"Is the ATI card the Apple gets better than the OEM or retail version available for PC? IIRC the Apple version runs on a slower clock speed, but that may be the Voodoo3 I am not 100% sure."<P>The ATI card that shipped with the Blue and White G3s had a clock speed 10 MHz slower than the PC OEM version, which in turn was 10 MHz slower than the PC retail.<P>I don't know whether the current round of cards suffer from this deficiency.
Please tell me the disadvantages of owning a Mac!
- Thread starter Jack in the Box
- Start date
- Status
Misconception alert!<P><I>Component</I> quality has little to do with the quality of an <I>assembly</I>. CPUs for the most part all come off the same assembly line, and I've yet to hear someone say "the 400Mhz G4 doesn't have the same quality as the 450." <P>An assembly is made up of parts. The way you ensure <I>quality</I> in that assembly is by ensuring your design doesn't push parameters to the bleeding edge of the envelope (*cough* overclockers *cough*). Shipping a board with 10Mhz less timing does NOT mean it's of lower <I>quality</I> - in fact, I'd argue it's likely of <I>higher</I> quality because the stresses on the individual <I>components</I> are going to be lower than those in the faster version.<P><I>Quality</I> is all about good design and thorough statistical analysis. Conservative design may not win any speed races, but it does, as a rule, ensure a more enjoyable <I>user experience</I>. <P>That is, unless you're a <I>user</I> trying to avoid getting squashed in a Quake deathmatch. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
Roman:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was not clear on the reasons for which I base my opinion that Apple uses higher quality compontents. Those reasons are:<P>1. Use of SCSI throughout product lines while SCSI was the higher performance/quality option. Apple has moved from this All SCSI focus. I feel the reasons for their move is:<BR>a. EIDE is significantly less expensive than SCSI<BR>b. EIDE (ATA33/66) aproaches SCSI in performance for individual workstations<BR>c. EIDE is more readily available to the consumer<BR>d. Apples focus on the consumer (iMac) dictates the use of inexpensive components.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK, I read this but I do not see any argument that Apple uses higher quality parts. Yes, SCSI is higher performance than IDE at the time they began using it, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that SCSI is higher quality than IDE. I just don't see the argument. There were other PC manufacturers that used SCSI; does that by necessity mean they were higher quality than other brands, including IBM? Perhaps you just need to expand on this thought.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. The OEM use of IBM and Quantum Hard drives. When other manufacturers were using the before mentioned Maxtor drives, not all admittedly but a significant number of manufacturers do use lower quality components in their systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I infer from this that you think Maxtor HDs are lower-quality than, as per your example, HDs from Quantum and IBM. Again, I do not see this as the case. What makes one HD brand better or worse? Who are the lower-class HD manufacturers? Seagate? Western Digital? Personally, I think there's good parity among the HD makers. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. More standard components built into system. 10/100 Base Ethernet is standard, Airport connection is Standard, Firewire is Standard. Even if the consumer does not choose to use these connections the fact remains that the connections are built in, and most imporantly do not take up a PCI Slot. The same connections can be added to most PC's at added expense, added installation time, and decreased number of open PCI slots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, I ask why does the <I>inclusion</I> of these items constitute better quality? I would say it's better convenience for the end-user, but I don't see the correlation to higher quality. You could build all these things into a piece-o-crap motherboard, and it's still a piece-o-crap motherboard.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4. Open standard connection of CPU, allowing for greatly expanded product lifecycles. for example my Mac at home is a 1995 9500, with the recently added G3 (upgrade cost $300) it will continue to be a functional system for years to come. Thankfully my most recent PC has a 100mhz ATX board for its 350mhz PII, so I'll be able to upgrade it to a 600 or better PIII. However that system was built in 1998, and only came with 3 PCI slots (one open after the SCSI and Networking was added) However the other systems I've owned 486 - P200mmx have long since outlasted their functional life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This, IMO, does not speak of quality but rather of the power required by the software you want/need to use today and in the future. You're taking a 1995-vintage computer and adding a 1999 CPU so that you can run today's software. In 1995, the Pentium 1 was still fresh, but its pinouts are different from today's P2/3 and Celeron (not to mention AMD K7). The AMD K6 and K^-2 still use that same socket, though. I can apparently add a PPC CPU into a 1989-vintage Amiga 2000, but would it be worth it? And an "open standard connection of CPU" doesn't really speak to me -- do you refer to a dedicated CPU expansion slot on your mobo? That's what it sounds like; though I don't see where 'open standard connection' comes into play. There are ways of adding a P2/3/Celeron to older P1 computers via a card, but that doesn't give you the benefits of PC100/133 memory; USB & 1394 (without expansion cards); et al that you'd get with a mobo replacement -- which is itself quite inexpensive.<P>But anyway, back to the topic at hand. These things don't, IMO, proclaim quality of components. There's future-proofing to a small extent, but that doesn't equate to quality. That just means you have a computer whose useful lifespan can be extended. You could drive a 1976 AMC Pacer, but that doesn't mean it's a quality car just because it's still drivable. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif While your 9500 has an updated CPU, you don't get USB, 1394, a 100MHz FSB; you'd need a new machine to get that. <P>Don't get me wrong -- it's a good thing for consumers to get the most life our of their computers. But there comes a time when a system change is the only way to go to stay current. Perhaps this happens much quicker on the x86 side. I mean, how many things will run on a P90 anymore? Just because Mac software apparently doesn't change so quickly (and require more horsepower) doesn't mean that Apple's quality is better or worse.
Component quality has little to do with the quality of an assembly. CPUs for the most part all come off the same assembly line, and I've yet to hear someone say "the 400Mhz G4 doesn't have the same quality as the 450." <P>Actually I am no expert, but from what I understand they basiclly roll off the line and are tested for speed. The ones that make 450 under whatever the test conditions are get sold at that price. The ones that don't are sold at a lower price as the slower speed they do pass, hence the talk of yields on design. Therefore a 350 is of lower quality than a 450. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When some Mac users say that Apple uses higher quality parts i don't believe they mean parts like HD,CD,etc. Apple has always been known to develope their own custom ASICS for their motherboards. I'm not one that really wants to argue about chips and all that. I do know that one reason Macs are expensive is simply they have one of the highest gross margins in the industry. Apple will make more money selling one high end Mac than Dell(Dull) selling 2. Good for the short term but I'd expect that this will have to change.
The_ABG,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>, SCSI is higher performance than IDE at the time they began using it, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that SCSI is higher quality than IDE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As I understand it IDE & SCSI HDD's are mechanicaly identical, the higher grade platters end up in SCSI HDD's....Assuming the yields are excellent, the IDE HDD's are going to be of equal quality, but with the less efficient IDE interface...Am I correct?
<I>Actually I am no expert, but from what I understand they basiclly roll off the line and are tested for speed. The ones that make 450 under whatever the test conditions are get sold at that price. The ones that don't are sold at a lower price as the slower speed they do pass, hence the talk of yields on design. Therefore a 350 is of lower quality than a 450. </I><P>Simple logic - but no. Ironic perhaps, but the slower part will arguably be of <I>higher</I> "quality." Why? Because chips are required to pass a battery of parametrics, and if a device fails in even one of these it is automatically "downgraded." The slower devices came off the same wafer as the faster parts, but now, because they are required to pass even more lenient timing parameters, they are better able to do so than the "higher quality" (by your logic) parts. This is why we have overclockers.<P>Nor are IDE drives of lower quality than SCSI. This is like saying a BMW automobile is automatically of lower quality than a BMW motorcycle - they're two different devices, and therefore this just ain't a valid comparison.<P>BTW: I have a Fireport 40 card in my PC, connected to a 2GB 7200 RPM 'Cuda drive. I also have a 7200 RPM, 10GB IBM IDE drive. When I first installed the OS I put it on the SCSI drive because I expected this to be a "better" drive than the IBM. By virtually every benchmark I've run the IBM drive has been shown to require less resources (5% vs 7%) and be 25 - 50% <I>faster</I> than the SCSI. So which is of higher "quality?"<BR>
Roman A'Clef:<BR>well, you've found a g3 upgrade for $300, there's a celeron upgrade from $350 to $400 dollars http://store.yahoo.com/evergreentechnologies/evac.html and i don't know the details, but it seems to just need a pci bus and probably a bios fix...<BR>it's not too bad of a deal (but not great considering that you could get a whole new mobo with cpu and ram for that price, but since we're talking upgrades...)<P>poptones:<BR>i would have to disagree with your logic that a slower cpu is of "higher" quality than a higher clocked cpu. first off, a faster cpu IS CAPABLE of being clocked at the lower speed. so, if anything, then the two are of "IDENTICAL QUALITY"... at least nothing more.<P>also, i do think that a higher clocked chip is of higher quality (if i use the term "quatily" to mean "works better") of course, your definition of quality can be different than mine. but i think that a chip that will clock higher based on the same standards to "work better"<P>and what happens when the manufacturing process changes? as weeks go by, the yields get better and the company is able to release higher clocked chips, certainly those new chips are of higher quality, are they not?<P>Ted
Detnap,<P>I agree, the venerable Celeron 300A is a good example, as I understand it, Intels yields at the time were so good that these 300A's were basically or at least could have been Pentium II 450's....I thought the same thing happened with HDD's considering the companies who make EIDE drives are the same as the companies that produce SCSI HDD's.<P>(I'm a shocker for going off topic...sorry)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by Rudi:</I><BR>The_ABG,<P> As I understand it IDE & SCSI HDD's are mechanicaly identical, the higher grade platters end up in SCSI HDD's....Assuming the yields are excellent, the IDE HDD's are going to be of equal quality, but with the less efficient IDE interface...Am I correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I believe you are correct Rudi. I was told that everything is virtually the same until you get to the SCSI controller for the drive itself. That's where I believe SCSI's cost differential is.<P>
<I>i would have to disagree with your logic that a slower cpu is of "higher" quality than a higher clocked cpu. first off, a faster cpu IS CAPABLE of being clocked at the lower speed. so, if anything, then the two are of "IDENTICAL QUALITY"... at least nothing more.</I><P>That's why I said "arguably." I think you got the point - at least you said pretty much what I was trying to get you to say... View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<BR>
About SCSI vs. IDE hard drive: how can they be the same mechanically? SCSI drive, when compare to an "equivalent" IDE drive, always have better seek time (e.g. Baracuda vs. Baracuda ATA). Doesn't this difference in seek time, by definition, a mechanical difference?
IDe has it's roots in the ST506 interface. Back when 40MEGAbyte drives were considered fat, RLL made an entry into the market, offering about 50% higher capacity and lower seek times - but based on the <I>exact</I> same drive internals. The difference was in how the data was recorded on the platter. I'm sure it's the same with SCSI...
yeah, i did say it, but did you read the next line?<P>okay, time for a car analogy (god i hate these things)<P>every time that Ford makes a part, ie piston or engine block, each part varies by a few micrometers(or something like that) but they all come off the same assembly line, but some pistons fit into the engine block better than others(ford trys to mix and match, but there are still some that fit better than others). even though they came off the same assembly line, the ones that fit better are "of higher quality" than those that "don't fit as well". the ones that fit better "work better"<P>i know, car analogies are terrible, but i think this one fits rather nicely.<P>also, do you understand, why just because something has more stress, that doesn't mean that it's of lower quality...<P>let's try another analogy. let's say that you've got 2 shirts. one shirt tears along the seams when you flex your buldging bicept, while the other shirt is able to contain you when you flex. which is of higher quality? they both fit on the frame of a frail man just the same, neither of the shirts rip, but when stressed, the higher quality shirt, even if they come off the same assembly line, is the shirt that's able to contain you.<P>Ted
OK, first I <I>do</I> understand quality: it was my first engineering job 20 or so years ago. QC engineering is the funnest job on earth. Why? Because you have to know how everything works <I>better</I> than the guys who designed it! Plus it's a real power trip breaking everyone's designs...<P>You need to stop thinking of <I>components</I> as <I>assemblies</I>. A CPU that passes it's parametrics is of no higher or leser quality than any other - but once that CPU goes into an <I>assembly</I> it's dependent upon other chips, solder, copper traces, PC dielectrics, capacitors, power supply...<P>And <I>that</I> is where your quality comes from. And yes, given two otherwise identical systems the slower <I>will</I> be of higher quality. Why? Because the stresses are less(esesessss) - and this will translate into greater reliability, hence a higher quality.<P>
RP,<P>There you go, they are off the same production line (the platters) What is the mechanical difference between a 720K 3.5" floppy and a 1.44MB....The magnetic disc in th 1.44MB floppy was rated higher, even though they were made on the same production line....They are mechanically identical, except for the little square hole.
The_ABG wrote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And JetEye:<BR>I would not recommend using Mackido as a model of Mac knowledge. DKE is VERY biased in his presentation of "facts" and it's people like him that galvanize people against the Mac platform. If you had equivalent knowledge of Windows systems as you have of MacOS, and you went to his site seeking knowledge, you may very well be offended or at least turned off (if not disgusted).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I just said that it would not hurt to visit his site. I have read about 700 pages of what he has written (it's contemplative, but you don't need to agree with him). I also read stuff that Caeser and the like publish on this site, and fx. slashdot, webdog' .plans and a lot of other articles. It certainly gives me a better overview and gives me better ability to determine what's good and what's not. In the light of diversified information you will be in a better posistion to form a general view of the case. This goes both ways, it's always good to be enlightened about these things (especially if you are about to advocate a specific platform or issue). For that matter, if somebody doesn't agree with DKE, then they are forever free to mail him and argue against his point. It is beside the point to tell people what do if it only benefits your ego or gusto, people should have the privilege to know that it's always at least two sides to every question. Just look at all the delusions that have arosen from propaganda, fx Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, KKK, Stazi, in George Orwell's 1984, McCarty's Red scare, China, Burma, Jobs, Gates etc... If you prohibit people to learn another side of the story, then you are of no value, IMHO. Anyway, some people can't face the truth, or are too cantankerous. Well, what a pity!<BR>When I recommended DKE's site, it was to counterbalance. I also suggested that someone else around here pointed to another PC biased site to put things in balance and perspective. There are very few sites that are free for bias, but perhaps you will bump into a site that is neutral. That's the best thing, but as soon as there is personal view involved, then there is also some kind of bias as well.<P>The_ABG wrote:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even with the smiley face, that's not a good approach. If you treat all non-Mac users that way, there is little doubt that you will not gain any respect for your platform of choice. For example, if you don't come here to antagonize, a number of people here at Ars are more than willing to help you if you have a problem -- even if they don't like Apple, the Mac, or the MacOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If I treat all non-Mac users that way and good approach to what?...to stress things even more; read different materials; see matters from different points of views. The enemy thing was a metaphor, for Heaven's sake!<BR>I am not here to antagonize, that would be easy, but there is neither rhyme nor reason to do so...<BR><P>[This message has been edited by JetEye (edited January 28, 2000).]
You are looking at that in a very strange way. If we make a part and then test it. The one that passes the most tests will be the higher quality part. You are saying the one that fails the test and is subsequently run at a lower speed is the higher quality part. That is completely backwards. It may or may not have a longer life span, because with chips you don't know what caused it to not run at the higher speed. If a part sits and is never used, lasting forever, does that make it a better part than the one that is used?
Rudi and poptones:<P>You see, even if the "equivalent" IDE and SCSI drives come off the same production line, they are tuned differently. My understanding is that the firmware for SCSI drive is adjusted such that more electrical current is sent to the actuator (head) to make seek faster. If the actuator in SCSI drive moves faster, isn't that "mechanically different"? If I buy two cars with identical engines, but I put a turbocharger, or use nitro, in one of the car, are those two car still "mechanically identical"? The two cars still have identical engine, but the engine with turbocharger/nitro behaves mechanically differently and has higher horsepower, are the two cars still "mechanically identical"?<P>Anyway, IBM SCSI drives use glass platter, but their IDE drives do not. And their SCSI drives use load/unload technology (heads parked outside the platter) but their IDE drives do not. So for this brand, they are very different mechanically.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by RP:</I><BR>Anyway, IBM SCSI drives use glass platter, but their IDE drives do not. And their SCSI drives use load/unload technology (heads parked outside the platter) but their IDE drives do not. So for this brand, they are very different mechanically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Or it could be because the extra smarts that a SCSI drive has to have costs a bleedin' fortune anyway, and the target market is low-volume, they thought they might as well go the extra mile and build the extra bits in. <P>If SCSI dominated the desktop (which it bleeding should have - ATA rots from an engineering standpoint), SCSI drives would be slung out the factory knocked together as cheaply as possible. Because it would fill the target market.<P>Anyway, what has this got to do with a reason to buy a Macintosh? Build quality is not one of them. Macs are slung together just as badly as PCs are.
ABG-<P>I disagree with your statement that SCSI is not higher quality when compared to IDE - Especially in the timeframe of Apples use of the technology. To prove this I suppose we could go on about meantimes and platter composition but I'm really not interrested in digging through tech journals from 4 years ago. <P>And I agree that there were other vendors - IBM was the example you used - that did use SCSI. My main contention is that Apple (and some PC vendors) decided to use the superior (but more expensive) SCSI technology over the inferior (but cheap) IDE/EIDE drives of the time. That choice, made due to SCSI's performance, greater expandabilty, and quality is evidence that that Apple has historically offered a higher quality product than the competition.<P>Your second point questioned the quality difference between the IBM/Quantum Drives used in the Macintosh vs. the Maxtor. Again without delving into the more technical aspects of these two companies I would like to point out that the maxtors generally have a lower transfer rate, worse seek time, and a slower spin rate. Perhaps these charactoristics lend more to a "value" to the systems rather than "Quality". I believe it speaks to the "Quality" of the macintosh rather than the "Value" since value is such a difficult thing to define.<P>Your statement as to whether the inclusion of more connections (10/100 ethernet, firewire, SCSI) on the motherboard equate to "quality" is certainly valid. However, the inclusion of this technology does however add "value" to a system.<P>The same can be said for your final point. Yes the use of an open connection (as in other manufacturers can sell products to be used on this connection) does not specifically make the motherboard a higher quality system. this too is more of a "Value" arguement. But continuing that thought process I do believe that Apple systems have a longer productive life than X86 systems, due to the features that come built in as well as the extreeme processor upgradability of the macintosh platform. the Macintoshs long lifespan extends to a substantially greater resale price, but that again is more of a "value" statement than any other.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by JetEye:</I>When I recommended DKE's site, it was to counterbalance. I also suggested that someone else around here pointed to another PC biased site to put things in balance and perspective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why would you want a biased site at all? I would think you'd want facts and facts alone.<P>If you like, I'll spend a little time compiling a very long list of technical errors, inaccuracies, and disinformation from Every's site. It's loaded to the hilt, especially regarding Microsoft technologies, OS concepts, and various comparisons.<P>
RomanAClef:<P>Thanks for the clarification in your reply. As I was typing mine, I had this feeling we were getting more into "value" than "quality" and that would definitely alter the discussion.<P>In my line of reasoning, "quality" meant that the item in question wasn't going to break down/apart sooner than could be reasonably expected (i.e. 2 days after the warranty expired View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Not wanting to use a car analogy here, but BMW would probably be considered a "quality" car compared to a Hyandai. Yet the Hyandai offers a 10-year warranty and is a heck of a lot cheaper. And if I get 7 years out of a car, that's damn good. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<P>Getting back to your post, I would not consider (in this example) the Mactor drives to be of lower quality than the IBM/Quantums just because the Mactor has a slower seek time and RPM rating. One may be higher performance, but I would not infer or conclude that the other was of lower quality. <P>I'm sure we could get into the "value" discussion, but maybe in a different thread. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif It's good for Mac owners that most machines have CPU upgrade slots in them, not unlike most Amiga models. x86 machines don't have those, as it's generally known that the CPU itself can be replaced. This is within limits, though, as CPU technology changes. But as it is, I can take an old P75, for instance, and either install a PCI card with a P2/3-level CPU included; or replace the CPU with something like an Evergreen CPU upgrade (333MHz); or in many cases just replace the mobo with a new CPU. Oftentimes, it's cheapest to replace the mobo.<P>I think this is the biggest difference between upgradin' CPUs on the x86 vs. on the Mac: CPU upgrades for the Mac are quite expensive (like a Newer Tech 300MHz G3 upgrade for $499) and that's a big reason why I gave up on the platform a few years ago. On the x86 side, CPU replacements are readily available and relatively inexpensive (particularly when compared to Mac CPU upgrades); and mobo replacements pretty much give you a new computer.<P>But with costs of new x86 computers so low, many consumers may not (or will not) feel the need to just upgrade an old computer with a new processor. While the Mac can do this quite easily, and therefore give the sense of longevity, I don't feel it's a particularly good analogy to compare that to the x86 side, just because the markets are so different in that respect. IMO, it would be more analogous to compare the Macs to Amigas, as there was only one Amiga manufacturer, and they did have CPU upgrade slots, and the owners certainly held onto the same box for many years. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
- Status