--- Eric Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/4/05, Cian Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ yellowdog-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
