goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (11/05/87)
I have seen the following claims in industry trade journals :
[ Roughly a year ago ... ]
1) In spite of the massive influx of PCs into the corporate environment,
white-collar (and associated) worker productivity has not been
significantly improved by the presence of the machines.
[ Rather recently ...]
2) On the average, MacIntosh users operate their machines 3 times as long each
day as users of IBM PCs.
3) On the average, having a MacIntosh has been 10 times as helpful to a
worker's productivity as an IBM PC.
(Note: combining (1) and (3) is rather humorous, since 10 times 0 is 0. But
let's ignore that inappropriate juxtaposition of widely separated claims.)
My Question: These claims sound a bit difficult to establish, so if there is
any truth to them, they must have come from extensive study and probably only
apply with some qualifications attached. Does anyone on the net know of any
hard research that supports or "inhibits" any of these claims ?
Thanks, Mark Goldfain arpa: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu