hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (08/29/86)
Excerpting a couple recent posts: >From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) >Subject: Re: Mac for SALE! >Message-ID: <3864@ut-ngp.UUCP> > >... I'd advise my friends to refuse to pay more than $1000, especially as the >400K drives are next to useless today. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Damn! And here I am, using TWO of 'em whenever I use my Mac! Really Werner, this is a bit prejudiced. More below..... >From: ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) >Subject: Re: Cheap ROM Upgrade for 512K Mac ?? >Message-ID: <212@bridge2.UUCP> > >> Come on APPLE you probably could have also offered just the ROM by itself !! > >... Who in world would want to run on a 400k internal and an 800k >external, what a pain? sticking in a 800k Floppy, Can't read it asks to >init it, accidently erase it. Or Have the data you need on a 800k floppy >and you have the startup in the 800k and you can't use the internal and >you need to keep the startup in the external to do whatever you might be doing. >... It seems awfully dumb to me to want to stick to a dead horse in the slow >400k disk drives, thats why Apple tied the roms to the disk drive, I think >...Roms by themselves, sure it would work, but it would be a real pain to use >and there are no advantages to doing so. Unless you like to mix Apple's & >oranges with 400 & 800k disks, and then its only a matter of time before >you mess up and lose something valuable ... > >Norm Goodger @Bridge Comm Sysop-MacInfo BBS.@415-795-8862 bridge2!ngg To me, and undoubtedly many, many others, there would be a very real advantage: money. The upgrade would cost less, and my investment in an 'older' model would not be quite as devalued. Besides, if I'm stupid enough to lose several hundred K of data by initializing a disk with files on it, that's a consequence of MY choice to configure my system that way. It's no more likely with this combination of disk drives than any other. ***MILD FLAME FOLLOWS*** Both of these posts typify, in my view, a real trend by the 'hard-core' Mac types to ignore machines that are not the 'state of the Mac art' and ridicule or at least underrate the users of same. I don't know ANYONE personally that has upgraded to a Mac 512E or Mac Plus. Many of us just do not consider the hassle of these upgrades to be worth the improvement. We don't use our Macs constantly. We don't compile C programs. We don't consider a decrease of a few seconds in launch time to be worth several hundred dollars. We don't feel the need for systems with 25 fonts and 15 slick DA's. We can't write off upgrades and hard disks as necessary business expenses or get our employers to pay for them. We are USERS, plain Jane types who just want the Mac to do some tasks for us, or give us access to electronic networks, or maybe just to play games on. The old, boring, and yes slightly too slow 512K Macs work very well for an awful lot of us. Sure, I'd LOVE to have a Mac with a Meg or two of RAM, a 40MB SCSI hard disk (we use 'em here), a matching SCSI tape drive, and an 800K internal disk. I'd also like a MIDI interface, and an 8 channel synthesizer, and all the great sequencer and music composition software there is out there. What the heck, I'd like to have PageMaker and a Laserwriter to help my chorus put out a good bulletin, too. But, other things (like restoring an older home and paying for it, etc.) are just more important to me now. I don't have the money to keep my Mac up to the latest state, and I won't for a long, long time. So don't be so caught up in your wonderful machines and the great things they can do that you forget about us that don't share such a single-minded devotion to technology and computing. Apple isn't selling all it's Mac production to developers, corporations, and gurus. **FLAME OFF** Sorry this got a bit long..... -- Notice how they do not so much fly, as plummet. {appropriate head movement} --Monty Python (Flying Sheep Sketch) Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (08/30/86)
I'm sorry, Andy felt that my statement (below) was disregarding the interest of "the poor": > >From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) > >Subject: Re: Mac for SALE! > >Message-ID: <3864@ut-ngp.UUCP> > > > >... I'd advise my friends to refuse to pay more than $1000, especially as the > >400K drives are next to useless today. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Really Werner, this is a bit prejudiced. More below..... I now feel that my phrasing was a bit unfortunate, and I would like to correct it to read: > >... I'd advise my friends to refuse to pay more than $1000, according to > >the following calculation: > > dealer price of the CURRENT MODEL (i.e Mac+): ~1300 > > (minus) upgrade cost of MAC as sold to Mac+: ~ 300 (drive+ROM) > > 600 (1Meg board) > > ============== > > $400 > > > > Close-out sales prices of ImageWriter-I $150 > > Value of a 400K used external drive $ 50 > > Total value of package (in good repair) $600 > > (minus) cost of inspection to qualify for AppleCare $ 50 > > ============== > > Retail Value $550 > > Loan Value (70% max, 24 month at 16%) $385 Local pawn shops would, probably, pay even less than that. (yes, I know, we all dislike them. but that's reality) Now all I'd have to do, is put out the word to the local pawn-shops that I'd buy used MACs, and for them to call me when they have CLEAN merchandise, and I have no doubt that I'll get something within a matter of a few weeks for less than $1000. Face it, when you buy a new car, you lose 30% even before you start the engine to drive off the lot. With computers it must be 50%. Annual depreciation is 33%. I think, especially a poor person, should not get ripped off because of not knowing how to calculate like a banker or a merchant. It's not their (poor persons) fault that used items loose value so quickly, so why should they be willing to pay more? (and they frequently do) I think, an OLD Mac is a great machine (and I am truely prejudiced) .... It would have been worth more than a $1,000,000 fifteen years ago, it may be worth that again a hundred years from now (as a collector's item). but in the meantime, ..... [ at this point, Mickey started to squeal miserably, and I had to assure him that, to me, he is priceless, and that I'd never give him away ...., besides, look at all the improvements: air-conditioning, stereo sound, video output, megabytes of RAM, SCSI-port ... heck, worth more than Minnie MacPlus over there .... shucks, I forgot she was connected and catching every word of this ... folks, I got to go, I have somewhat of an emergency here .... ]
zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (08/30/86)
FYI, the value of used Macintoshes is quite high. The Boston Computer Exchange publishes the week's prices for a variety of used computers each week in the Boston Bussiness Journal. These people broker a lot of machines and their prices pretty accurately reflect market conditions in major US cities (they broker all sizes of systems worldwide). This week, the prices are: Mac+ ~$1900; Mac 512k w/ 400k drive ~$1300; Mac 128k ~$900. The price for the Mac+ is probably the least reliable since the market for used ones is so tight. This helps the po' folks selling their used equipement, keeps the price of upgrades low becuase they have to compete against trade-ups, and is something to show MIS directors to point out that the lifecycle cost of a Macintosh is very low becuase of the good used value compared with IBM PCs. Happy hacking, -Zigurd _____________________________________________________________________ Zigurd Mednieks MURSU Corporation, P.O. Box 1894, Cambridge, MA 02138, (617) 522-9035
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (08/31/86)
In article <3057@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>, zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: > FYI, the value of used Macintoshes is quite high. The Boston Computer > Exchange publishes the week's prices for a variety of used computers > > This week, the prices are: Mac+ ~$1900; Mac 512k w/ 400k drive ~$1300; > Mac 128k ~$900. The price for the Mac+ is probably the least reliable > since the market for used ones is so tight. > hmm, in today's Austin paper, ComputerCraft advertises a Labour Day Sale, with MacPluses (NEW) at $1799 ... (they also want you to buy either a printer/$499, ext. 800k-drive/$399, or HyperDrive FX20 SCSI/$1199 - but I would like to see the merchant that would refuse my $1799 staring him in the face ...) Other interesting sales prices: MacTilt/Swivel $8.69 Pocket Pack Diskette Holder $3.49 MainStreet $29 FileVision $48 Think Tank $24 Dow Jones Straight Talk $15 prices good until Sep 6, quantity at hand ... the latter prices are, obviously, close-out sales, and, who knows, the company may have cash-flow problems, but I still think the Boston Computer Exchange prices must be those they charge to Libya ... (-:
mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (09/01/86)
Right on. This is the same attitude that obsoletes existing Mac equipment every few months. So then, the question is, How many normal people want to be forced to coninuously pour money into a system so that it is compatible with newer stuff. Likewise, why should anyone invest serious money developing applications for long term Mac use if it doesn't offer a serious, consistent environment that will allow for a reasonable payback?
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (09/02/86)
In article <3057@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >FYI, the value of used Macintoshes is quite high. The Boston Computer >Exchange publishes the week's prices for a variety of used computers >each week in the Boston Bussiness Journal. These people broker a lot >of machines and their prices pretty accurately reflect market >conditions in major US cities (they broker all sizes of systems >worldwide). > >This week, the prices are: Mac+ ~$1900; Mac 512k w/ 400k drive ~$1300; >Mac 128k ~$900. The price for the Mac+ is probably the least reliable >since the market for used ones is so tight. > Are there people who prefer used machines over new ones for some reason? Or is there a shortage of Mac+s in Boston? Here in Southern California, *NEW* Mac+s go for ~$1900. A MacE is around 1400. What's going on? -- "I *DO* believe in Mary Worth" Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi || GEnie: mnementh
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (09/03/86)
> Keywords: Don't forget us po' folk; a bit long > > Excerpting a couple recent posts: > > Both of these posts typify, in my view, a real trend by the 'hard-core' > Mac types to ignore machines that are not the 'state of the Mac art' and > ridicule or at least underrate the users of same. Hear, hear. I use a 128K Mac. It has performed beautifully for years. The first year I only had one disk drive. Then I got a 10Mbyte hard disk. I'm finally forced to upgrade memory in order to run Light Speed C. In any case, I did a lot of useful work with a hoplessly outdated machine for a long time. Staying state of the art is prohibitive financially. Most of the high performance upgrades are things people want, but seldom really need - particularly if you pay for it out of your own pocket.
ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) (09/04/86)
> ***MILD FLAME FOLLOWS*** > > Both of these posts typify, in my view, a real trend by the 'hard-core' > Mac types to ignore machines that are not the 'state of the Mac art' and > ridicule or at least underrate the users of same. I don't know ANYONE > personally that has upgraded to a Mac 512E or Mac Plus. Many of us just > do not consider the hassle of these upgrades to be worth the improvement. > We don't use our Macs constantly. We don't compile C programs. We don't > consider a decrease of a few seconds in launch time to be worth several > hundred dollars. We don't feel the need for systems with 25 fonts and 15 > slick DA's. We can't write off upgrades and hard disks as necessary > business expenses or get our employers to pay for them. We are USERS, plain > Jane types who just want the Mac to do some tasks for us, or give us > access to electronic networks, or maybe just to play games on. The old, > boring, and yes slightly too slow 512K Macs work very well for an awful > lot of us. > Sure, I'd LOVE to have a Mac with a Meg or two of RAM, a 40MB SCSI hard > disk (we use 'em here), a matching SCSI tape drive, and an 800K internal disk. > I'd also like a MIDI interface, and an 8 channel synthesizer, and all the > great sequencer and music composition software there is out there. What the > heck, I'd like to have PageMaker and a Laserwriter to help my chorus put > out a good bulletin, too. But, other things (like restoring an older home > and paying for it, etc.) are just more important to me now. I don't have the money to keep my Mac up to the latest state, and I won't for a long, long time. > So don't be so caught up in your wonderful machines and the great things they > can do that you forget about us that don't share such a single-minded devotion > to technology and computing. Apple isn't selling all it's Mac production > to developers, corporations, and gurus. > **FLAME OFF** Sorry this got a bit long..... > Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN > path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan It seems to me that the whole upgrade picture is being blown out of proportion. In the above "flame" Mr. Hogan seems to be confused as he starts by claiming that he is a "plain-jane user", then procedes to wish for every concievable upgrade to his Mac that any user could ever wish for. And his last paragraph was the most confusing. It was hard to tell what he didn't want us to be caught up in? It was either the upgrade schemes of Apple or he thinks that every Mac user that wishes to upgrade has to be a developer or corporation, or a Mac guru I guess. Maybe the confusion lies in where he thinks that the rest of us that enjoy our Macs and use them on a daily basis, ie. "Hard Core Mac Types" feel about our Macs and why we like them enough to stay current with the upgrades. I feel that staying current, allows me to use my Mac to the fullest, and those that feel that the upgrade paths are to expensive or not worth it are either satisfied with the way the Mac works for them as is, or do not understand the advantages that the upgrade may offer them. Then of course, I am sure, there are those that are cheap and wouldn't consider an upgrade merely on the basis of cost thinking that Apple should give all this stuff away, and they deserve it because they were the first ones to purchase a Mac at the original retail prices. Well I happen to think that Apple has made some mistakes, they are not perfect. I feel that recently the Mac-plus upgrades were fairly priced. I feel that $299 for an 800k drive and the New roms is fair, considering that some dealers sold them for less, usually around $260. sometimes less. Mac Plus Logic board, a little overpriced in my opinion, but fair in the distinction between 128k and 512k owners. THere are so many 3rd party upgrades available for memory today, and some are real good and won't even void your Apple warranty so you still have options on more memory over getting the MAC+ logic bd. All in all, I think that Mr. Hogan' "Flame" makes little sense and has no validity in the light of common sense for upgrades and the reasoning behind it. At least Apple offers upgrades to allow users to stay current with their technology, many DON"T.