From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Let's talk Performas, Boys and Girls
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:26:20 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos) writes:

>Having to buy an extra video card to drive a page monitor kind of
>defeats the purpose and intent of 'a low-cost Mac'. 

    Only if you are trying to do more with the computer than was
intended by the designers. Some things have to be left out of a
"low-cost Mac" in order for it to be cost effective, otherwise Apple
would lose money on the computer, and that isn't good business.

>If I wanted to get all the functionality I currently have with my IIsi
>(multiple monitor support, cache card, etc.) it would cost more with a
>Performa.

    The Performa 600 can support multiple monitors with its on-board
video, perhaps not all the ones that you would like it to support, but
it does support multiple monitors and does it a whole lot more
efficiently than your IIsi. And what is this talk of a cache card?
Neither the Performa 600 or the IIsi come with a cache card, but at
least in the Performa 600 you can add that cache card and not lose the
use of any of the 3 NuBus slots. But on the Iisi the only slot you have
available is now filled with the cache card.

>I just don't think that the Performa is a low-cost alternative for
>serious Mac Users.

    That's ok, it was never intented to be a "low-cost alternative for
serious Mac users".

>As you are well aware, the biggest Mac market is Desktop publishing, by
>not adding plug-in compatibility for a page-monitor, Apple is cutting
>off a large chunk of the traditional Mac market, but then they are not
>going for the traditional Mac Market.

    In this, you are basically correct. But since one of the standrd
configurations for the P600 is with an internal CD-ROM drive it is safe
to conclude that the Performa 600 is better suited to multi-media
applications than it is to DTP.

>THE PERFORMA IS A GREAT FAMILY COMPUTER, BUT IT IS NOT THE COMPUTER
>FOR THOSE WHO USE THEIR CURRENT MAC FOR MORE ADVANCED FEATURES AND
>HEAVY DUTY GRAPHICS OR DESK TOP PUBLISHING.

    Actually, for heavy duty graphics the P600 is a much better choice
than your IIsi. Especially since it supports 16bit color. And I would
think twice before I call DTP "more advanced" than multi-media.

>That is all that I am trying to make clear, that current Mac owners should
>evaluate their needs before rushing out and upgrading to a Performa. 

    Well, who said they were planning on rushing out an upgrading to a
Performa 600. 

>Sure, Performas cost less now, but without the extra-monitor support and
>a single RAM Bank, they'll end up costing an advanced user more in the
>future.

    Well, unless the people who would be upgrading, bought their last
mac less than 2 years ago, they probably already have a NuBus monitor
card for the monitor they are using, especially if it was a Full-Page
Display. So getting a Performa 600 will not change anything for them in
the realm of monitors. And who says that having only 1 RAM bank is going
to be costly? You know that IIsi you keep using for comparison also has
only 1 Ram bank, but at least the Performa 600 is rated for 16M SIMMS.
The real advantage here is the 32bit bus rather than a 16bit bus.

>All that I am saying is that, while it is commendable that Apple is
>introducing a low-cost line of family computers, individuals who use
>their Macs for advanced uses should be made aware that it is quite an
>expensive proposition to upgrade a Performa 600 to get it up to full
>functionality. 

    What is full functionality, and why does it cost more to achieve it
when purchacing a Performa 600 than it does when purchasing any other
Mac? I still don't see why the Performa 600 isn't appropriate for
"advanced uses" as you continually say.

>Let's face it, with a $250 dollar investment for a cache card with FPU
>for my IIsi, I would still have of Performa 600% speed.  If I were to
>add a full page monitor to the Performa, I would only be one-slot up
>from the IIsi, and have paid an extra $400 bucks fora single slot, in my
>opinion, this is not worth it.

    Yes, you could get a cache card and an fpu for your IIsi, but then
you would not be able to expand it any further than that because you
would have used up your only slot, but you would still be a good deal
slower than a P600, about 1/2 the speed. Adding a full page monitor to a
P600 will use only one of its NuBus slots, but it comes with 3, so that
leaves you 2 slots left for whatever you like. 
    And if you wanted you could hook up a 640x480 color monitor to the
P600 on-board video, running at 16bit and both montitors running
simultaneously a whole lot more efficiently than you IIsi would be at
driving the single full-page display because neither of the monitors
connected to the P600 are using the computer's system RAM for screen
redraw, which is exactly how the on-board video of the IIsi works
because it doesn't have dedicated VRAM.

--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) 
   "You know Television has gone to hell when, with every commercial,
	 you find yourself hoping to see the Energizer Bunny."