Inc. in any official account. ctiveness of sheeting out by causing the top of the sail to luff earlier and more completely, which lowers the center of effort. Lift due to oversheeting increases untill stall is reached, and then it quickly tumbles off. Twist in the sail smooths out the leverage curve because the top stalls last --- causing the center of effort to rise even as the lift falls off. /pr
jmm@lsuc.on.ca (John Macdonald) (12/06/90)
In article <1990Dec2.013950.3145@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >Just some more fuel for the flames... > >The Stanford Bookstore has notices up announcing a 2-month wait for >delivery of Classics (complete with Apple's customer service number >for anyone who wants to complain). > >So it seems that Apple has vastly _underestimated_ the demand for a >low-end machine (does this support the argument that Apple has good >business sense? I don't know). I don't think your conclusion follows. With a much heralded popular addition to the product line, it is not surprising to have a very high demand for the first few months (I'm sure a *lot* of people postponed any purchase that they would have made in the preceding 6 months or more. Plus, a lot of people who have refused to buy a Mac earlier because it was out of their price range. All of these order in the first few weeks after the announcement.) It would be rather foolish of Apple to build an extra factory so that they could keep up with demand in the first month of each popular new product (and then not need it for the next year and a half since their previously existing factories could handle the demand after the first month's flood had been covered).
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (12/06/90)
>>My NeXT computer is going to be a Mac ... > >So you will get to choose between optical disks and hard disks, floppies >(in a nonstandard 2.8 M format) or no floppies, two types of color >hardware or monochrome Wow, a new record for erroneous remarks about a NeXT in 100 words or less. First, the optical disk is no longer standard. Second, the floppy drives come with all the standard NeXT configurations. Third, the 2.88 MB floppy is compatible with both 720K and 1.44 MB MS-DOS formats. Can you say the same for Mac floppies? You are correct though that NeXT users have a choice between color and monochrome. But what machine doesn't? `
wcarroll@encore.com (Mr. New Dad) (12/07/90)
From article <1142@duteca.UUCP>, by reinoud@duteca (Reinoud Lamberts): > The 68020 has a feature called 'dynamic bus sizing', allowing it to > work with 32, 16 or 8 bit busses at any time, something a 68030 can't > do. According to the 68030 User's Manual (MC68030UM/AD REV 1), in section 7.2.1 _Dynamic Bus Sizing_, "The MC68030 dynamically interprets the port size of the addressed device during each bus cycle." > A narrower memory bus greatly reduces system cost: fewer memory > chips necessary, fewer bus buffers, cheaper printed circuit board > (smaller, fewer traces, maybe fewer layers). We'll get back to this. > > What do you mean by 'incompatible architecture'? The 68020 instruction > set is actually a SUPERSET of the 68030! > Back to the 68030 User's Manual, the '020 has two instructions (CALLM and RTM) not in the '030, and the '030 has four MMU instructions (PFLUSH, PLOAD, PMOVE, and PTEST) not in the '020. The only other differences listed are: 128 byte data cache, on-chip MMU, and 6 new control registers. by boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin): > das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >>The CPU spends a large percentage of time executing code out of ROM, >>so it has a wider path to the ROM. It has a 16 bit path to RAM to >>save a little money. Believe it or not, you run out of room for >>traces on a PC board, and either you have to make a bigger board >>(which costs more for the board material and the bigger case to hold >>it) or you cut out some traces. > > Are you saying the extra inch of board space and the extra inch of case > required to accomodate the extra traces would significantly add to the cost > of making the LC? The extra 16 bits are more than an extra inch of board space. You have twice as many memory chips, twice as many memory buffers, and the control logic for all of that. It is not a trivial thing. > > Regarding your assertion that the average user doesn't do anything that > uses an FPU: besides spreadsheets, there are Adobe Type Manager and TrueType > (I don't know for a fact that TrueType makes use of the FPU, but if it > doesn't, it must be really slow). Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic > (ATM) splines to display text on the screen is a very floating-point- > math-intensive process. Does the average user really do these things? If they did, don't you think computer companies would sell more models with FPUs included? -- William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (12/07/90)
wcarroll@encore.com (Mr. New Dad) writes: >> >> What do you mean by 'incompatible architecture'? The 68020 instruction >> set is actually a SUPERSET of the 68030! >> > >Back to the 68030 User's Manual, the '020 has two instructions (CALLM >and RTM) not in the '030, and the '030 has four MMU instructions (PFLUSH, >PLOAD, PMOVE, and PTEST) not in the '020. The only other differences >listed are: 128 byte data cache, on-chip MMU, and 6 new control registers. While it is true that the 68020 chip itself does not have these memory management instructions, they can be added if a 68851 MMU is added to the 68020 system. Adding a 68851 will give you a superset of the 68030 MMU instructions (for instance, PBcc, which is not supported by the '030). So if you need these intructions (for virtual memory support) you _can_ get them on a 68020 system. Of course, programs written (properly) for the macintosh would never call any of these instructions, anyway, as they are privileged and therefore forbidden (by Apple) to be used by applications, etc. So the lack of these instructions shouldn't ever cause any problems on a non 68851 '020 system. "Thou Shalt not Assume that Thy Macintosh is in Supervisor Mode" Also, the caches on the 68030 (both data and instruction) are 256 byte, not 128 byte. Not that this will ever affect code executing on the processor, anyway... Sources: Documents BR508/D Rev 2 (68030) and BR243/D Rev 3 (68020) (Motorola) Just picking nits :^) I generally agree with what you are saying... Lawrence Miller
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (12/07/90)
I don't feel so bad about continuing this thread given the three hundred postings on the "Energizer Bunny" here lately. :-) In article <11447@goofy.Apple.COM> daveo@apple.com (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >> Not to mention Unix, >> the fact that the NeXTCube itself is three times as fast as the >> IIfx, has a better development environment, comes with Unix, >> etc, etc. > >What benchmark are you using for that comparsion?? If you're using the >performance of Mathmatica then that's not adequite since Mathmatica has an >admitted bug on the Macintosh version that slow it down _SIGNIFICANTLY_. I was using that fact that it has a 25 MHz 68040, rather than the IIfx's 40 MHz 68030. All published reports are that the 68040 is approximately 3x faster than the 030 at the same clock speed, and 5-10x faster on floating point. A quick "average" of those (and considering the 40 MHz clockspeed of the IIfx's 030) makes the NeXTCube (and NeXTStation)'s raw processing power about three times the IIfx's. It's also nice that the NeXTs have DMA that they actually *use*. Now, if you want to bring real-world performance into this, then that's different. :-) Because the NeXT uses display postscript and an object-oriented windowing environment, I imagine that its actual graphics speed isn't going to be significantly faster than the IIfx's. However, on computationally-intensive programs like Mathematica, spreedsheets, and any programming the user might do, the NeXT can't help but be significantly faster than the IIfx. Of course, for dinky little things like word-processing, the speed of both will be perfectly adequate. And, since you mentioned Mathematica, the 68040 NeXT has been benchmarked to run it 50% faster than a Sparcstation 1+. So much for RISC architectures. :-) >As for the matter of coming with Unix, I think that's a debatible >advantage for the average user, etc, etc. The funny thing about NeXT >coming with Unix is that the real advantage is that you can >run software that doesn't take advantage of _ANY_ of NeXT's features. So >you got this great windowing box and you run text based software on it, >yeah that's a real advantage. As has been previously pointed out, the main advantage of coming with Unix is that the user automatically gets the advantages of its virtual memory, protected memory spaces, and threads, even while using the NeXT's normal "insanely great" applications. Of course, it is nice for semi-technical users to have Unix around free, too. >just my $0.02 worth > >daveo@apple.com Mine too. Hopefully, for everybody, Apple will feel enough pressure from the extremely competively-priced NeXTStations and Sparcstations, and give their high-end machines a semi-reasonable pricing structure. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: 1990 NCAA Football Champions (yes, the other kind). * ************************************************************************
ACPS1072@RYERSON <ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA> (12/08/90)
Apple Greedy?? You bet they are!!! Sheesh but then again they've been
bleeding us users for money ever since the MACs started coming out.
For example when programming an application...
Has anyone tried to get information on PICT, RIFF, TIFF or any other
MAC information (32-bit quickdraw). sheesh... this costs gobs of money
especially for us freelance programmers that have to buy everything ourselves.
The purchasing of the machine is nothing compared to software and info.
The software probably costs so much because of how much the developer has to
pay to create the software.
(ie. ColorStudio by letraset $2000.00
Animation (something or other) by Linker systems $9000.00
)
Sheesh at this rate why not just buy an amiga and develop for those
Commodore machines. ($50.00 to become a developer, information is
practically free)
prices in Canadian dollars
Derek<<<<< (a struggling computer programmer)
ACPS1072@Ryerson
Toronto, ONvd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (12/08/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 6-Dec-90 Re: The New Macs: > Greedy Co.. Mr. New Dad@encore.com (2601) > > Regarding your assertion that the average user doesn't do anything that > > uses an FPU: besides spreadsheets, there are Adobe Type Manager and TrueType > > (I don't know for a fact that TrueType makes use of the FPU, but if it > > doesn't, it must be really slow). Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic > > (ATM) splines to display text on the screen is a very floating-point- > > math-intensive process. > Does the average user really do these things? If they did, don't you think > computer companies would sell more models with FPUs included? Will average users be able to avoid doing these things when System 7 comes out? (Of course, I suppose there is some question as to whether that will ever happen, but I think that the original poster had a significant point.)
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (12/08/90)
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >And, since you mentioned Mathematica, the 68040 NeXT has been benchmarked >to run it 50% faster than a Sparcstation 1+. So much for RISC >architectures. :-) That should probably be "so much for Sparc architectures". Check out the other RISC chips (MIPS, IBM POWER, Motorola) which leave the Sparc in the dust. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (12/08/90)
In article <109822@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > Funny, I have a brochure for the original NeXT cube -- still being sold > at discount prices -- right in front of me and the only removeable media > it mentions is the optical disk. So you enjoy collecting outdated brochures? What does that prove? Since September, every NeXT system (except a server) comes with a floppy drive. > So NeXT eliminates those nasty choices by making them so expensive no > one can afford them, huh? Well, at $20 million a pop, the average user > doesn't have to worry about buying a Cray, either. I'm sorry you feel > Apple is offering the users too many choices. Some people *like* having > this flexibility. Yesterday, I had to make the choice of whether to > continue using the 8-bit internal video on my Mac IIsi or buy a 24-bit > RasterOps graphics board for $399. Too many choices? That's one way of looking at it. Or perhaps Apple just has a lack of direction. Speaking of prices for color products, take a look at the list price of a 16 MB/105 MB NeXTstation and a 12 MB/105 MB NeXTstation Color. The NeXTstation Color is cheaper by $625... There are a number of reasons for that (and you still have to add a monitor), but it's still rather strange. Perhaps NeXT isn't charging enough? $-) >There is nothing stopping you from writing a program that will only >run on a Mac IIfx. But doing that will limit your market to the small >number of users who can afford a IIfx. Similiarly, writing for the >NeXT limits you to writing for users who can afford a NeXT. The NeXT >station defines the *highest* possible denominator in computing; there >is (unfortunately) no such thing as a low-end NeXT. The NeXTstation is a low-end NeXT. The nice thing about NeXT is that the company has shown a propensity to drop prices as soon as they are able; therefore, when NeXT announces its '91/92 products, I'd expect the price on the NeXTstation to drop accordingly. Besides, NeXT's avowed goal IS to raise the lowest common denominator of computing. Apple did it with the Macintosh by including a mouse, Quickdraw, serial ports, high-resolution screen, acceptable sound, a 3.5" floppy drive, and so on. It was successful, due in part to the fact that developers could assume that every Macintosh would follow certain conventions. Now, NeXT is doing the same thing... Unfortunately, Apple can't, without abandoning their existing customers. To put things into perspective, software developers can assume that each NeXT is the equivalent of a Macintosh IIfx with a 17" 4-bit greyscale monitor (1120 x 832) running A/UX 2.0 (virtual memory, protected address space, interprocess communication), with a DSP card, a SCSI-II card (since the IIfx doesn't have a SCSI-II port) $-), a 2.88 MB floppy drive, 10 Mb/sec Ethernet port, a microphone port, line out jacks, and with 8 MB of RAM. Oh yes, and running System 8.0. $-) Again, from the point of view of a software developer, wouldn't you rather write software for this than a Mac Classic? Not to mention the fact that you could probably do it in half the time. Naturally, there aren't as many NeXTs out there as there are Mac Classics, but neither is the software field as competitive - at least in the amount of companies working on similar software. Assuming a moderately good level of software development for each platform, which one would you rather have three years from now? We've already seen PowerStep, Improv, Interface Builder, NeXT's Workspace Manager -- these products are years ahead of their closest counterparts on other platforms. -Declan (declan@portia.stanford.edu)
david@mace.cc.purdue.edu (David Bainbridge) (12/09/90)
In article <Dec.8.03.23.37.1990.25402@remus.rutgers.edu> declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes: >Assuming a moderately good level of software development for each >platform, which one would you rather have three years from now? We've >already seen PowerStep, Improv, Interface Builder, NeXT's Workspace >Manager -- these products are years ahead of their closest >counterparts on other platforms. Like you said, "3 years from now"..
kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (12/09/90)
In article <1990Dec2.084149.25494@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >Regarding your assertion that the average user doesn't do anything that >uses an FPU: besides spreadsheets, there are Adobe Type Manager and TrueType >(I don't know for a fact that TrueType makes use of the FPU, but if it doesn't, >it must be really slow). Using quadratic (TrueType) or cubic (ATM) splines to >display text on the screen is a very floating-point-math-intensive process. Quadratic and cubic splines are generally computed on an iterative basis, using first (and second) differences -- all easily done with fixed point (i.e. integer) arithmetic. The '020 and '030 will have a slight advantage because of their ability to do 64 bit math. The algorithms are extensions of Breshenham's circle algorithms, and can be found in The SIGGRAPH proceedings for the July 1985 conference in an article by Vaughn Pratt (pp 151-159). Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/09/90)
In article <6337@mace.cc.purdue.edu> david@mace.cc.purdue.edu (David Bainbridge) writes: In article <Dec.8.03.23.37.1990.25402@remus.rutgers.edu> declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes: >Assuming a moderately good level of software development for each >platform, which one would you rather have three years from now? We've >already seen PowerStep, Improv, Interface Builder, NeXT's Workspace >Manager -- these products are years ahead of their closest >counterparts on other platforms. Like you said, "3 years from now".. Good come back. But if the software already exists on the NeXT that you need, why not buy it now? There are great spreadsheets and DBM's available now, and Word Perfect 5.0 has been ported. Quark XPress 3.0 and Adobe Illustrator should appear in the spring. There is some powerful software being developed for the NeXT. Obviously, if the software doesn't exist to meet your needs than the NeXT is a bad choice. However, it would be a good idea to watch the NeXT market develop. You might end-up buying a Mac IIsi thinking that the software doesn't exist for the NeXT when it actually does, and miss out on an opportunity to buy a machine that is definitely more powerful than, well, anything that Apple has on the market at this time. I hope that Apple does rise to the occasion, but when you spend $4000 or $5000 on a computer, it might be wise to look at the NeXT. -Mike
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (12/09/90)
>Next may have a technically nice machine, but InfoWorld reports that >they sell around 800 units a month. Numbers for the old NeXT computers. 20,000 of the new machines have been ordered in 3-4 months. >BTW, Apple sells 80,000 Macs a month. As it should, since it is a PC after all. A workstation, though, does not sell in PC numbers. Sun, the workstation bestseller, sells less than 10,000 machines each month. If NeXT were to sell 80,000 machines a month, it would have nearly 100% of its intended market.
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (12/09/90)
>There is nothing stopping you from writing a program that will run only >on the Mac IIfx. But doing that will limit your market to the small >number of users who can afford a IIfx. Similarly, writing for the NeXT >limits you to writing for users who can afford to buy a NeXT. True, very few people can afford a IIfx (at upwards of $10K). But quite a few computer buyers can afford a $3000-$3500 NeXT (educational pricing). On another point, you imply that the PC software market is the only one that is profitable. This just isn't so. People make money by writing software for Crays, mainframes, minicomputer, workstations, and high-end PCs. I'm a NeXT software developer and as much as I abhor greed, I'm writing software that will make money. ?vi
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (12/09/90)
In article <1990Dec7.085447.19397@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >I was using that fact that it has a 25 MHz 68040, rather than the IIfx's >40 MHz 68030. All published reports are that the 68040 is approximately >3x faster than the 030 at the same clock speed, and 5-10x faster on >floating point. A quick "average" of those (and considering the 40 MHz >clockspeed of the IIfx's 030) makes the NeXTCube (and NeXTStation)'s >raw processing power about three times the IIfx's. It's also nice that >the NeXTs have DMA that they actually *use*. A/UX uses the DMA. Its only the Mac OS which doesn't use the DMA. >And, since you mentioned Mathematica, the 68040 NeXT has been benchmarked >to run it 50% faster than a Sparcstation 1+. So much for RISC >architectures. :-) Performance on RISC machines (and CISC machines, for that matter) often has much more to do with the quality of the compiler than the speed of the processor. Unless you knew that the compiler used on each machine produced code of comparable quality, I don't you think have much of a benchmark. David "There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." Motorola PR sheet
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (12/10/90)
In article <90341.164740ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA> ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA (ACPS1072@RYERSON) writes: >Apple Greedy?? You bet they are!!! Sheesh but then again they've been >bleeding us users for money ever since the MACs started coming out. >For example when programming an application... >Has anyone tried to get information on PICT, RIFF, TIFF or any other >MAC information (32-bit quickdraw). sheesh... this costs gobs of money >especially for us freelance programmers that have to buy everything ourselves. >The purchasing of the machine is nothing compared to software and info. PICT Format: Inside Mac Volume 5, about $30 retail, and if you are programming for Mac IIs, you need it anyway. RIFF is proprietary (not Apple), I think-- and TIFF belongs to Aldus, but the format is in many archive sites across the nets. If you mean the offscreen graphics routines in 32-bit quickdraw, those are in develop magazine-- don't recall how much it is per year, though. Most 'other mac information' is in Inside Mac, or in the Tech Notes. The tech notes are free off the net or many BBSs. > >The software probably costs so much because of how much the developer has to >pay to create the software. Got any hard figures on that? I'm sure someone here with a current APDALOG could supply the prices for a full set of tech notes, and a years subscription to develop. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (12/10/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <90341.164740ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA> ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA (ACPS1072@RYERSON) writes: >>Apple Greedy?? You bet they are!!! Sheesh but then again they've been >>bleeding us users for money ever since the MACs started coming out. >If you mean the offscreen graphics routines in 32-bit quickdraw, those are >in develop magazine-- don't recall how much it is per year, though. Develop = $30 per year I believe... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - a National landslide of incompetence
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (12/10/90)
In article <90341.164740ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA>, ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA (ACPS1072@RYERSON) writes: > Apple Greedy?? You bet they are!!! Sheesh but then again they've been > bleeding us users for money ever since the MACs started coming out. > > The software probably costs so much because of how much the developer has to > pay to create the software. While that may be a bit of an overstatement, you're on the right track. Apple Partner fees are $600/year and Apple Associate fees are $350/year. By comparison, NeXT Developer fees are $0/year. -Declan McCullagh / Independent NeXT Developer
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (12/10/90)
In article <47215@apple.Apple.COM>, das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: > Performance on RISC machines (and CISC machines, for that matter) often > has much more to do with the quality of the compiler than the speed of > the processor. Unless you knew that the compiler used on each machine > produced code of comparable quality, I don't you think have much of a > benchmark. While that usually may be true, when we're talking about the same application on different platforms, it's a different story (plus, Mathematica has its own interpreter for equations and programs, and compiler optimizations may not account for much performance differences except in I/O and user interface code. And, of course, in the efficiency of the interpreter. $-) ) Talking about theoretical differences in compiler optimization is fine, but in the case of Mathematica, we have a real-life example of an application which is considerably faster on the NeXTstation than the SS1+. I'd like to see some Mathematica benchmarks on the IIfx (if the bugs in the Mac version were ever fixed). -Declan McCullagh / Independent NeXT Developer
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/10/90)
------ In article <Dec.9.17.22.54.1990.13456@remus.rutgers.edu>, declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes... >In article <90341.164740ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA>, ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA (ACPS1072@RYERSON) writes: >> Apple Greedy?? You bet they are!!! Sheesh but then again they've been >> bleeding us users for money ever since the MACs started coming out. >> >> The software probably costs so much because of how much the developer has to >> pay to create the software. > >While that may be a bit of an overstatement, you're on the right >track. Apple Partner fees are $600/year and Apple Associate fees are >$350/year. By comparison, NeXT Developer fees are $0/year. Your point being? How many real commercial developers does Apple have to support compared to the number Next has to support? And how many non-commercial developers does Apple need to support compared to Next? If the ratio were as small as 20 to 1 I would be suprised. The point being: Apple cannot afford to support all developers directly thru DTS; those who are in the "upper echelon" can almost certainly afford the developers fees. Those who aren't in the upper echelon can avail themselves of fairly inexpensive alternatives such as apple.com (free technotes, stacks, etc), d e v e l o p magazine (with free CD ROM disk inside containing HUGE amounts of development materials/info), etc. And APDA, while charging a lot, is not all THAT expensive. I would bet that if Next ever reaches Apple's size -- an event which would suprise me greatly -- they too will charge to be a developer. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
n67786@lehtori.tut.fi (Nieminen Tero) (12/17/90)
These days MIPS is not used to refer to Millions of Instructions Per Second. Instead 1 MIPS means the computing power of a VAX 11/780 measured using a certain kind of bencmark test. So a machine producing say 20 MIPS is actually computing 20 times faster than the VAX 11/780 regardless of the type of the cpu (ie. risc vs. cisc). This is quite handy to eliminate benchmarking fast do-nothing instructions (nop). Also calculations like in the previous article do not hold in this contents. I don't have any actual figures at hand about the spoken i860, but check comp.sys.benchmarks for more detail information. -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe
glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec5.072931.4079@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: >In article <47110@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >>FLAME ON: Isn't that interesting? When Next charges so much for a >>machine that you couldn't afford one even if you sold your sister into >>white slavery, its understandable because its "production quality". >>When Apple does it, they're a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards. >> >>David > >My, my. A little touchy, aren't we? > [ stuff deleted ] > >Of course, if you're a person that needs that kind of quality, you better >get a IIfx and attempt to equip it similarly. That will be $7250 (you want >a decent hard disk, right?) for the IIfx, plus $1350+$380 for the >8-24gc card (not nearly as fast as the 80 MIP i860 on the NeXTDimension ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This figure is garbage. The i860 can manage 66 MFLOP PEAK in a special type of tight loop. Usually it averages 10-12 MFLOP. Integer performance is around 1 instruction/cycle, ie 33 Mhz = 33 MIPS. Note: this is a figure for RISC MIPS which does not compare with CISC MIPS, also this figure is higher than real life performance depending on cache hits etc. > >Now, if people would stop making these inflammatory and patently wrong >comments about the NeXT, this thread could stop. Defending a company's Good point, shame you didn't take your own advice. NeXT people seem to infect Mac and Amiga groups at the moment... Disclaimer : I could be wrong if the NeXTDimension happens to have an i860 at around 100Mhz, but I really doubt this. (And I doubt any RAM could keep up with this anyway) > >- Trent Lange > -- Matt Crowd Amiga Man Email Address glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au
wcarroll@encore.com (Mr. New Dad) (12/20/90)
From article <N67786.90Dec17092227@lehtori.tut.fi>, by n67786@lehtori.tut.fi (Nieminen Tero): > > These days MIPS is not used to refer to Millions of Instructions Per > Second. Instead 1 MIPS means the computing power of a VAX 11/780 > measured using a certain kind of bencmark test. If you're interested, see IEEE Computer December 1990 (Vol 23 No 12) "An Overview of Common Benchmarks" by Reinhold P. Weicker for a discussion of benchmarks and the meaning of MIPS. He states that the most common meaning is Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed. Another is Meaningless Information Provided by Salesman. If you really think advertised mips, even vax mips, translates into any real-world performance metric, I feel sorry for you. -- William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me