OT - Care to share your opinion?

[Cian Duffy]

> > My 1997 Powermac is useless. Totally and utterly useless. Can't be
> > upgraded beyond 1 PCI card (has a 10Mbit NIC in it), and the only OS
> > it runs well is BeOS
> 
> Of course, your 1997 PowerMac is a consumer computer that was at the
> *very* end of its life...

True, and the Thinkpad was the newest model (the PII ones) - but it
was still the same price and is the same age.
 
> > My 1997 Thinkpad is running XP. Its had a lot of RAM added, but it
> > runs it well. It can do stuff the Powermac can only dream of, like
> > playing videos, running a modern OS (BeOS on PPC is a good 6 years out
> > of sync with x86)...
> 
> That's quite interesting... my future brother-in-law has a 1997
> Thinkpad that is next to worthless. It can barely run Windows 95 and
> IE without having a hissy-fit! More than 256 colours? Forget about it.
> What were you saying about 1997 Thinkpad?

That is still usable, which I'll show below
 
> > The Powermac was more expensive
> 
> It was also probably the better computer. Are you sure you're
> comparing apples and oranges there ;-).

It wasn't when it was new - ran System 7 compared to OS/2 - and still is't
 
> > Apple gear does not have a longer functional life.
> 
> I must completely and utterly disagree with that. My father recently
> (last year) retired my very first Mac from service, a 1986 Mac SE
> upgraded to 16 MHz 68020 Prodigy accelerator (1987 vintage) running a
> 20" monster of a monitor. It did duty as my mom's spread sheet & fax
> computer.

Because your mother was willing to use a slug, though. YOU couldn't
have coped with it.
 
> The other fact that counters your argument is that used Macs retain
> their value MUCH longer than i86 counterparts. You couldn't peddle a
> 1999 vintage i86 for 400 CAD (~300-350 USD) yet you can very easily
> sell off a 1999 G3 for that, and then some.

A B&W sells for around $150 now. Not $350. 
 
> Another reason Macs have a longer functional life is that for the VAST
> majority of people, it's easier to upgrade a (professional) Mac than
> an i86. A 1999 B&W G3 has a defined upgrade path. Plunk in a decent
> speed G4 and you have a *much* faster computer. Your i86 will require
> you to do a hell of a lot more research to even determine if your mobo
> will accept a faster CPU, and, even if it can, you'll need to figure
> out what type and what brand.

The upgrades are cripplingly expensive - the 450Mhz G3 for my PMac
would have cost me about $600 new.

> The other thing to remember is you need to compare your apples to
> oranges. Consumer Macs are no better or worse than their i86
> counterparts, but, even they have long lifespans (provided the
> hardware doesn't outright fail). Pro Macs are definitely the cream of
> the crop as far as computers go -- you can expect your pro machine to
> keep chugging away, LONG after your i86 IBM has given up the ghost.

Who made most of the insides of Mac's in the mid 1990's? 
Which company now has the better hardware rep

My IE£2000 bought me a tank of a Power Macintosh - 180Mhz, 32MB RAM,
1.2GB HDD, 33.6 modem, 14x CD-ROM. It got me a 266Mhz, 32MB RAM, 4GB
HDD, 33.6 modem,14x CD-ROM Thinkpad the same year. I bought the Mac in
Ireland, got the TP in Canada.

The Mac has 1 PCI slot, a comms slot (in use for the modem) and an A/V
slot. It has a soldered CPU and a cache slot that can take a 450Mhz
CPU. It cant take a max of 136MB of extremely expensive EDO RAM. It
can take about a 10GB HDD before it needs overlay apps (FWB), and the
CD-ROM is not upgradable. Its running System 8.6. Graphics are 832x624
from a 1MB raw framebuffer.

The Thinkpad has 2PCMCIA slots, a 33.6 modem that has been software
upgraded to 56K (mwave). CPU is socketed but I've never got around to
replacing it - have a 366 that would fit it. It can take a max of
160MB of very cheap SO-DIMM RAM. It can take a 40GB HDD with the
latest BIOS upgrade, and I have a CD-RW in it. Its running XP.
Graphics are 1024x768x16 bit (not 16 colours, 16 bit colour) from a
2MB Accelerated NeoMagic

Also, IBM's solid gear compared to Apple's recent crud - battery
failures, emac raster-shift, ibook logic board death, imac bad HDD's,
etc, etc, etc - I think I know which one will last longer.

Much as I love PPC gear, Apple make over priced, short lived gear.
Even if it is upgradable, those upgrades are cripplingly expensive.
They hold their value, but only because of their brand.

Cian


-- 
-------------------------
"We're busy running out of time"