25 Apr
2009
25 Apr
'09
7:25 a.m.
For me, the decision wasn't about Windows vs. whatever else. It was cheap, crappy
commoditized PC hardware.
For years, I'd upgraded my home desktop machine at such time as I wanted some new toy
that wasn't supported on the existing hardware, or I felt I needed more
performance/resources/heating. :-) That would happen, on average, every two years or so.
Over the past year, I tried to upgrade three times, to be foiled by hardware failures
each time. The last motherboard would not even boot up an OS. These weren't cheap
bargain-table motherboards, either - they were from reputable vendors, midrange in their
price ranges. (I don't need insane gamer perf features.) One burned up, one had
quirky, fatal flaws (couldn't detect more than one graphics adapter) and one just
never got off the dime.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of hardware. I hack deep into hardware
both for a living and as a hobby. But if I'm going to spend time hacking hardware, it
should be at least twenty years old - in other words, I should be doing it because
it's FUN! Then, when I need to see if Bitsavers (thank you!) or Google can help me
dig out some obscure fact or figure, I want my desktop to be a reliable appliance. It
should Just Work.
That's how I ended up with Macs.
It's not the OS, although I do like the idea of Unix under the hood rather than a
compromised derivation of VMS. It's the hardware. It's the integration.
It's the appliance-like nature that, I must admit, I ridiculed for years. But when I
want to check my email or Google a part number, my Macs always work.
Of course, not to be a complete conformist :-) I don't have an Intel-(de)based Mac in
the house. I'm typing this on a PowerBook G4, and my main desktop is a pair of dual
G4 PowerMacs, each running two monitors and sharing mouse and keyboard through Synergy.
(One of these days, I'm going to improve their integration so it looks like multimon a
la Xinerama.) If they weren't so stinkin' expensive (even with being four years
obsolete), I'd have G5s, but the G4s are just fine for email, etc. If I can't do
it on my Macs, I probably don't need to do it.
Of course, I'm planning to rebuild my VAX 4000/300, and I plan to put SMTP on it this
time. I know VMS will always get me my email.... Cheers -- Ian
________________________________________
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of
Jochen Kunz [jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:50 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: CDC Remote Calculator, circa 1965
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:18:46 -0700
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
A PC isn't a "real" computer?
PeeCees are no "real" computers. PeeCees are a pile of cheap junk. At
least when compared to proper personal computers like e.g. Sun, HP or
DEC workstations or even a Mac. But this gets religious now. ;-)
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
25 Apr
25 Apr
6:52 p.m.
For me, the decision wasn't about Windows vs. whatever else. It was cheap,=
crappy commoditized PC hardware. =20
I've avoided this by sticking to classic PC hardware that I have
schematics of. Yes, I've found heardware problems with it, but at least
it's built from chips I understand cand have data sheets on. So I can fix
said prolems (and yes, I've had to piggyback chips and add kludgewires to
get thins working properly).
For years, I'd upgraded my home desktop machine at such time as I
wanted some new toy that wasn't supported on the existing hardware, or I
I wonder how many of these new toys are actually necessary. I know that
if I felt the need for things like this, I'd not try using them with any
machine I depend on. In other words, if I wanted to run something
(hardware or software) that needed a modern PC, I guess I'd get a modern
PC for that alone, and keep the old classics for the important stuff.
[...]
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of
hardware. I hack deep into
hardware both for a living and as a hobby. But if I'm going to spend
time hacking hardware, it should be at least twenty years old - in other
words, I should be doing it because it's FUN! Then, when I need to see
Agreed. And while I;ve bought things with the intention of modifying them
as soon as I get them home, I sure am not happy if I buy a product and it
doesn't work out of the box. It's even worse if there are no schematics
and everyhting is heidden in ASICs (which I haven't a hope of
understanding if the device doesn't work!)
if Bitsavers (thank you!) or Google can help me dig
out some obscure
fact or figure, I want my desktop to be a reliable appliance. It should
Just Work.
That's how I ended up with Macs.
What put me off Macs was 2 main things (and this is going to turn into a
religious war if I'm not careful)
The first is the horrible (IMHO) hardware design of the Apple ][ (the
last Apple product that I've seen official schematics for). It's arguale
whether the Apple [] or the IBM PC is the worse design, they're both
pretty dire actually. I've sene unofficial schematics of some early Macs,
and I didn't like that much either.
But the seocnd is the real reason. It's Apple's attitude that 'We know
best. Do it our way'. QUite honestly, I know exaclty what I want, and I
know how I want to do it. And if something gets in the way of that, I
don't want it. The whole Mac philosophy is not what I want at all.
[...]
etc. If I can't do it on my Macs, I probably
don't need to do it.
That's how I feel about my classics. People keep on telling me of things
I can't do because I don't have a modern PC, and quite honestly, I don't
want to do those things, so I'm not missing out at all. I'll get better
sound from my old valved amplifiers than from any MP3 player, I'll get
better pictures from my classic cameras than from any digitial one. I am
one of these people who won't loose performance just to gain a little
convenience...
-tony
5726
days inactive
5726
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
IanK＠vulcan.com