gford@nunki.usc.edu (Gregory Ford) (06/11/89)
In the June 8, 1989 edition of The Los Angeles Times, Richard O'Reilly in his computer column talked about, among other things, cost comparisons for similarly equipped (performance wise) IBM's and Macs. O'Reilly writes: > Comparing what would be a high-end OS/2 system with a high-end > Macintosh system, Higgs [vice-president of software research > for InfoCorp, Santa Clara, CA] projected a nearly $5,000 difference > in favor of the Macintosh. Equivalent performance between the two > brands would be achieved, he [Higgs] said, with an IBM PS/2 Model 70 > with eight megabytes of random access memory, a math co-proccessor > and an 80-megabytes hard disk at about $13,000, compared to a Macintosh > IIx, with four megabytes of memory and an 80-megabytes hard disk for > about $8,000. The Macintosh has math co-processing built in and has > equivalent performance with half as much operating memory because of > differences in the operating systems, Higgs said. But even with > identical memory, the Mac still would be substantially cheaper. My, my. That's impressive. With the new system 7.0 coming out, it makes you wonder if the gap will widen anymore? ******************************************************************************* * Greg Ford * * Univeristy of Southern California Internet: gford%nunki.usc.edu@usc.edu * * Los Angeles, CA 90007 *
jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) (06/11/89)
AND... That article fails to point out that the '386 (IBM) and the 68030 (IIx) are NOT in the same league, processing-wise. The '486 may be on par with the 68030, but it isn't out yet. When it is, Motorola will have the '040. IBM--yuck. Jeff
astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) (06/13/89)
In article <4063@merlin.usc.edu> gford@nunki.usc.edu (Gregory Ford) writes: >In the June 8, 1989 edition of The Los Angeles Times, Richard O'Reilly >in his computer column talked about, among other things, cost >comparisons for similarly equipped (performance wise) IBM's and Macs. >> an IBM PS/2 Model 70 >> with eight megabytes of random access memory, a math co-proccessor >> and an 80-megabytes hard disk at about $13,000, compared to a Macintosh >> IIx, with four megabytes of memory and an 80-megabytes hard disk for >> about $8,000. The Macintosh has math co-processing built in and has Does the article mention which version of the Model 70 was considered? That model can be as fast as 25MHz compared to the 16MHz of the Mac IIx. As some else mentioned, the 68030 is a more powerful second generation 32 bit processor, while the 80386 is a first generation 32 processor. The 68030 should be compared to the 80486 (which will supposedly be three times faster than a '386 with the same clock). Because Motorola is ahead of Intel in processor design this will be true for some time. Apple is also ahead of IBM in advanced OS design, but Apple is not ahead of AT&T or Berkeley. Nothing is forcing someone to buy IBM. Considering that they no longer control the market, it may be best to buy from some other company such as Compaq or at the other end of the spectrum thumb through the Computer Shopper. I have been following this discussion for some time and it is evident that many think that IBM is the leader of the IBM market, they are not. It would be possible to get a system for half the price quoted above for the IBM system. -- Disclaimer: I like Macintosh's, and MS-DOS (sorta), and Unix, and... Tony Stieber astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.ed att!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!astieber I don't speak for CSD, and CSD dosen't speak.
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) (06/13/89)
astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes: > > Nothing is forcing someone to buy IBM. > You have obviously not worked for a shop that is pig-headedly IBM/clone policied. If you even breathe another company's anem, you are poo-pooed out the door. Many are forced, few are chosen. nrg -- York University Department of Philosophy Toronto, Ontario, Canada "It's only by thinking even more crazily than philosophers do that you can solve their problems." -- L. Wittgenstein _____________________________________________________________________________
rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) (06/13/89)
In article <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu> jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) writes: >AND... > >That article fails to point out that the '386 (IBM) and the 68030 (IIx) >are NOT in the same league, processing-wise. The '486 may be on par >with the 68030, but it isn't out yet. When it is, Motorola will have >the '040. >IBM--yuck. >Jeff Prove it. I haven't seen that much performance difference between the 386 and the 68030, and have seen the 387 performing better than the 68882. I would put both these machines on par with each other. The problem you see is that 90% of all software (or more) running on a 386 is just using 16 bit instructions. I prefer assembly language on a 680x0 to a 80x86 (I know both). I prefer a IBM clone to a Mac. (cheaper, more software, cheaper software, more hardware, cheaper hardware, unlimited different system configurations) Life is a trade off, use what works best for you and ingore anyone who says X is better than Y without exception. Brynn Rogers Honeywell S&RC rogers@src.honeywell.com nic.MR.net!srcsip!rogers
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (06/13/89)
In article <23681@srcsip.UUCP> rogers@falcon.UUCP (Brynn Rogers) writes: >I prefer assembly language on a 680x0 to a 80x86 (I know both). >I prefer a IBM clone to a Mac. (cheaper, more software, cheaper software, >more hardware, cheaper hardware, unlimited different system configurations) I use both at home (Well, actually I'm more keen on the mac, but...) and have to say something: Try to buy N pieces of hardware for the PC clone, and M pieces of software. Put them all together. Run them all together at the same time (using MS DOS 4.0 - the closest to MultiFinder they have gotten so far) (Also, this is no easy task with only 640 kb and no VM...) How long before it all comes tumbling down ? System halted in under 5 minutes, is my guess. The Mac software and hardware interface, as well as systems flexibility, makes the mac beat the hell out of any PC clone. Who cares about money anyway ? :-) -- __ Jon W{tte (The dread Smiley Shark) email:h+@nada.kth.se / \ (+46 (0) 8 258 268) /--- (c) 1989 Yessbox Allright Professional Products Inc. - Y.A.P.P.I. / -- No More --
astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) (06/14/89)
In article <1184@draken.nada.kth.se> d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) writes: >and M pieces of software. Put them all together. Run them all together >at the same time (using MS DOS 4.0 - the closest to MultiFinder they have >gotten so far) (Also, this is no easy task with only 640 kb and no VM...) Hey! MS-DOS 4.0 is not that great (IBM did it, what do you expect?) It is NOT however the closest thing to MultiFinder, Windows/386 works VERY well (you need 4M though, so does MF), there is also PC-MOS/386, Concurrent DOS, etc. and VP/ix, Simulask for Unix. Sure you need a 386 to run this stuff, but virtually any PC(clone) made in the past seven years can have a board put in that has a 16Mhz 386. Boards like this can be bought for as little as $500. If you want the flexibility of a 32 bit motherboard that may be as high $1500. This type of configuration can run any MS-DOS software unlike a Mac IIx (I crashed one of these under both MF and UF two dozen times in a quarter as many hours). Both architectures have their rough edges, I guess I could get an Amiga :-). > __ Jon W{tte (The dread Smiley Shark) email:h+@nada.kth.se >/ \ (+46 (0) 8 258 268) > /--- (c) 1989 Yessbox Allright Professional Products Inc. - Y.A.P.P.I. > / -- No More -- -- Tony Stieber astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.ed att!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!astieber I don't speak for CSD, Computing Services Division doesn't speak at all.