wmd@kran.UUCP (03/27/86)
/* Written 5:01 pm Mar 26, 1986 by rupp@tetra.UUCP in kran:net.micro.mac */ ... Apple //'s (e's and c's) than Macs, if I am not mistaken. It is true that the business market has been lost to IBM, but there still is an Apple ][ market, and software still being developed. ... /* End of text from kran:net.micro.mac */ A better way to phrase the above would be: If the business market has been lost to IBM, it is entirely due to their own (the business market's) stupidity. An IBM PC can do everything a Mac can if you're willing to pay the bucks for the add ons and put up with the inconsistancies between software packages. But a smart businessman will say, "Look, for the price of this AT, I can buy two Mac Pluses and achieve the same functionality but double the productivity." But we know there is a lot more conservative businessmen than smart innovative businessmen around. Luckily the monetary constraints placed on academia has forced our administration here to look at the pcs' price/performance ratios and not their nameplates. Malcolm Duncan Krannert Executive Education Purdue University UUCP: ihnp4!pur-ee!pur-phy!kran!wmd
mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (04/01/86)
> >A better way to phrase the above would be: > >If the business market has been lost to IBM, it is entirely due to their >own (the business market's) stupidity. An IBM PC can do everything a Mac >can if you're willing to pay the bucks for the add ons and put up with the >inconsistancies between software packages. But a smart businessman will >say, "Look, for the price of this AT, I can buy two Mac Pluses and achieve >the same functionality but double the productivity." But we know there >is a lot more conservative businessmen than smart innovative businessmen Ah yes, but price per function is not the dominating factor in business choices. It is service from vendor followed by stability of developed applications (i.e., if I buy a system and develop an application on it, will the equipment be supported three months or three years from now??? <the answer in Apple's case is: no> ). The reason why IBM is dominant is not their obsolete, expensive technology, it is that (a) you can get help from IBM and (b) they make every effort to provide upward compatibility.
hsgj@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Dan Green) (04/02/86)
<>
The previous poster mentioned that the business community was conservative
(and stupid) because business people would rather get a PC-AT then a Mac +.
While I like the Mac, in going by the pricelists here, a PC-AT with 20megs
hard disk is ~ $4000, whereas a Mac+ is ~ $2800. Now if you want megs of
disk on your mac, you have to shell out another $1200 bringing the total
to $4000 for a Mac+. Hence PC-AT with 20 megs and Mac+ with 20megs are price
comparible. Considering that many businesses already have data in Lotus
or WordStar format, it makes sense for them to use a PC-AT where they
can still use their data without buying new software.
Perhaps this discussion is futile as some people love PC's and others
love Macs. However I could not sit idle while someone accused the generic
"business community" of being dumb.
--
Dan Green Bitnet: hsgj@cornella.bitnet
--------- UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj
"Deejix" Arpa: hsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu.ARPAsumacc@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) (04/03/86)
In article <457@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> hsgj@batcomputer.UUCP (Dan Green) writes: >While I like the Mac, in going by the pricelists here, a PC-AT with 20megs >hard disk is ~ $4000, whereas a Mac+ is ~ $2800. Now if you want megs of >disk on your mac, you have to shell out another $1200 bringing the total >to $4000 for a Mac+. And going by the pricelists for Apple and IBM sales to UW, the price for a 20 Mb Mac+ is $2629, while a 30 Mb PC AT is $4166. (UW doesn't buy the 20 Mb PC AT any longer). After seeing the price changes which a company rep can make in a single 60 minute meeting, I have concluded that the list price and/or the opening price that you are quoted is of interest only to collectors of historical artifacts; it serves no other purpose. This is true of IBM, DEC, almost everyone. -- Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, Rm 3130 MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!sumacc (OR) uwvax!uwmacc!rick
mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (04/05/86)
>> >If the business market has been lost to IBM, it is entirely due to their >> >own (the business market's) stupidity. An IBM PC can do everything a Mac >> >can if you're willing to pay the bucks for the add ons and put up with the >> >inconsistancies between software packages. >> >> Ah yes, but price per function is not the dominating factor in business >> choices. >> The reason why IBM is dominant ... > >I'm a confirmed Mac owner and hacker, but in my opinion, the reason >why the Mac will fail in its challenge to the PC is that it's too >little, too late. > >By the time Apple comes up with a versatile, slotted machine, with a >reasonable speed hard disk (they did finally fix the keyboard), the >battle for the major corporate marketplace will be over, and IBM will I have spent a lot of time fighting the wars and I am really convinced that it takes overwhelmingly better technology to displace IBM. The reason is mostly that IBM's service offers insurance. The Mac's advantage is that it is so user friendly. I still think that it is a better choice for the casual business user who doesn't want to become a hacker. However, people who choose other than IBM or DEC end up all alone when the problems come. What a lot of us forget is that a programmer costs a company $60-100K a year (counting overhead). A few bucks more or less for the machine doesn't really matter if it means that the people who use the machine will be able to use it for awhile after it is finally programmed and users trained. Larry Mazlack mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu
waddingt@umn-cs.UUCP (Jake Waddington ) (04/10/86)
In article <433@gould9.UUCP> joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >I'm a confirmed Mac owner and hacker, but in my opinion, the reason >why the Mac will fail in its challenge to the PC is that it's too >little, too late. > >A 1mb, 68000-based machine with a hard disk for $4,000 in 1984 would have >creamed the market. Or a 512kb machine with floppies at $3,000 in 1983. >Or true multi-tasking in 1985. > I agree. But by extension doesn't that make IBM's 8086 or Risk like machine with a plain DOS system very boring in the 1980's ! Paul Fink ihnp4!umn-cs!waddingt
baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) (04/12/86)
>>A better way to phrase the above would be: >> >>If the business market has been lost to IBM, it is entirely due to their >>own (the business market's) stupidity. An IBM PC can do everything a Mac >>can if you're willing to pay the bucks for the add ons and put up with the >>inconsistancies between software packages. But a smart businessman will >>say, "Look, for the price of this AT, I can buy two Mac Pluses and achieve >>the same functionality but double the productivity." But we know there >>is a lot more conservative businessmen than smart innovative businessmen > >Ah yes, but price per function is not the dominating factor in business >choices. It is service from vendor followed by stability of developed >applications (i.e., if I buy a system and develop an applicatmon on it, >will the equipment be supported three months or three years from now??? ><the answer in Apple's case is: no> ). The reason why IBM is dominant is >not their obsolete, expensive technology, it is that (a) you can get >help from IBM and (b) they make every effort to provide upward compatibility. Apple Computer's strength is that it is capable of designing better solutions, instead of saying "Well, more businesses use IBM, let's provide the same". In response to : a) The key to the mac is that you don't to know about the machine, you don't have to know how to plug in this or that. As for software, distributors and dealers provide help over the phone, or will call at your office to solve any problem (there aren't that many problems). b) Upward compatability is VERY good with Macintosh, the Development Guidelines ensure that programs' user interfaces are the same, minimising the the waste of time involved in adapting to differing levels of user friendliness (with IBM's - read 'hostility'). This time is an important consideration for any good businessman, as that wasted time is money lost. I think that if business doesn't want Macintosh, then that's no great loss. The future in computing is increased power in the personal computer, because people will be doing more at home. Consequently, more people will be buying powerful micros like Macintosh as opposed to bulky IBM crap. /* Jason Haines * ElecEng Undergraduate * 73 Davidson Avenue * Concord NSW 2137 * AUSTRALIA * * STD: (02) 73-4444 * ISD: +61 2 73-4444 * ACSnet: baron@runx * CSNET: baron@runx.oz * ARPA: baron%runx.oz@seismo.css.gov * JANET: runx.oz!baron@ukc * UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,seismo,ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!runx.oz!baron */