NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/hardware/21360

Text File | 1992-11-11 | 5.5 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!pageworks.com!world!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!sol.deakin.OZ.AU!ausom!rkay
From: [e-mail] (Richard Kay)
Subject: Re: PowerBooks - 210 v. 160 --midrange champ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:30:11 GMT
Organization: AUSOM - The Apple Users Society of Melbourne
Lines: 108

[e-mail] (William Kent Richards) writes about the
advantages of the Duos over traditional PowerBooks:

> From my perspective, the Duo completely blew away the powerbook
> according to both MacUser and MacWorld reviews.

> [Advantages of Duo over Powerbook stuff deleted -- I do not question
> William's conclusions here]

> According to the review in MacWorld, most editors and reviewers there
> liked the keyboard, and particularly liked the trackball compared to
> the powerbook trackball. (Two people hated the trackball). The
> reviewer thought the keyboard was more responsive compared to the
> powerbook keyboard. The reviewer also felt that the trackball was
> very smooth, and less obtrusive than the powerbook trackball.

The review, at least in the Australian edition of MacWorld, says "some
people may find it [ie.the smaller and recessed trackball and trackball
buttons] makes pointing and clicking more cumbersome, especially those
with large hands." I am pointing this out only for the purpose of
warning those who may not be in a position to try before they buy. This
was reiterated in the MacWorld article where it said: "It's especially
important to come to terms with a Duo's input devices, since you can't
attach a mouse or keyboard unless you also attach one of the docking
stations."

> In both reviews, the Duo's performed about the same (210) or faster
> (230) at most tasks (except math without FPU) in 8-bit color mode
> using the DuoDock with 512K VRAM. The Ci was a 5/80 in MacUser and a
> 8/80 in MacWorld - both were using internal video (8-bit) and a 32K
> cache card. The Duo's get a little faster in 8-bit mode when using
> 1meg VRAM (according to MacWorld).

I should point out that in the Australian version of MacWorld during
the test entitled Display Tasks (two scrolling tests in Excel and Word,
processor performance in screen redrawing) results were as follows:

Powerbook 145/160 (no FPU) -- 91.8 seconds
Powerbook Duo 210 (no FPU) -- 101.8 seconds
PowerBook Duo 230 (no FPU) -- 64.4 seconds

The Duo 210 discrepancy is not mentioned in the article, but Australian
MacNews says: "Real-world tests using Standard Apple Numeric
Environment (SANE) showed that an undocked Duo 210 took one and a half
times longer to calculate than a Powerbook 180. The same test performed
with the Duo in the Minidock took over twice as long! This is not usual
behaviour for a 25 Mhertz 68030. What's going on? A hard-headed guess
suggests that the Dock's video controller chip may be the bottleneck.
It's responsible for the video and the math coprocessor if it's
available..." This may go some way to explaining the 10 second delay
apparent in the Duo 210 compared to the PowerBook 160 in the MacWorld
test -- although both machines are similarly configured. I'm only a
layman but it was comments like this that steered me towards the
purchase of a PowerBook 160 rather than my preferred Duo 210. Any
deviation from the norm, such as the above, was enough to catch my
attention and had me asking questions like: "Could there be bugs in the
Duo 210?" Middle-aged conservative fellow that I am, I decided to play
safe with the PowerBook 160. :-(

> Disadvantages:
>  - detached floppy
>  - more expensive (and 0.15 pounds heavier) for similar mechanical
>     features (floppy and other connectors).
>  - modem slows down system a bit, and takes up 300k of memory when
>     in use
>  - tinny sounding speaker
>  - smaller screen (though same data displayed)

These played on my mind a bit as well. The Australian MacWorld article
also scared me off saying: "So why wouldn't you want to buy a PowerBook
Duo? Their screens are slightly smaller than other PowerBooks' and are
backlit supertwist only; the keyboard keys are more crowded; and the
Duos have a smaller trackball that could be too concave and petite for
some users -- all of which would make using a PowerBook Duo for any
lengthy period of time unpleasant. You can get by most of these
shortcomings but only by adding the external Duo Floppy Adaptor, Duo
MiniDock, or full Duo dock docking station, thus acquiring more pieces.
But hold it! The Duo Dock costs a healthy A$2395 by itself, as much as
a PowerBook 100 or a Macintosh LC II. The Duo System without its
docking part is not very practical, which says that the real cost of
starting along the Duo path [Duo 210 that is] is A$4495 + A$2395
=A$6890..." "The bottom line is that the Duos were designed as the
mobile part of a desktop system, not as completely self-sufficient
computers."

> Now, this is or course my interpretation of the articles. Others may
> read them differently.

I think your iterpretation of the articles was reasonably accurate
William. The purpose of my post is to offer a more conservative
perspective of the Duos and attempt to explain why at least one
individual purchased a PowerBook 160 instead of the PowerBook Duo 210
he was thinking of buying. I should point out here that I was looking
for a completely self-sufficient computer that offered maximum
portability. At my age you get sick of lugging a bits and pieces
around. ;-)

No flames please...I'm too old to become toast! :-)

Regards.



--
Richard Kay
E-mail: [e-mail]