🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Summers-1609951252450001@arclan-ara-gw-5.arc.nasa.gov> Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov (David P. Summers) writes:
>In article <43d58e$2n5@onramp.arc.nasa.gov>, josco@eco.arc.nasa.gov
>(Joseph Coughlan) wrote:
>> I disagree.  Look at today's MS Office and Mac's and even system 7.5x
>> is large.
>
>I agree here.  MS apparently feels that if older machines aren't
>supported in the PC world, they should try and make sure they
>aren't in the Mac world.  However, MS aside, the statement
>generally holds.

What suites are avaiable for the MAC aside from MS's?  My fellow
workers all use MS OFFICE on the MAC.  I think the MacOS is also
growing pretty large.  Legacy software is one thing but buying apps and
keeping current on older MAC is hard becuase of how Apple designed
them.

>> Apple sells crippled systems to users and that means short life spans.
>> For instance I'm now teaching a MAC class and the only system I can
>> purchase from the Univ is a 5200 performa with 12MB and 800 MB HDisk.
>> No substitutes.  That's a crippled system given today's software.
>> Apple seems to want to sell stuff that has a short life span.
>
>It is...
>a) Hard to understand what you are trying to say.
>b) Clearly a different point (we were talking about supporting older
>systems and you switch to general bashing of Apple computers).
>c) From what I can understand, just absurd.

a) Apple's only offering one configuration to students and it's
   inflexible on their configurations so students are getting
   a one size fits all system -- easy to maintain for Apple.
   The system comes with 12MB of RAM which is not enough for a 
   NEW SYSTEM.  One would like to keep a new system for 3-5 years.
   12MB isn't enough FOR A NEW SYSTEM.

b) I'm bashing Apples decision to constantly ship systems that
   are difficult and or limited in how that can be upgraded.
   Upgradibility is a premium feature for Apple systems.  

C)  Really ?

>Trying to address the main question, you seem to be complaining
>about the amount of memory that comes on the machines.  12 MB 
>(which is what I have) and 800MB (which is more than I have)
>is hardly "crippled".

Did you just buy a 12MB system?  I hope not.  New systems with 12MB
will soon need RAM upgrades, probably requiring one to toss some
SIMMS.  As far as a new system goes, 12MB is too low.  Sites moving to
PPC MAcs are getting 16MB 6100's for the low end, not 12MB or 8MB.  We,
SGE, got some 8MB 6100's and they are too slow to run WORD.  12MB --
4MB more is peanuts.

As for maintenance:
My old MAC PLUS and 286-AT are very different.  The MAC PLUS had
a RAM UPGRADE and SCSI Disk added that was very easy to do but the
system is essentially useless for me now.  The screen and RAM are
MAXed out and further upgrades are wierd.

The 286-6 has a 4MB card in it, a windows specific accelerator card
added inplace of the monographoics card, an IDE card added in place of
the MFM card, New BIOS added to run 1.4 Drives, new color video screen
to replace the mono-monitor and runs the most recent version of AMI PRO
for Windows, QuattroPro and etc. all at an acceptable speed as well as
quicken and other current software.

My MAC was easier to maintain because it was so limited in what could
be done.  The PC was harder to configure because I had choices but had
a much longer life span than the MAC.

Today I see Apple forcing students and entry level users into limited
lifespan systems.  I hope competition will kill off these crippled
MAC's that APPLE sells to educational and entry level users.

>> Most students with older macs are out of luck with it's limited
>> expandibility for the types of systems apple sold cheaply.
>> I suspect the clone competition will force apple to change.
>
>This I don't get at all.  You have an older system that is perfectly
>functional.  What does the type of new systems available due to
>change that?

You have to interoperate with people and that means buying updated
software.   My class is taught with current software -- MS OFFICE.
People with older MAC's are stuck with systems that are difficult to
upgrade but are too slow to do the assignments outside of the lab.  I'm
relating their problems.  A 386 can be jacked up to 16MB and run MS
OFFICE95.  A MAC of the same era cannot be as easily upgraded because
of the design.

>> My rule of thumb on PC's is to get 4 times the ram a base system sells
>> with.  So I'd get a PPC with 32MB of RAM.  For expandibility an IBM
>> clone in a big case is the most adaptive.
>
>You are saying you need a big case to be able to fit more memory?????

I'm saying that APPLE's biggest liability for the MAC has been limited
expandability -- RAM is one area.  The MAC's many of my students have
can only take 4-10MB of RAM.  The CPU is fine and the disk storage can
be added to but Apple made a crippled system to protect their more
expensive, upgradable systems.  I don't see that design in IBM clones
because competition wipes out that sort of strategy.

>> In 1991 my 386-33 had 16MB and it's still good today because the ram is
>> enough to run OS/2 well.  I plan on skipping the pentium for a P6 or
>> PPC system in 1996.
>
>That nice.  However, I used my _68000 Mac up until a year ago and people
>at work are _still_ using them.

The 68000's a fine CPU. 

For work in an office or classroom, these older systems just cannot run
current apps and have problems with file compatibility.  We have some
MACse's around and some ][Ci`s but these systems are straining to run
apps that are functional with our PPC MAC's.  We have a problem with
software versions.  RAM could solve it if the systems could hold more.

People use lots of older hardware but they are not interoperating.  In
the case of Apple I think the limited expandibility means the systems
are easier to maintain.  We'll see how easy MAC's are to maintain when
PCI cards from the PC world are put into MAC's and the hardware
diversity increases.
-- 

-- Dr. J.C.Coughlan, jcoughlan@gaia.arc.nasa.gov