meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) (12/18/89)
I usually try to avoid these kind of things, but this time I just couldn't. In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> you write: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I didn't originally post this, but it is in my book. > I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. Why? How? You give no method for evaluation. SCSI is very fast in my book. When originally conceived it could transfer a meg in a second. It's faster now. How's that compare to an interface on an IBM? For more specs on the SCSI interface, I would refer you to an article in MacUser, mid 1988. I can give you the specifics (date, page numbers) if you want. I think proof of the SCSI is the fact it has been adopted by other computer makers. >The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 any day of the week. Why? My 68020 runs at 16MHz. I can buy a 68030 that runs at 32 for under a thousand, and if I had the money I could buy one that runs at 50 MHz. Such a product is available today. Does anything approach this on an IBM machine. By the way, the 68040 will run faster that the '486, although I will admit it's not out yet, but since I can get a '30 that runs faster, I guess you've already lost. >My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. I don't think the SE/30 is the greatest myself. Could you elaborate on how how your Compaq eats it for lunch? Give me specifics so we can really debate instead of listen to unsupported claims. >Can you say "upgradable?" Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note will follow). >That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. OK, I will. I hopefully will put in a 68030 accelerator, which plugs into the board, no replacement needed. Maybe if I wanted to lower my standards I could buy a NuBus '386 board. Then I could do everything you can do. Can you plug in a Mac 68030 board and run all my programs? >Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? Yes. I plan to upgrade to 256 colors over Christmas. Price is $49. I'd like to plug in a 24 bit board, but I don't have $800 or so. Can an IBM support 24 bit color? 19" Sony monitors with 24 bit color? Does the IBM support the latest in video technology? What is the lastest. Nothing I've seen on the IBM is the lastest. 32 bit Quickdraw on a Sony 19" might be. > No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! Actually, I open mine with a screwdrive, phillips I think. After removing the screw which is only a safety precaution, I hold two latches and viola! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM customization follows below. >That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics. >I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's >all junk. You give absolutely no explanation here. I guess you'll die a life that could have been so much better. How can yoy make comparisons with a machine you've never used or plan to use? >What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. >You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip >off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone >else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right... If you believe this, then you have to believe MicroSoft and HP stole it as well, from whom we'll let the courts decide. I've written enough for now and will let the lawyers have this one. > >> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? > >What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one >of the most powerful and widely used operating systems... Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? > >-- >>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * >University of Rochester * will screw it up." * >Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." >ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system because there isn't such a thing. Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines, two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the IBM platform. Pagemaker was slooww. You give no benchmarks of basis of comparison. I've used the same program on both machines and I can tell you it was slower on the IBM. Pagemaker isn't the fastest on any machine (I think Quark Xpress is better - Can you get that for an IBM?), but simply changing pages was tedious onthe IBMs. Features from the program were missing on the IBM version. What happened to image control on imported graphics? We could do some things, but nothing like on the Mac (i.e. adjust contrast, give an arbitray grey-map, solarize). You might say there are other programs that can do these things. You might not. I don't now if they exist for the IBM. I know they do for the Mac. My point is Pagemaker for the Mac has these feature, PM for the IBM doesn't. What happened to removing styles from the palette? We kept getting errors. When we called tech support, they said once it was created, it couldn't be removed. Aauggh. What about not using a mouse? When we got out third machine, we didn't get a mouse for a few days. PM was useless. On a Mac you can use Easy Access (I think you hit the shift key five times) to let you use the arrow keys instead of a mouse. On the IBM, nothing. We called Aldus tech support on this one as well. "What can we do?" "GET A MOUSE!" was their reply. So much for customization. Printing was a pain. We couldn't network the machines easily like Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If we wanted to change on the IBM, we had to maually change the printer mode on the printer. When this wasn't done (and this did happen, especially in the morning after the boss had it in Diablo mode for printing out things late the night before (he had his own computer in another room but couldn't network it to our laser printer - you could with Macs)) we got pages of raw PostScript. We began to joke about "Oh, how I love raw PostScript in the morning." Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7 million. I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you can do this same, I will continue this discussion. Paul Eric Menchen meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu I am solely responsible for everything I've said, although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) who will agree with me.
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/18/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Can you say "upgradable?" >Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note >will follow). >>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. >Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can >customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM >compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile >makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by >presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM >customization follows below. You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them, but that's about the limit of customization. >>That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. >I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring >Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse >types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and >makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics. A necessary consequence of having so much freedom in assembling an 80x86 system is that the software needs to be told what all the different pieces are. When you limit yourself to the "any color you want as long as it's black" design parameters of the Mac, you don't need the customization. < text deleted > >Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but >out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7 >million. Correction. The _Mac II_ gives you a choice of 16.7 million colors. A _Mac Plus_ gives you any color you want to use from the set [white black]. With IBM's architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color graphics requires that you buy a new video card and monitor. With the Macintosh architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color requires that you sell your Mac Plus and buy a Mac II. An amazing cost differential. >I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and >available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you >can do this same, I will continue this discussion. By basing all of your counterexamples on the fact that _you_ own a Mac II and ignoring all of the 'toaster' Macs that are out there, you are essentially putting yourself in the same group as the twits who tell people "Of course it won't run on an 8088. Buy a 386 machine." If _everybody_ who owned a Mac had a Mac II, your arguments would be valid; all of the people who don't own the top-of-the-line Mac systems are obviously dust under your feet and their opinions are unimportant. >I am solely responsible for everything I've said, >although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) >of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) >who will agree with me. Ha. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
smith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) (12/19/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, >including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? Yep. If I had a 386. Will all Macs run UNIX? > We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on >the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect >deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the >IBM platform. Pagemaker on the PC is a dog. Desktop publishing of any sort shouldn't be done on a PC. It isn't a good comparison - try Excel, which runs with approximately the same interface on both the PC and Mac. >We couldn't network the machines easily like >Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box >and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a >lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough >either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print >text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or >PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If Sure, they can be networked easily, but they are as slow as molasses running uphill in January when the system's loaded. I know - I work in an area where we have networks of both PC's and Macs. And the Macs are slower by a long shot. Want to bring up Excel? Double click in the icon and wait 1 minute (literally - when the system's loaded down). On the PC network? Type in EXCEL and wait about 20 seconds, if that. No matter if the system's near full or what. Which brings me to another point - GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em. Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI for a command line environment*. That is one of my big gripes about the Mac - it's nearly impossible to get a command line environment like DOS for a *reasonable* price. Sean -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Sean Smith - Damage Inc. "Let me tell you what you're trying | | Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada to say..." 01SSMITH@AC.DAL.CA too | | These ideas are mine...ALL MINE!!! *maniacal laughter* |
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec18.174644.24333@ug.cs.dal.ca>, smith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) writes: > GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em. > Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI > for a command line environment*. One thing about Windows, or PM, or even X is that there's a command line interface sitting down there somewhere underneath everything (at least conceptually). There isn't on a Mac. When you're using menus & windows, you *are* talking to the OS. The reason command-line evironments like MPW are add-ons is that they are sitting on top of the GUI, not the other way around. To each their own, I guess. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/19/89)
In article <5107@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>>Can you say "upgradable?" >>Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note >>will follow). > >>>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. >>Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can >>customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM >>compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile >>makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by >>presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM >>customization follows below. > >You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original >poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac >II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to >cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them, >but that's about the limit of customization. The current standard for the "toaster Mac" is a Macintosh SE. An SE has an internal slot, and there are several products available which will add more expansion slots. But you know what? I've never, EVER seen an SE which had even that slot filled! Almost every peripheral I've ever seen on an SE has been quite adequately handled by the serial port. If you should ever actually WANT an ethernet connection or perhaps an accelerator board or more serial ports or something, you just plug it in or have your dealer do so. But so few SE owners take advantage of even this that I suspect there is not much demand for the type of expansion which you're talking about. Also, the only example the original poster mentioned was the DaynaFile system for reading IBM disks, which works just as well on a Plus as on a II, I believe. And even if not, I have seen competing products which serve the same function. -- Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (12/19/89)
In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: > >I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system >about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM >system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system >because there isn't such a thing. > you mean you spent *ALOT* more than for an IBM. >Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a >lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never >plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for >more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my >Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together >a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines, >two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript >printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on >the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect >deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the >IBM platform. > [ bunch of user garbage deleted ] >I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and >available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you >can do this same, I will continue this discussion. > >Paul Eric Menchen >meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu > >I am solely responsible for everything I've said, >although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) >of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) >who will agree with me. well, let me pick up the thread here... i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a port, or read a file, i don't want to have to wade through cartoons to get to it. i don't want the machine to tell me i can't access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the goddamn file! i don't normally put up with that behavior from humans and i'll be damned if i'll put up with it from a machine! it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! the mac does do things well, but as a programming environment it sucks. i transferred away from the job that required me to use the FRANKINTOSH and now i get to program on a computer... i hope to never have to work on one of those bastard mutant offspring of an etch-a-sketch [tm] and a typewriter again. remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/19/89)
by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): > Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so > damned proud of is a nuisance. If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/20/89)
In article <10684@encore.Encore.COM> jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): >> Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so >> damned proud of is a nuisance. >If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a >little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy >engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. As was pointed out in a posting to another newsgroup, if the Mac GUI is supposed to be so wonderful an interface, why was it implemented in such a brain-dead manner? The example cited was that applications have to handle their own expose events. This should be internal to the GUI; the programmer shouldn't have to do it himself. Essentially, you have to write part of the GUI all over again for _every_ program you write. It's sort of like OS|2, which I believe IBM changed from OS/2 because the name was too descriptive -- it's half an operating system. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (12/20/89)
>I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. >Jeff d'Arcy Damn straight. I think if Jobs made *any* contribution to the computing world, the concept of the "toaster" computer was it. "The computer for the rest of us." Granted, he built in some technical limitations (small memory, no slots, etc.) that were suboptimal, but what the heck: a Porsche with a plastic dashboard instead of a wooden one is still a Porsche. I'm a case in point. I majored in liberal arts (English, Philosophy, Psychology, Education) all the way through 250+ hours of college/graduate school. I don't know SH*T about computers *or* programming. Then along came the Mac, which provided me with a productivity tool of staggering technical sophistication, and I didn't have to spend a month memorizing commands like "CP/:D1.whoopee.%\\kipperedherring" just to start something up. No, just point at the little icon and <click> and presto, an entire document was left/right justified in 3 seconds, or a font was changed, or a picture pasted into the middle of a page. I remember using a PC-AT for a project about 3 years ago. I eagerly booted the thing up, then spent an entire afternoon poring through an 8 inch stack of manuals. My prof asked how I was doing, and I said, "gee, I think I'll be able to get started by tomorrow!" In contrast, I've seen secretaries who have NEVER used a computer before take a Mac out of the box, boot up MacWrite, and start cranking out beautifully formatted correspondence in less than an hour. Try THAT with your typical "mess-dos" machine. I was amused when, in a local bookstore, I saw a HUGE book on "Using Micro- soft Windows." It must have been 3 inches thick. Imagine a 1200-page book on "using Macintosh windows." Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... I'm on my second Mac now, an SE with 4 megs RAM and a 40meg external HD. By carefully setting up a work environment with tools like OnCue, Multi- Finder, and Macromaker, I've created a personal workstation with power that existed only in science fiction novels a few years ago. By God, I'm PROUD of this thing! (pats Mac, tear rolls down cheek) And yes, after all this time, let's have some dialogue on IBM vs. Mac, as long as it's sensible and realistic, and not meaningless jaw-wagging like Woody's (sorry, Woody). I'm sorry if it bothers all you "engineers" that want to sit here and talk about nubuses and stack heaps (whatever those are). I've learned some interesting things, and have been exposed to some valid viewpoints, while reading this discussion. If you don't like it, you know where the "K" key is. Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (12/20/89)
In article <10684@encore.Encore.COM> jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: > >If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a >little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy >engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. > >Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin. > fuck your patience... does this mean i have to put up with apple's bullshit when i write programs that are totally transparent to the user? i mean why should i have to suffer with someone else's idea of a user interface when my programs have none, because they use none, the user never sees it? /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) (12/20/89)
In article <5842@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM system, but you can't say I spent >>more than an equivalent IBM system because there isn't such a thing. > >you mean you spent *ALOT* more than for an IBM. Read it again. He spent infinitely less than for an *equivalent* IBM (since there is no such thing). >i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors >of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. >Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? You mean IBM, right? Dunno about Paul, but I did program on IBMs and hope never to have to do it again ... >That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a >port, or read a file (...) i don't want the machine to tell me i can't >access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the >goddamn file! Obviously, you're confused ... just goes to show your ignorance in the subject. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that it is no big deal to write a program that will open and read any file ... >it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! Meadow muffins. Any time I have to write a standalone application that does not require UNIX-specific system calls and lex/yacc, I'd do it on a Macintosh precisely for the reasons of productivity. Think C compiles on a Mac II in half the time of a VAX 8650 - I am talking CPU time here - the real time can be 1/10 of a moderately loaded 8650 ... Where I used to work, the command-line based applications for IBM would be written on a Mac Plus, then transferred and compiled on an IBM AT (it was a couple of years ago). I remember it used to take 20 minutes on an AT with a hard disk to compile a program that took 2 minutes on a Plus with floppies. KK -- Kris Kozminski kk@mcnc.org "The party was a masquerade; the guests were all wearing their faces."
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/20/89)
Think of what a peaceful world we would have if all the comp.sys.mac rn users typed /IBM/Ka:j and all the comp.sys.ibm.pc users typed /Mac/Ka:j. Think of it. -- Mark Wilkins
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/20/89)
In article <22526@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes: >I was amused when, in a local bookstore, I saw a HUGE book on "Using Micro- >soft Windows." It must have been 3 inches thick. Imagine a 1200-page book >on "using Macintosh windows." Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... Have you ever seen the 5-volume, 1000+ page reference library that you need to write software that is integrated with the Mac interface? I believe that the MS Windows book includes information you neet for writing software that is integrated to the Windows interface. Try comparing equivalent reference documents. Sean Malloy | "The Crystal Wind is the Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Storm, and the Storm is Data, San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | and the Data is Life." malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | -- _Emerald Eyes_, D.K. Moran
slimer@trsvax.UUCP (12/20/89)
This thread should not be IBM vs MAC, but more on the line of PC vs MAC. Get it straight, IBM is NOT the only PC developer. Their are many companies available for the same treatment that most of you MAC users seem to give IBM. Acknowledging the fact that I have limited use of a MAC, I cannot be totally sure what they can and cannot do. However, from my small experience with them I found that for a user they were wonderfully powerful. If you like mice, even more powerful. But what I like about the PC, which I bought, is the flexibility and openness to be able to do whatever I want to do. As for not being able to find a comparable PC to a MAC... fine, but I know many PCs that a MAC could not even come close to comparing with. Both types of machines have their good and bad. IMHO, the MAC is a user machine, and the PC is a developers dream. Being a user machine was the MACs whole idea. I know that you can develop programs on a MAC, just like on a PC. They are equivalent machines in many aspects, yet vastly different in perception and usage. I believe that the MAC pricing is unjust and unqualified. Take for example a MACII with a 40M drive compared with an IBM AT 339 (30M drive) or a Compaq Deskpro 386/16, 40M drive. You want to know the price differences? 1) MAC II, 40M - $3,750 2) IBM AT 339 - $1,825 3) Compaq 386/16, 40M - $2,500 There's your difference. These figures are published from PC Week, December 18, 1989, page 13, source The Boston Computer Exchange. The MAC is a profit hungry machine. Not to say that the MAC is the highest priced machine in the market (only the IBM Model 80, 70M - $3,800 : Compaq Portable 386, 40M - $4,100 are higher priced) noted by this chart. **************************************************************************** * Thank You, texbell!rwsys!slimer * * Bill "My micro doesn't give a sheet!" - ComputerWorld * * George W. Pogue, 1300 Two Tandy, Fort Worth, TX. 76102 (817) 390-2871 * ****************************************************************************
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (12/21/89)
From article <5842@eos.UUCP>, by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): [tons 'o mindless bullshit deleted] > remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! > > /***woody **************************************************************** > *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I...*** > *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** > ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own This man is obviously insane. The Mac *is* idiot-proof, and I offer as evidence his dislike of the Mac. I admit a Mac isn't the easiest thing in the world to program, but it's a helluva lot better than the segmented 80x86 IBM machines. Woody, take a pill. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) (12/21/89)
In article <5842@eos.UUCP>, woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: > ***%!?*&%$#^*****!!!$%++@#!@#$*****!!!! ... Come on Wayne, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but clean up the language a little.
goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (12/22/89)
In article <216100173@trsvax>, slimer@trsvax.UUCP writes... >I know that you can develop programs on a MAC, just like on a PC. >They are equivalent machines in many aspects, yet vastly different in >perception and usage. I believe that the MAC pricing is unjust and >unqualified. Take for example a MACII with a 40M drive compared with an IBM >AT 339 (30M drive) or a Compaq Deskpro 386/16, 40M drive. You want to know >the price differences? > >1) MAC II, 40M - $3,750 >2) IBM AT 339 - $1,825 >3) Compaq 386/16, 40M - $2,500 > >There's your difference. These figures are published from PC Week, December >18, 1989, page 13, source The Boston Computer Exchange. Just a small amount of truth needs to be piled into this flame war. BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon users willingness to pay. It's a "free market" in secondhand gear. The Mac II commands a higher price because people are willing to pay more. Had IBM set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still sell at $1825 today, because that's what people are willing to pay. That Apple's "new" prices are rather high goes without saying. This posting is simply to point out that "used" prices are based on something else. (Proof: Look at the used market price of an "orphan" machine like a DEC Rainbow, Wangpro, etc.) --- Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (12/23/89)
In article <1989Dec18.174644.24333@ug.cs.dal.ca> smith@ug.cs.dal.ca.UUCP (Sean Smith) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, >>including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? > > Yep. If I had a 386. Will all Macs run UNIX? > >I know - I work in an >area where we have networks of both PC's and Macs. And the Macs are slower >by a long shot. Want to bring up Excel? Double click in the icon and wait >1 minute (literally - when the system's loaded down). On the PC network? >Type in EXCEL and wait about 20 seconds, if that. No matter if the system's >near full or what. I also work in a lab with IBMs and MACs. Both are running on the same network, and use the same drives and printers. Both run similar software, both have similar interfaces, and the MACs cost twice as much. The Mac side of the network is USUALLY broken, with print queues stacking up, and the printers silent, or there are problems launching applications from the servers. One day I had this problem (47 jobs in the queue on the Image Writer, and ... silence). I called upstairs about the problem and down came a test print which worked perfectly . . . I call back to find out what they did, and I am told that the test print came from the IBM side of the net! We NEVER have problems with the IBM side of the net, unless the problems are NETWORK-WIDE. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan/999999) (12/23/89)
In article <7075@shlump.nac.dec.com>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com Goldstein) writes: > > In article <216100173@trsvax>, slimer@trsvax.UUCP writes... > >1) MAC II, 40M - $3,750 > >2) IBM AT 339 - $1,825 > >3) Compaq 386/16, 40M - $2,500 > > > >There's your difference. These figures are published from PC Week, December > >18, 1989, page 13, source The Boston Computer Exchange. > BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon users > willingness to pay. It's a "free market" in secondhand gear. The Mac II > commands a higher price because people are willing to pay more. Had IBM > set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still sell at $1825 > today, because that's what people are willing to pay. The free market is a two-way street. Price also has a lot to do with people's willingness to sell. The BoCoEx gives a good idea of what the cost of buying a secondhand machine is which was all the original poster wanted to say. The Mac II commands a higher price because the initial investment of the original owner was so high that they are not willing to part with it for less, not because that is the natural price that people are willing to pay (people would always rather pay less). It is the convergence of supply and demand curves. The beauty of free market competition, i.e. the IBM clone market, is that prices are driven down (just look at the pricing of the IBM PS2/55X) for everyone. It also forces increased innovations and greater incentive to be earlier to market with technology ('486 clone influx). Unlike the Mac world, IBM has big name clone makers (Compaq, Dell, Digital, Tandy, Data General, AT&T, Intel) competing against it on roughly equal footing causing even IBM to bring down the price/performance curve and squeeze profit margins. With competitive plug-in compatibles, of course the street price will be lower. Free market competition with open systems ultimately helps the consumer get more bang for his buck. Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + + outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org +
wayne.ho@f526.n250.z1.fidonet.org (wayne ho) (12/23/89)
> > BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon > users > willingness to pay. It's a "free market" in secondhand > gear. The Mac II > commands a higher price because people are willing to pay > more. Had IBM > set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still > sell at $1825 > today, because that's what people are willing to pay. First of all what is BoCoEx (excuse me for my ignorance)? Is this completely accurate? Prices are partically set due to the willingness to pay (on the side of the consumers) but it also deals with the laws of supply as well (this is the manufacturers). Prices in the "free market system" are determined by the laws of supply and demand not just the willingness of the consumers to pay for the item (this has a lot to do with it though). Depending on whether or not the good (in this case the computer) is an elastic product or inelastic product the manufacturers may have more control over the prices. Also if there is a monopoly of some sort the company is able to control prices a lot easier as well, due to a lack of competition. Apple seems to have a pretty good monopoly as there are very few (if any?) clones for MACs. On the other hand, there are tons and tons of IBM clones. Some products, say penecilin for example, is needed and people will buy this product no matter the price (as long as they can afford it.. ceteris paribus though!) Other products may not sell as well if the producers raise prices too high. There are so many reasons for prices, such as alternative products, etc., etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your statement it seems to me you are saying people believe the MAC is valued higher than an IBM. I don't think it is absolutly correct to say "because MACs are more expensive they are better" (I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me again if I'm interpreting it incorrectly). Well anyway, I can't remember everything I have learned about supply and demand but hopefully I have stated everything correctly. Wayne --- ConfMail V3.31 * Origin: MeTaStAsIo'S -`Not ready error reading drive A' (416)487-9093 (1:250/526)
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (12/24/89)
From article <7075@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein): [some junk deleted] > BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon users > willingness to pay. It's a "free market" in secondhand gear. The Mac II > commands a higher price because people are willing to pay more. Had IBM > set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still sell at $1825 > today, because that's what people are willing to pay. > > That Apple's "new" prices are rather high goes without saying. This > posting is simply to point out that "used" prices are based on something else. > (Proof: Look at the used market price of an "orphan" machine like a DEC > Rainbow, Wangpro, etc.) Give me a break. Apple's and DEC's prices are so high because they have a captured market. The only reason why IBM would sell at a lower price is because they have direct competition. And where do you get this stupied idea that customers are willing to pay more. Deep down inside they wish they didn't have to pay more. But in when shopping for APPLES and DEC's they just don't have too many options do they. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda pacbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >well, let me pick up the thread here... > >i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors >of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s. > >Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so >damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a port, or read a file, >i don't want to have to wade through cartoons to get to it. i don't want >the machine to tell me i can't access a file because it wasn't created by the >application... i want the goddamn file! i don't normally put up with that >behavior from humans and i'll be damned if i'll put up with it from a machine! > >it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! > >the mac does do things well, but as a programming environment it sucks. > >i transferred away from the job that required me to use the FRANKINTOSH >and now i get to program on a computer... i hope to never have to work >on one of those bastard mutant offspring of an etch-a-sketch [tm] and >a typewriter again. > >remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm glad I only support the Macs and don't develop software for the damn things. If you want graphics interface, get a Sun Workstation. Unfortunately...the Mac doesn't follow the "ok, but it's your funernal" philosophy when it comes to programming and developing software. At that level, I draw the line, I will probably never use a Mac to develop software. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): >> Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so >> damned proud of is a nuisance. > >If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a >little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy >engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired >of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and >don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world. > >Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin. There are easier graphics environments to program around than the Mac. The moral of the story is that the Mac is hell on the software developer, but heaven on the novice user. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes: >In article <5842@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >>That GUI you're so damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a >>port, or read a file (...) i don't want the machine to tell me i can't >>access a file because it wasn't created by the application... i want the >>goddamn file! > >Obviously, you're confused ... just goes to show your ignorance in the >subject. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that it is no >big deal to write a program that will open and read any file ... > >>it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took >>me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT! > >Meadow muffins. Any time I have to write a standalone application that does >not require UNIX-specific system calls and lex/yacc, I'd do it on a Macintosh >precisely for the reasons of productivity. Think C compiles on a Mac II in >half the time of a VAX 8650 - I am talking CPU time here - the real time can >be 1/10 of a moderately loaded 8650 ... > >Where I used to work, the command-line based applications for IBM would >be written on a Mac Plus, then transferred and compiled on an IBM AT >(it was a couple of years ago). I remember it used to take 20 minutes on >an AT with a hard disk to compile a program that took 2 minutes on a >Plus with floppies. One thing that's a bloody nuisance in developing PORTABLE applications, and I emphasize PORTABLE is the damn graphics interface. Quite a few of the C compilers out there do NOT support environment variables (i.e. getenv, putenv) unless they 'fake' a command interpreter that supports environment variables. Then you have the annoyance of creating the menus that have no use in the Unix environment (unless there's a graphics interface such as X-Windows or SunView). // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) (12/25/89)
I am really getting a kick out of all these IBM vs MAC argues. These are
great!
Only if I can get Geraldo read these stuff......
--
Amos Yung | "Go sit on a PHASER!"
McMaster University|
cs4g6aw@130.113.1.1| - The guy who dressed like Geordi in "Night Court"
|6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/26/89)
Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers References: <1989Dec22.183926.27643@ntvax.uucp> From article <1989Dec22.183926.27643@ntvax.uucp>, by jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley): > I also work in a lab with IBMs and MACs. Both are running on the same > network, and use the same drives and printers. Both run similar software, > both have similar interfaces, and the MACs cost twice as much. Are you going to call Windows a useful piece of software? Come on, the thing is such a horrible kludge of a Mac clone it makes me mad just to watch the mouse pointer galumph across the screen. > The Mac side of the network is USUALLY broken, with print queues stacking up, > and the printers silent, or there are problems launching applications from the > servers. Hmmm. Sounds like a support problem to me. Either that or somebody who thinks the Mac is simpler than it is "reconfigures" your network for you without checking upstairs first. I've administrated a Mac network with over 200 machines on it, and never had problem one with the net itself. (Of course, setting file permissions is always a pain, but then again it is on all network systems...) > One day I had this problem (47 jobs in the queue on the Image Writer, and > .... silence). I called upstairs about the problem and down came a test print > which worked perfectly . . . I call back to find out what they did, and I am > told that the test print came from the IBM side of the net! Which tells me that your support people are still using antique architecture and refuse to change, which explains the difficulties you have with your Mac net. Some problems with computers, especially those in an institutional setting, stem from something other than the computers themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (12/28/89)
In article <5148@skinner.nprdc.arpa>, malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: > In article <22526@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes: > >I was amused when, in a local bookstore, I saw a HUGE book on "Using Micro- > >soft Windows." It must have been 3 inches thick. Imagine a 1200-page book > >on "using Macintosh windows." Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... > > Have you ever seen the 5-volume, 1000+ page reference library that you > need to write software that is integrated with the Mac interface? I believe > that the MS Windows book includes information you neet for writing software > that is integrated to the Windows interface. Try comparing equivalent > reference documentsa There is a book just on USING Microsoft Windows (sorry, I don't remember the name of the author) - this is distinct from the documentation you get WITH Windows, the documentation you get WITH the Windows toolkit, and the book by Charles Petzold on "Programming Windows". I have seen it in the bookstore, and have flipped through it, but it doesn't strike me as terribly useful - it pretty much duplicates the information in the manual, and you can find out as much or more by playing around with the applications (sort of like using the Mac). I have never encountered anyone who actually *read* it. But I'm not at all sure that that is the point! Books (especially technical books) are printed by publishers and sold by bookstores because *somebody* will buy them - not because anybody will *read* them. If you are the typical PC user who has gotten used to buying a book to lead you by the nose through how to run 1-2-3, you may well buy a book like this before you realize that you don't need it, and you may even read it out of the habit of having to read books like this. But offhand I don't recall any other computer book that I thought was more of a waste of perfectly good paper and ink than that particular tome. Bruce C. Wright
smith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Sean Smith) (12/29/89)
In article <106@lad.scs.com> lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >From article <5842@eos.UUCP>, by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): > >[tons 'o mindless bullshit deleted] > >> remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! >> >> /***woody **************************************************************** > >This man is obviously insane. The Mac *is* idiot-proof ... [Some stuff deleted] > Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems Well, what Woody was trying to say was Shaw's Principle, which states: "Design a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it." To Laurence, I reply with a saying I heard from my Operations Management professor: "Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious." C'mon, guys, this is getting a little silly. Yes, both machines have their merits, but this is just senseless name-calling. Sean -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Sean Smith - Damage Inc. "Let me tell you what you're trying | | Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada to say..." 01SSMITH@AC.DAL.CA too | | These ideas are mine...ALL MINE!!! *maniacal laughter* |
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (12/30/89)
In article <106@lad.scs.com> lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: }From article <5842@eos.UUCP>, by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): }[tons 'o mindless bullshit deleted] }} remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it! }This man is obviously insane. The Mac *is* idiot-proof, and I offer as }evidence his dislike of the Mac. I admit a Mac isn't the easiest thing in }the world to program, but it's a helluva lot better than the segmented 80x86 }IBM machines. }Woody, take a pill. Ensign Zulu: "Sir! Sensors detect impending high-energy flame war developing in sector CSIP!" Mr. Spot: "Captain, my analysis indicates that although this flame war may develop significant output, the manifestations of flame activity are unlikely to include any new configurations. Capt. Klirk: "That's very interesting, Mr. Spot, but what did you just say?" Mr. Spot: "Merely that the emanations from this particular flame war are unlikely to be of interest to anyone other than the most dedicated student of the phenomena." Dr. Decoy: "What he's trying to say, Jim, is that he won't mind-meld with it, Zulu won't waste his time shooting at it, and you can't make love to it. It would be a complete waste of Red-shirts to investigate it." Capt. Klirk: "Hmmm... I see what you mean. Very well Ensign, activate K'orbomite device." Ensign Zulu: "Aye! Aye! Sir! Pressing 'K' key... Now!" -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (You may now R'eply. Forwarding from cbnews to my mail address now works!!!)
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/03/90)
In article <89122400351638@masnet.uucp> wayne.ho@f526.n250.z1.fidonet.org (wayne ho) writes: >First of all what is BoCoEx (excuse me for my ignorance)? ... The BoCoEx is the Boston Computer Exchange - an independent brokerage outfit which makes deals in used computers. If you have used computer equipment that you want to sell, you give them a ring and they list it. Buyers call up and tell what they want and what they are willing to pay. BoCoEx makes the deal happen and takes a cut. To get to the original poster's comments, the used computer market is a lot like the used car market. However, this does NOT mean that because A has a higher used price than B that A is better than B UNLESS THE TWO ARE FUNGABLE. Comparing Compaqs, ASTs and IBMs this was is reasonable, they are basically plug replaceable. Comparing Macs and IBMs is not. If someone needs a Mac they need a Mac, and they will be comparing the price (and determining value) based on how much they save over buying new. Thus, since a Mac is proprietary, the price of a new Mac really does influence the price of a used Mac much more than the price of competing used computer equipment. As it is, my impression is that while used Mac equipment still sells at higher prices than used PC equipment, that the used Macs depreciate faster (especially used SEs). -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien