kjardine@watmum.UUCP (Kevin Jardine) (05/14/85)
Here are some price comparisons (in Canadian dollars, $1 CDN ~ $.7 US, officially, but in the computer market, it seems more like $1 CDN ~ $.6 US) The Apple prices are from the Apple Canada Suggested Retail Price List. Item Atari ST Apple Macintosh 512K 68000 computer with 1 $1400 $4095 360K (500K unformatted) 3 1/2" floppy drive and a monochrome monitor High density dot matrix printer ~$300-$400 $950 (1280 dots per line) Daisy wheel printer $399 $3280 Floppy Disk Drive $260 $775 Hard Disk ~$700-$800 $3125 (15M) (10M) The monochrome monitor has a higher resolution (640 X 400) than the Mac's, and a colour monitor (that can show 512 colours) is also available for $600. I'll grant you that dealers may substantially discount their Mac's, but not by THAT much. Of course Mac owners pay for QUALITY, right? [:-)]
ix408@sdcc6.UUCP (Cris Rys) (05/18/85)
The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari will reportedly sell for $400. Any reports on a cheap hard disk for the Mac? Cris ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software!
royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) (05/22/85)
Well, there were some fairly exorbitant prices listed for the Mac in the comparison, I must say--makes me want to hock mine immediately :-) My 512k Mac and imagewriter and an exteral disk drive were being sold for $2795 when I purchased it...I bought it through a university, and left off the external drive, and paid $2262. So where did you get your prices??? And don't claim that mine was bought a while ago, either--it arrived day before yesterday!! Roy -- The above opinions aren't necessarily those of etc, etc...but they should be!! Roy Turner (a transplanted Kentucky hillbilly) School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!royt
luscher@nicmad.UUCP (05/23/85)
> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that > it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari > will reportedly sell for $400. > > Any reports on a cheap hard disk for the Mac? > > ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software! For early Mac owners that is nothing they haven't lived through before. ;-) -- Jim Luscher / Nicolet Instruments / Oscilloscope Div. 5225 Verona Rd Bldg-2 / Madison Wi 53711 USA / 608/271-3333x2274
kjardine@watmum.UUCP (Kevin Jardine) (05/24/85)
In article <423@gitpyr.UUCP> royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) writes: >Well, there were some fairly exorbitant prices listed for the Mac in the >comparison, I must say--makes me want to hock mine immediately :-) > >My 512k Mac and imagewriter and an exteral disk drive were being sold for >$2795 when I purchased it...I bought it through a university, and left off the >external drive, and paid $2262. So where did you get your prices??? And >don't claim that mine was bought a while ago, either--it arrived day before >yesterday!! > >Roy As I stated in the article, the prices are in the official Apple Canada retail price list and are in CANADIAN funds. My point was that Apple is charging far more than Atari for a machine that is NOT three times better technically (although right now has far more software available). I'll grant you that some universities are offering special deals on their Macs, but these are not available for most of the "rest of us". I am an Apple fan. It took courage and some innovation to bring the Xerox Star microcomputer's ideas to an (almost) mass market computer, but I think that is time that Apple stopped asking its dealers to charge what the market will bear, and starts charging something closer to what it actually costs to produce the machine. The official cost for the 512K upgrade is another example of this practice. (Remember, the first ball point pens were $25, and this time, that's in AMERICAN funds before the days of stagflation.) Right now, there is no way I can afford a Mac at the prices Apple is charging. I may soon be able to buy an ST. Kevin
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (05/24/85)
> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that > it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari > will reportedly sell for $400. > > ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software! Can you buy the Atari today? If so, from whom? I.e., is it vaporware or a product?
adm@cbneb.UUCP (05/25/85)
Where did the prices come from for the mac? If thats the best you can do, let me know; "have I got a deal for YOU!" Also I think you're forgetting that a large amount of software come with the mac; for approx. $2500 (US), I can get a 512k mac with second drive, a word processor (macwrite) a graphics package (macpaint), a game (the puzzle DA) and many utilities (plus the guided tour with cassette!). Not to mention the two tons of public domain DAs, games, pictures, etc. Not to mension detailled documentation is available (Inside mac, although it does cost a bit of extra bucks). Not to mention that Apple actually listens to the users (via the net). Not to mention .... No doubt the Jackintosh is cheaper initailly, but don't forget the philosiphy behind this: Atari plans (as far as I know anyway) to make money on the software and accessories, not the machine itself. Pay now, or pay later! There may be a market for the Atari ST, but I'll keep my mac thank you. Wayne "I'd rather fight than switch!" Pollock
vantreeck@logic.DEC (05/28/85)
The disparity in prices between the MAC and Atari ST, does not indicate that Apple ripping anyone off. Rather, I think that it indicates that Atari has not yet learned about margins. I suspect that MAC's suggested retail price is about three times the cost of manufacture. And there's about a four or five time markup on disk drives. This kind of markup is the usual for those in the computer industry that not only survive but thrive. Atari has had financial problems before. It appears that Atari has not yet balanced it good technical and marketing prowess with good finanacial management. In order to make an adequate profit selling at Atari's very low margins, it would have to sell in volumes that a rapidly maturing market can not support. Even Big Blue has discovered this and has started putting more emphasis on the AT line which has more growth potential. You may get a great buy on an ATARI ST today. But will there be an ATARI tomorrow to support your ST? That's a gamble I'm not going to take at this time. I'm sticking with my MAC. George Van Treeck
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/29/85)
Last night while sitting trying to figure out how many more months it will be before I can get my memory/disk upgrade, so I can start saving up for a compiler, an ironic and interesting thought occurred to me. This Atari ST... we keep criticizing its low quality compared to the Macintosh. This is probably justified; Apple I suspect put a lot more R&D into the Macintosh; and it's the Commodore Amiga we really have to worry about, anyway, since Apple lost the Turbo Pascal opportunity to Commodore. But, if you read the interviews with the Apple engineers, it appears that the Atari ST is more or less what the Apple engineers started out to build, before the Mac started getting enhanced and improved into what it is now: it had much lower resolution, was generally a smaller machine, and was much less expensive. Now, other than the fact that the Mac is so expensive, I personally think I would rather have the Mac anyday. But it's kind of interesting to consider this possibility that maybe the ST is sort of what the Mac started out as... DISCLAIMER: I like the Mac! I just wish some aspects of it weren't so obstinate... -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf na' gur rryf!" [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]
adm@cbneb.UUCP (05/29/85)
> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that > it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari > will reportedly sell for $400. The rumor I hear is that the 15MB disk is actually a 20MB disk that the company couldn't sell elsewhere because of too many media defects. Atari bought the drives and is putting a special controller on to map out the defects. This should slow down access to the disk, but it makes for a cheap disk drive!
broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (05/30/85)
I must take exception to this! Saying "the ST is what the Mac started out to be before getting enhanced" is almost exactly the opposite of reality. I've *seen* the ST and played with it, and can safely say: 1. Yes, it exists. 2. It is what the Mac should have been, but isn't. 3. It's essentially an improved version of the Mac at a third of the price. If Atari can really supply it at the price they're quoting (and I still feel that's a big "if", regardless of what Tramiel may say), then for the price of a memory upgrade on a Mac you can buy a complete ST with 512k, a disk drive and a very nice high-resolution monitor. The resolution on the ST is *higher* than the Mac, not lower (Mac is 512 x 384, ST is 640 x 400). The ST allows you to have color, but at lower resolution (a reasonable enough trade). They put enough keys on the keyboard (yay!) and a second button on the mouse (interesting, but necessary?). The display is larger and crisper than the Mac's. The thing comes with 512k standard. They have provisions for a hard disk built right in from day 1. Now, if only there were some software.... :-) I'm seriously thinking of buying an ST. I wouldn't even dream of spending three times as much for an inferior machine. However, I won't buy anything until there's some decent software; I also plan to wait for a few reviews before I jump in headlong. At the moment, though, I'm *very* interested in the ST. -- -Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo) ...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/03/85)
In article <2450@wateng.UUCP> broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) writes: >I've *seen* the ST and played with it, and can safely say: > >1. Yes, it exists. >2. It is what the Mac should have been, but isn't. >3. It's essentially an improved version of the Mac at a third of the price. > >If Atari can really supply it at the price they're quoting (and I still feel >that's a big "if", regardless of what Tramiel may say) Prototypes are wonderful, but I'll believe the ST when I see it. The latest, per the San Jose Mercury News, is that the ST, which was supposed to be shipped to around now, will go to user groups next month. Also, the lower priced machine (128K???) that was to be sold in mass market stores has been cancelled, and the larger machine will be ready Real Soon Now. Atari claims 200 software developers workin on the machine, but nobody has been able to find a company admitting to this -- software looks to be as much vaporware as the hardware right now. Atari, which previously announced that the operating system would be in ROM for speed, has now recanted and said it will be on disk and loaded, so you lose a fair amount of your ram and your available disk and the speed advantages of the ST. I've been following the Atari machine, both on the net and in the trade, and what I see is a highly ambitious product with minimal profit margins and a set of production specs that changes hourly. If I was a software developer, I'd be VERY wary of this machine, simply because it seems Atari isn't exactly sure how to build the turkey yet. If they did, they wouldn't keep changing the specs out from under themselves and delaying shipping. It is quite possible that the machine will get to market and be the greatest thing since sliced bread. My opinion is that talk is quite cheap, and until I see a production level machine, all of this is so much vaporware. Prototypes are great, but I've see a number of products that almost never made it out of prototype stage because what you can build one at a time doesn't always translate to volume. Keep your eye on Amiga, folks, and if Atari gets its act together without going broke (again) first, then we can worry about the ST... >... and a second button on the mouse (interesting, but necessary?). Actually, yes. The one button mouse on the Mac is, in my opinion, its strongest weakness. I've hacked to some degreee with mice with from one button to four (and also a trackball, which has some advantages of its own) and I find the two button mouse to be the best tradeoff between functionality and confusion. You can easily get to either button, and you don't need to watch the mouse like you do with four buttons, and you don't need to use a 'Meta' key like you do with a one button mouse. Realistically, the Mac IS a two button mouse -- look at how much you use the <shift> key while clicking and dragging and imagine how much nicer it would be if you had that shift key on the mouse where it was convenient... -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This space for rent. Political, religious and racist quotes need not apply.
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (06/04/85)
> > Actually, yes. The one button mouse on the Mac is, in my opinion, its > strongest weakness. I've hacked to some degreee with mice with from one > button to four (and also a trackball, which has some advantages of its own) > and I find the two button mouse to be the best tradeoff between > functionality and confusion. You can easily get to either button, and you > don't need to watch the mouse like you do with four buttons, and you don't > need to use a 'Meta' key like you do with a one button mouse. > Realistically, the Mac IS a two button mouse -- look at how much you use > the <shift> key while clicking and dragging and imagine how much nicer it > would be if you had that shift key on the mouse where it was convenient... > With one hand on the mouse, I have another hand free to operate a whole keyboard full of buttons. With the shift, option, and command keys I can get about 16 (?) functionalities out of the one mouse button and then there's all those characters. Since using two hands at once comes quite easily, I feel that one mouse button is perfect.
hall@ittral.UUCP (Doug Hall) (06/08/85)
I have been using a 3 button mouse here at work (on a Valid workstation) for several weeks. Prior to that my only exposure to mice had been on the Mac and Lisa, both of which I've used extensively. I found it quite easy to adjust to the three-button rodent - in fact, using a Mac seems more cumbersome now than ever. I find that having to switch my attention between the keyboard and the mouse is annoying, and the three-button mouse keeps this to a minimum. If I am going to do something with the mouse, I want to use only the mouse, not some crazy "control-options-escape-left elbow click" manuver. Same with the keyboard. A one button mouse simplifies the learning process. But Apple forgot that people aren't in the learning process forever. Doug Hall ittvax!ittral!hall