OT - Care to share your opinion?

[Norberto Quintanar]

--- Eric Dunbar <eric.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/05, Cian Duffy <myob87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hold on now, this "Apples stay functional longer" thing just is
> not true
> 
> Now, *this* is flame bait :-).
> 
> > 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...
> 
> > 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?
> 
> > The Powermac was more expensive
> 
> It was also probably the better computer. Are you sure you're
> comparing apples and oranges there ;-).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> I know enough people who still use their IIfxs, Quadra 950s and
> 8500s
> for every-day tasks using plain-Jane Mac OS-based software (and,
> there
> are lots of people here who do but they don't count since no one
> here
> is your "average" computer user... you can find enough "hobbyists"
> (ahem, geeks) on i86 hardware who are also keeping their 486s and
> 586s
> alive through Linux/BSD).
> 
> Eric.
 
I couldn't have worded it better myself.

I'm running a 6500/250 with YDL 3.0 and it's faster than my PIII
windoze box.  No way I could run an equivalent PI/200mhz chip except
as as server running linux/bsd.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com