bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (05/17/91)
Even though Apple says that sys 7.0 can run on only 2 meg the consensis is that to run more then one program at a time you will need at least 3 meg. This leaves the Classic owner in trouble as far as memory expansion is conserned because the Classic Maxes out at 4 meg. Hopefully Apple is planning a memmory card that allows the Classic to use the new 2 meg simms. This would give the Classic a maximum of 6 meg(the 1 meg on the card and the two new slots) and this is within the limits of the 68000 with its maximum of 8 meg. Another solution would be the realization of a rumor I heard a year ago: One Sys 7.0 was stable Apple would come out with a 1 meg ROM chip that allow Sys 7.0 to run with only 1 meg of RAM. By running two programs at one time I am talking of programs in MacWrite's class(MacWrite II 1.1 requires 800k of memmory alone) or at least 1600k avalable. Add that 1600k to a System that problaly uses 1300k of RAM barebones and then add 100k for all the fonts and inits you want. The result 3000k leaves only 72k left to do anything in a 3 meg machine. I welcome all reactions and comments to this post.
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May17.153503.21947@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes: >Even though Apple says that sys 7.0 can run on only 2 meg the consensis >is that to run more then one program at a time you will need at least >3 meg. This leaves the Classic owner in trouble as far as memory expansion >is conserned because the Classic Maxes out at 4 meg. Hopefully Apple is >planning a memmory card that allows the Classic to use the new 2 meg simms. >This would give the Classic a maximum of 6 meg(the 1 meg on the card and >the two new slots) and this is within the limits of the 68000 with its maximum >of 8 meg. The 68000 can address a maximum of 16mb. The Classic will never allow more than 4mb of RAM for hardware reasons (the ROM starts at the 4mb boundary and there can be no MMU to allow for discontiguous RAM, never mind ROM code to understand how to handle that). {$SETC _soapbox_=TRUE} I think that the Classic as currently designed was a bad move on Apple's part. Yes, I know they are selling as many as they can build, but they are saddling people with a design that has no more room to grow. What they should have done is put the modified guts of the LC into the compact case (analogous to the SE/30, which is a IIx in the compact case) and sold THAT as the Classic. At the very least, they should have used the Portable's memory design, which allows up to 9 mb of RAM. It would have been especially nice if the Classic had had a 16mhz clock speed, but I heard that 16mhz 68000s can't be had in the quantities Apple would need for the Classic production rate. {$SETC _soapbox_=FALSE} -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.153503.21947@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes: |> Another solution would be the realization of a rumor I heard a year ago: |> One Sys 7.0 was stable Apple would come out with a 1 meg ROM chip that |> allow Sys 7.0 to run with only 1 meg of RAM. Assuming there's another 512K of stuff currently in the System that's stable enough to put in ROM... Remember, we are talking about stuff that lands up in the System heap, not just anything that may currently be part of the System. I think the better long-term solution is a Classic/30 upgrade. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4M limit is a hardware limit based on the number of address lines actually used - I believe this was the reason for this limit on the original Macs and the Plus. Do you really want to run lots of big programs simulataneously on a machine as slow as a Classic? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.162934.29993@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: ><stuff deleted> >I think that the Classic as currently designed was a bad move on Apple's part. >Yes, I know they are selling as many as they can build, but they are saddling >people with a design that has no more room to grow. ><more stuff deleted> Depends on who owns the ox, I guess. As an owner of an original 128K Mac, I think ALL of these machines are bad moves :-) However, from Apple's perspective, since they needed to bring the price down, they had to figure out a way to get people to spend their money twice... Voila... a non-expandable computer that will over time, have to be replaced with an Si/Ci/etc. The LC has similar problems, so putting the LC in the classic case and taking out the color wouldn't have been much better, just a bit faster and allowed for more memory. You have to decide what you want and what you can afford, they buy it. Use it. If you are happy with it and get use out of it, you can't bitch later (even if you'd like to) when you need to buy a new machine. Jon Rosen
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/18/91)
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: |>I think that the Classic as currently designed was a bad move on Apple's part. |>Yes, I know they are selling as many as they can build, but they are saddling |>people with a design that has no more room to grow. |><more stuff deleted> I'm sorry, but I didn't see a shred of reasonability in your argument. The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System 7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. The same goes for the Plus, incidentally, which can run 7.0 even though Apple hasn't made them in a while. The Classic is almost the same as the Plus, as much as software can tell, but gives you a little more RAM (since less ROM has to be patched to run recent systems) and a much cheaper price tag. And even when Pluses and Classics are finally obsolete and cannot run the latest software, they will still run older stuff just as well as they do today. Ask my landlord, who runs her business on a 512 (not "E") just fine, thanks. Your argument makes about as much sense as asking a Honda dealer to upgrade a two-seater CRX to seat 6, or a video salesman to add stereo to your VCR. Apple continues to provide the longest useful product lifespans of personal computer makers, and some of the most reasonable upgrade programs. This fact is inarguable. bill coderre part of the evil apple plan to take over the world by being better
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (05/20/91)
bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes: >One Sys 7.0 was stable Apple would come out with a 1 meg ROM chip that >allow Sys 7.0 to run with only 1 meg of RAM. Has Apple EVER released a bare ROM upgrade? Not to my knowledge. The 512-> 512e upgrade came with a floppy drive. I think Apple doesn't think there's any profit to be had in ROM-only upgrades. philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes: >Do you really want to run lots of big programs simulataneously on a machine >as slow as a Classic? Just one big one (HyperCard) and some smaller ones would have been fine. The right mix of apps could probably fit in 4M, but 5 or 8 would have been more comfortable. I think the 68000 is *tolerably* fast for home, though I agree with the other poster that a 16MHz 68020 would have been a better choice. My questions about Classic memory capacity, as well as grave reservations about the power supplies in the Classic and LC, have made me decide on an SE/30 to replace my aging 512KE. That's probably fine by Apple, since the SE/30 costs more than the Classic. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/20/91)
In article <53050@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >|>I think that the Classic as currently designed was a bad move on Apple's part. >|>Yes, I know they are selling as many as they can build, but they are saddling >|>people with a design that has no more room to grow. >|><more stuff deleted> > >I'm sorry, but I didn't see a shred of reasonability in your argument. >The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly >inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System >7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room >for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. I didn't know the Classic could go past 4mb of RAM. Are you sure? If so, that is a Good Thing. [stuff deleted] >Your argument makes about as much sense as asking a Honda dealer to >upgrade a two-seater CRX to seat 6, or a video salesman to add stereo >to your VCR. I wasn't talking about upgrades, I was talking about the design of a new machine. You say my argument has not a shred of reasonability. Why is it unreasonable to wish that the memory layout of the Portable (allowing up to 9mb) had been used? Why is it unreasonable to wish that a faster processor clock had been used, such as 12mhz, as used in the Laserwriter IINT? Would those improvements have made the Classic impossible to manufacture and sell at low cost? I'm glad Apple makes the Classic and sells so many of them. I was just musing about how this could have been an opportunity to move the installed base rapidly toward the world of color and 68020+ processors, which is where it is going anyway. I admit that that is a longer stretch than the two small improvements mentioned in the previous paragraph, but Apple should keep stretching. I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of reasonability. :-) -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>I'm sorry, but I didn't see a shred of reasonability in your argument. >>The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly >>inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System >>7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room >>for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. >I'm glad Apple makes the Classic and sells so many of them. I was just >musing about how this could have been an opportunity to move the installed >base rapidly toward the world of color and 68020+ processors, which is >where it is going anyway. The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to. The reason why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular product. No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market where it doesn't want to go. Otherwise, the lowball winner would have been the LC and not the Classic. >I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of >reasonability. :-) The market doesn't agree with you. -- ----- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker
dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) (05/21/91)
In article <53050@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >Apple continues to provide the longest useful product lifespans of >personal computer makers, and some of the most reasonable upgrade >programs. This fact is inarguable. > >bill coderre This is a ridiculous statement if ever I've heard one. Granted, the 128, 512, 512e, and plus are still viable. So are the 8088 and 8086 (for that matter, I'll bet the old altair and TRS-80 systems are still viable). It all depends on what your definition of "viable" is. Further, the reason other personal computers may not seem to have as long a lifespan is due to one reason: COMPETITION. The 8088 was the machine to have, until Intel created the 286. The 286 6MHz begat the 10MHz begat the 12MHZ, and all was good--until Harrison and others created the 16MHZ and 20MHZ 286. Then all was good until the 386 came out, and a new speed war started. Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting episode. The point here is that Apple has stagnated by stomping on all competition. If you compare the advances made on the IBM-side of the house as compared to the Apple side, this is obvious. As I said, the TRS-80 model 1 is probably still viable. That doesn't make it a market contender, nor does it make Bill's statement valid for Tandy. Flame-retardant disclaimer: I LIKE Macs! Really! I own a IIci! I still think the Mac is the best machine available! Really! Ask my friends--they'll tell you! _________________________________________________________________________ Dave Hightower | opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion? dth@cis.ufl.edu | well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine! --------------------------------------------------------------------------
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes: >In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>>I'm sorry, but I didn't see a shred of reasonability in your argument. >>>The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly >>>inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System >>>7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room >>>for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. >>I'm glad Apple makes the Classic and sells so many of them. I was just >>musing about how this could have been an opportunity to move the installed >>base rapidly toward the world of color and 68020+ processors, which is >>where it is going anyway. > > The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to. The reason >why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular >product. No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market >where it doesn't want to go. > > Otherwise, the lowball winner would have been the LC and not >the Classic. The Classic sells because it is >cheap<, not because it is more powerful or "better" than the LC. If the LC were as cheap, it would sell as well or better. Whether or not the margin of profit would have then been adequate is something I am not learned enough to judge. >>I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of >>reasonability. :-) > > The market doesn't agree with you. See above. Also, you latched onto the more blue-sky sections of what I said, ignoring the quite reasonable propositions about RAM capacity and processor clock speed. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/21/91)
I made a typo: |The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly |inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System |7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room |for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. Classic, SE, and Plus are all upgradable to just 4M of memory. This does not change the jist of the argument. All will continue to be viable platforms for quite some time. Some people have written to ask if they should "upgrade" to a Classic. Frankly, I don't see much need to, since the three machines are pretty similar in power and features, and nearly indifferentiable by software. Assuming all three were running the latest systems, software should be very close to totally intercompatible. The main "draw" of the Classic, therefore, is the incredibly low price, not the "newness" or "betterness" than the earlier low-price Macs. bill coderre trying to keep his facts straight.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.142510.12667@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >Has Apple EVER released a bare ROM upgrade? Not to my knowledge. The 512-> >512e upgrade came with a floppy drive. I think Apple doesn't think there's >any profit to be had in ROM-only upgrades. If I remember correctly, Apple has offered a couple of LaserWriter ROM upgrades.
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.183007.15582@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes: >>In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >> The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to. The reason >>why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular >>product. No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market >>where it doesn't want to go. >> Otherwise, the lowball winner would have been the LC and not >>the Classic. > >The Classic sells because it is >cheap<, not because it is more powerful >or "better" than the LC. Bingo! You got the idea! And THAT's what the market wants! If it didn't, it'd pass up the classic, even at it's cheap price and opt for the power of the LC. >>>I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of >>>reasonability. :-) >> The market doesn't agree with you. >See above. Like, I said: The market doesn't agree. -- ----- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes: >In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of >>reasonability. :-) > The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to. The reason >why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular >product. No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market >where it doesn't want to go. Otherwise, the lowball winner would have >been the LC and not the Classic. The market doesn't agree with you. Actually that statement is not entirely provable by the evidence. First of all, the Classic is, at street prices, still about $1100 less than an LC. That means the Classic is about half the price... What is not available for comparison is if the LC, priced closer to its "real" value compared to a Classic which, based on the IBM market cost for color and a faster processor, would be about $1500 instead of $2100, would still sell less than the Classic. I bet not. If the LC were in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. However, for the average person at home, the Classic makes economic sense. This does NOT mean that the market doesn't agree with the original poster. Rather it means that the market has, once again, been coerced by Apple into buying a lesser product in order to protect Apple's margins. What is amazsing is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins in order to gain marketshare. The Classic proves that this is the case. Unfortunately, where the Classic would have been remarkable three years ago, it is merely hohum today (I am talking strictly about hardware value, not the intrinsic value of the Macintosh and its philosophy, which, I agree, is uncontravertable). Today, the LC is closer to being a mainstream computer. Last weekend, I went to a local computer show where mostly IBM clones were being sold and the prices were astounding. A 386SX (which by most ratings is about the same speed as a 68020) is selling for about $1100 WITH 2Meg, a 40Meg hard disk and VGA 256-color monitors at 1024x768. This machine will run Win(less)3.0 at reasonable speeds as long as you don't try to multitask more than printing in the background. This is half of the street price of an LC similarly (or actually not quite similarly equipped - the LC has lower color resolution at that price). I know, I know, everyone should be willing to spend the extra bucks because Apple is the GREATEST (and I agree) but most people don't buy that argument. It just hurts too much in the pocketbook. What people say, when comparing a Classic to a 386SX clone, is "Why should I give up color, and some speed, and some expandability, in order to just have a Macintosh?" We are the choir. We know why the Mac is better. Unfortunately, most other people will never try it as long as the price of entry is either too high in dollars or in sacrificed capability (at least perceived capability). Apple made a brave attempt with the Classic, but, again, it is probably too little too late. Sure, they are selling all they can make, but only because they have kept their production lines low in the past to stay in line with what they were selling. Do not attempt to tell anyone that Apple, with a little lead time, could not TRIPLE their production volume if they so desired, and if the market warranted it. All of this woulld happen, if the LC (or Si, or any other machine that Apple sells) were within the price point of the average computer purchaser. As long as their price point stays in the double range of other machines, and as long as the capability of their low price machines is less than other machines, people will continue to buy non-Apple by at least 3-1.
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (05/21/91)
In article <53113@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >I made a typo: >|The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly >|inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System >|7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room >|for the Finder, DAs, and background printing. >Classic, SE, and Plus are all upgradable to just 4M of memory. >This does not change the jist of the argument. All will continue to be viable >platforms for quite some time. It is interesting (and a bit painfully humorous) to note that just 10 years ago, the concept of a personal computer with 4M of RAM was so beyond comprehension that there were lots of jokes about why did IBM need to come out with a machine that could hold 256K? After all, "What Would Anyone Do With All That Memory?" When the PC first came out, IBM said it had a max of 256K (not the 640K that it finally was able to use) simply because IBM only sold 64K boards and if you put in 3 boards of memory (plus the 64K on the motherboard), you still needed one slot for your floppy board and one slot for your video which added up to the five slots you had. Thus, 256K max! Voila!... We quickly realized this was a marketing limit, not a physical one, and added a 256K single slot board from Tecmar and had 320K of Ram with no problem. Still, what were we going to do with all the memory? :-) I also fondly recall my days in the early 70s of working with mainframes that had 256K and were shared by 30 or 40 people at the same time. Slow, no question, but it still worked. Will a 4M mac be viable for a while? I am sure it will, as bill notes. In fact, I expect that 512K Macs will be viable for a while. I intend to turn my original Mac 128->512->512e (yup, two upgrades plus a SCSI port, fan and 10-meg scsi drive) over to my college bound son who will presumably continue to be able to run Word 3 just fine on it, along with Excel 1.5, Quicken (for his checkbook) and a variety of games. This will happen, of course, only when I figure out whether to get an LC, an SI or wait one more round of announcements to see if Apple has something new (and less expensive) up their sleeves.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/22/91)
In article <24576@oolong.la.locus.com> jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >Actually that statement is not entirely provable by the evidence. First >of all, the Classic is, at street prices, still about $1100 less than >an LC. That means the Classic is about half the price... What is not >available for comparison is if the LC, priced closer to its "real" >value compared to a Classic which, based on the IBM market cost for >color and a faster processor, would be about $1500 instead of $2100, >would still sell less than the Classic. I bet not. If the LC were >in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins >to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. However, for the average >person at home, the Classic makes economic sense. This does NOT mean >that the market doesn't agree with the original poster. Rather it means >that the market has, once again, been coerced by Apple into buying a >lesser product in order to protect Apple's margins. What is amazsing In my opinion, the LC is worth twice what the Classic is worth. I think you should make it clear that you aren't comparing the _IBM_ market but the CLONE market. Their is a tremendous difference. >is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They >could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer >marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by >a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins >in order to gain marketshare. The Classic proves that this is the case. Apple is selling as many Classics as they can make, but their profits have fallen. Assuming you'd cut the price of the LC to make the same margin as on the Classic, I don't think you'd do much better, especially considering that many people are not going to buy the more expensive machine even if the price/performance buy is better. >Unfortunately, where the Classic would have been remarkable three years >ago, it is merely hohum today (I am talking strictly about hardware The Mac isn't a hardware value. Ignoring the software is ignoring the value of the Mac. The Amiga 500 is a far better value than the Classic if you judge strictly by hardware. >value, not the intrinsic value of the Macintosh and its philosophy, >which, I agree, is uncontravertable). Today, the LC is closer to being >a mainstream computer. Last weekend, I went to a local computer show >where mostly IBM clones were being sold and the prices were astounding. >A 386SX (which by most ratings is about the same speed as a 68020) is >selling for about $1100 WITH 2Meg, a 40Meg hard disk and VGA 256-color >monitors at 1024x768. This machine will run Win(less)3.0 at reasonable Have you run Windows 3.0 in 1024x768 mode? Did the clone come bundled with Windows? With a HyperCard workalike? How about a mouse? A SoundBlaster or Adlib card? How many hard drives will the controller support? Can you even reformat the drive (in the case of an IDE drive?) >speeds as long as you don't try to multitask more than printing in the >background. This is half of the street price of an LC similarly (or >actually not quite similarly equipped - the LC has lower color resolution >at that price). I know, I know, everyone should be willing to spend the >extra bucks because Apple is the GREATEST (and I agree) but most people >don't buy that argument. It just hurts too much in the pocketbook. >What people say, when comparing a Classic to a 386SX clone, is "Why >should I give up color, and some speed, and some expandability, in order >to just have a Macintosh?" Apple will NEVER compete with the clone makers. Apple's strength is not in distribution. Components for clones cost less in general. Economy of scale. If Apple really had a problem with low demand, it could easily flash a bunch of ads comparing the LC and a 386SX/VGA clone setup head to head. At this point, Apple is having a hard time meeting market demand, and that isn't the time to drop your prices. It isn't clear that you give up any of those things when you choose the LC. You can add another monitor seamlessly, several more hard drives, memory to at least 10 meg, and I'm guessing there will be an expansion chassis out soon enough to ad NuBus if you need more slots. If you don't need the extra monitor, you can plop in an '040 board. What else do you need in a home machine? >We are the choir. We know why the Mac is better. Unfortunately, most >other people will never try it as long as the price of entry is either >too high in dollars or in sacrificed capability (at least perceived >capability). Apple made a brave attempt with the Classic, but, again, The Mac has always been the premium buy. If you want bang/buck or are technically savvy enough not to need the interface, you can always find a better hardware buy. It's the nature of the game. >it is probably too little too late. Sure, they are selling all they >can make, but only because they have kept their production lines low >in the past to stay in line with what they were selling. Do not attempt The Singapore plant was running 3 8 hour shifts 5 days a week, and I think switched to 12 hour shifts to increase production even more. Buying more manufacturing capacity (or renting and tooling up) costs and that gets passed on. >to tell anyone that Apple, with a little lead time, could not TRIPLE >their production volume if they so desired, and if the market warranted >it. All of this woulld happen, if the LC (or Si, or any other machine >that Apple sells) were within the price point of the average computer >purchaser. As long as their price point stays in the double range >of other machines, and as long as the capability of their low price >machines is less than other machines, people will continue to buy >non-Apple by at least 3-1. Well, somehow I don't think Apple is going to risk overproduction on your projection of sales. If you compare boxes, MAYBE Mac prices are double clone prices (as if that were any kind of comparison.) The clone makers you are comparing don't have R&D budgets to speak of. If all you pay attention to is the cheapest box you can hang a keyboard on and not in what you'll actually be doing on the machine, the clone market is where it's at. I think even a knowledgeable DOS/Windows user would have an interesting time gearing up a clone to run as well as a Mac.
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (05/22/91)
In article <28625@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) writes: >In article <53050@apple.Apple.COM> bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: > >>Apple continues to provide the longest useful product lifespans of >>personal computer makers, and some of the most reasonable upgrade >>programs. This fact is inarguable. >> >>bill coderre > >This is a ridiculous statement if ever I've heard one. > >Granted, the 128, 512, 512e, and plus are still viable. So are the >8088 and 8086 (for that matter, I'll bet the old altair and TRS-80 >systems are still viable). It all depends on what your definition of >"viable" is. > >Further, the reason other personal computers may not seem to have as >long a lifespan is due to one reason: COMPETITION. The 8088 was the >machine to have, until Intel created the 286. The 286 6MHz begat the >10MHz begat the 12MHZ, and all was good--until Harrison and others >created the 16MHZ and 20MHZ 286. Then all was good until the 386 came >out, and a new speed war started. Tune in tomorrow for the next >exciting episode. > >The point here is that Apple has stagnated by stomping on all >competition. If you compare the advances made on the IBM-side of the >house as compared to the Apple side, this is obvious. Oh, yeah? Let me know when the IBM side of the house releases anything closely resembling System 7.0. And I don't just mean something that's got overlapping windows; I mean everything that contributes to useability. You know, consistancy across applications seems to be something that PC programs still haven't figured out. I was watching a fried of mine use Turbo C++ the other day. He was editing a file, and I noticed a flashing underscore under one of his characters. This was the insertion point. However, there was some sort of block character over on the right, too. I asked him what that was, and he told me it was the mouse's cursor. A block character??? For the mouse cursor? Well, I guess you got to take what you can get in a text based system. Anyway, he started moving the mouse around and showing me what he could do with it. He clicked elsewhere in his text, and the insertion point (that flashing underscore) moved to where he clicked. Then he double-clicked, and the whole line was selected. "Hmmm." I said. "Let's try that again." So we did. Sure enough, double clicking selected a whole line; there was no way to simply select single words other than by clicking and dragging out the selection. Now, I don't expect everything in PC-land to work the same way as the Macintosh, but simple shortcuts for selecting word-sized chunks should be available... My friend then mused to himself "I wonder wonder how I can delete this word?" Being a Mac user, he selected the word and pressed Delete. Surprise! Pressing Delete deletes the character to the RIGHT of the selection. The selection itself is unaffected! This reminded me of a demo one of our Product Managers put together, where he delights in showing the three different ways three different MicroSoft programs implement the Delete key. One program deletes the selection, one deletes the character to the left of the selection, and the third deletes the last character of the selection. You call that progress on the IBM side of the house??? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (05/22/91)
In article <24576@oolong.la.locus.com> jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >In article <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes: >>In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>>I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of >>>reasonability. :-) >> The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to. The reason >>why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular >>product. No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market >>where it doesn't want to go. Otherwise, the lowball winner would have >>been the LC and not the Classic. The market doesn't agree with you. > >Actually that statement is not entirely provable by the evidence. First >of all, the Classic is, at street prices, still about $1100 less than >an LC. That means the Classic is about half the price... What is not >available for comparison is if the LC, priced closer to its "real" >value compared to a Classic which, based on the IBM market cost for >color and a faster processor, would be about $1500 instead of $2100, >would still sell less than the Classic. I bet not. If the LC were >in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins >to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. You don't read the newspapers, do you? Haven't you seen all the news recently concerning Apple and its profit margins? How - because the Classic is so successful - that Apple is having to take extreme measures just to stay profitable? Unless Apple can radically restructure itself in the next 6 months, there is NO WAY you are going to see Apple have a Mac LC for the price you list. $1500 does NOT allow for reasonable margins. That claim of your is totally unsubstantiated. >However, for the average >person at home, the Classic makes economic sense. This does NOT mean >that the market doesn't agree with the original poster. Rather it means >that the market has, once again, been coerced by Apple into buying a >lesser product in order to protect Apple's margins. "Coerce"? Coerce? What...did Rocko come by your house and force you to by a Classic? This is a free country! People can buy what they want! If people feel that a Classics suits their purposes, then Apple will be more than happy to build the Classic and sell it to them. For the same reason, people go out and waste their money on PC's. Those computers get the job done, and people are happy with them. You don't see those people bitching that they can't run 7.0 (though they should :-) >What is amazsing >is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They >could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer >marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by >a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins >in order to gain marketshare. Apple's working on it. As you can see in the papers, Apple's margins have been sacrificed to every god this multi-theistic society of ours has been able to dream of. And it hasn't (and won't) increase Apple's profitability by a factor of 2 or 3. Since profitability is a function of profit margin, you won't raise that profitability by slashing margins. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (05/22/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >If Apple really had a problem with low demand, it could easily flash a bunch of >ads comparing the LC and a 386SX/VGA clone setup head to head. At this point, Hmmm. That's basically exactly the ad that's been running in the SJ Mercury for the past week or so. Comparing a Mac LC to a 386SX/VGA... My guess is that Apple has indeed had lower than expected demand for the LC - I think every business would rather go with the IIsi than the LC (because of the 68030 vs 68020). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Murphy's Law of Intelism: Just when you thought Intel had done everything possible to pervert the course of computer architecture, they bring out the 860
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/22/91)
David Hightower: |Granted, the 128, 512, 512e, and plus are still viable. So are the |8088 and 8086 (for that matter, I'll bet the old altair and TRS-80 |systems are still viable). It all depends on what your definition of |"viable" is. If you bought a Plus in 1986, and you've upgraded it with memory and hard drive, you can run System 7. That's what I meant by "viable." I recall stating that clearly. Pluses are just as viable as SEs and Classics. bill coderre who works for a better computer company than you do
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/22/91)
Jon Rosen: |If the LC were |in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins |to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. Excuse me, but just how much does Apple make on an LC and where'd you get the information? |What is amazsing |is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They |could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer |marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by |a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins |in order to gain marketshare. I think Apple learned that the market wants CHEAPER computers, not "superior products." Many users want a Macintosh but don't want to pay for color, faster processors, or more memory. They don't need them, and shouldn't be forced to pay for them. The Classic does just what they want, for less money than many people thought possible. And that's why Apple is selling them like hotcakes. bill coderre
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.230525.8543@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > My guess is that Apple has indeed had lower than expected demand >for the LC - I think every business would rather go with the >IIsi than the LC (because of the 68030 vs 68020). I wouldn't be surprised. The LC has been marketed as a home/educational computer also. I think the LC is a fine machine, but there aren't that many entry-level people who HAVE to have color. Generally, if you need color, you need performance, so the si gets the nod. I wonder how long the LC will be around. Maybe Apple will pull the HD and replace it with a CDROM.
kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) (05/22/91)
In article <24576@oolong.la.locus.com> jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >If the LC were >in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins >to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. If you've been watching the financial markets the past couple of weeks, Apple's stock has been pummeled because its profits aren't what people thought they would be, because margins are now much lower. A group of stockholders are suing Apple basically because they think the margins are too low and Apple should be making more money. Now 1500 people at Apple are being laid off, again because the company's profitability is off. >However, for the average >person at home, the Classic makes economic sense. This does NOT mean >that the market doesn't agree with the original poster. Rather it means >that the market has, once again, been coerced by Apple into buying a >lesser product in order to protect Apple's margins. What is amazsing >is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They >could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer >marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by >a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins >in order to gain marketshare. Have you seriously looked into the math of this? Here's what's happened: Mac shipments have nearly doubled since the LC and Classic were introduced. Earnings per share are essentially unchanged. >Today, the LC is closer to being >a mainstream computer. Last weekend, I went to a local computer show >where mostly IBM clones were being sold and the prices were astounding. >A 386SX (which by most ratings is about the same speed as a 68020) is >selling for about $1100 WITH 2Meg, a 40Meg hard disk and VGA 256-color >monitors at 1024x768. Two comments: 1) Cheap VGA monitors kill eyes. Looking a Sunday circular for Best Buy, the VGA monitor they sell with a system similar to the one you describe above has a dot size of .41 mm. By contrast, I found the NEC MacSync, which has a dot size of .28 mm to be unacceptably blurry. The Apple Color monitor I have now has a dot size of .25 mm. Super VGA is acceptable, but I doubt that that's what was included with your $1100 clone. 2) Do you really expect Apple to compete with the cheapest clones on price? Any more than IBM does? If you believe Apple should license its ROMS to clone makers, then that is another question. >What people say, when comparing a Classic to a 386SX clone, is "Why >should I give up color, and some speed, and some expandability, in order >to just have a Macintosh?" Because if you get more work done with it, then it is worth it. If you don't, then buy the clone. Also, you know Apple will still be in business five years from now. For really cheap clone makers, you're not sure, even if the product is good, simply because their margins are so slim. (If you buy from one of the larger clone makers, the prices aren't quite as good as the one you cite above.) >Do not attempt >to tell anyone that Apple, with a little lead time, could not TRIPLE >their production volume if they so desired, and if the market warranted >it. In the first quarter of 1991, Apple was the number one producer of personal computers. More than IBM. More than Compaq. More than a lot of people. If you're saying that Apple could trivially TRIPLE their production, I say you're mistaken. -- Kenneth Chang | National Center for Supercomputing Applications kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu | Consulting Office/(217)244-1144 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything's entertainment in America eventually" -- Tracy Ullman
chrisj@ut-emx.uucp (Chris Johnson) (05/23/91)
>In article <28625@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) writes: [David points out that a lot of old personal computers can be considered "viable" depending on your definition of "viable". He goes on to discuss some of the improvements in PC hardware specs. that have helped to increase baseline performance on that side of the industry over the years.] >>The point here is that Apple has stagnated by stomping on all >>competition. If you compare the advances made on the IBM-side of the >>house as compared to the Apple side, this is obvious. In article <53169@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > >Oh, yeah? Let me know when the IBM side of the house releases anything >closely resembling System 7.0. And I don't just mean something that's >got overlapping windows; I mean everything that contributes to >useability. [Discussion of the virtues of consistent software design, and illustrative story removed.] I think this amounts to changing the subject - it's a valid subject, but not the one that David Hightower was discussing. His concern was with hardware - particularly with processors and their clock speeds - not software. This is a point I've wondered about myself: why didn't Apple take advantage of the Classic as an opportunity to increase baseline Macintosh performance? There'll be a lot of Classics (and even Mac Pluses, I expect) still running in 5 or 6 years, and I wonder whether we really want to find ourselves in 1996-97 till trying to create software that (a) delivers all the wonderful features people will have come to expect and (b) can do so effectively on Macs still based on 8Mhz 68000s just like original 128K Mac of 1984. (Of course the Classic, like the SE, offers a 15-30% performance improvement over its predecessors, but is that enough?) Things like the System 7.0 Finder operate slugishly on my trusty old Mac Plus even though it has 4MB of RAM and a fast 100MB hard disk. I understand this. After all, features cost. In fact I'm impressed by just how well it does work. But if delivering the features Mac users expect in '91 means that software begins to get a little slugish on our 8MHz friends today, what are things going to be like in '96 or '97? These long-term issues worry me. Of course, there may be hardware upgrades for Classic owners at some point, but what about Mac Plus owners? Will there at least be a formal trade-up policy for them? By the way, does Apple have a formal upgrade policy for the Macintosh line, or is the decision made on a case by case basis? A formal policy would be preferable since owners would know what they could expect from Apple from day one. Even if there are upgrades to low-end machines will they be priced such that people who needed a low cost Mac to begin with can really afford them? [Personally, I'd keep my Plus even if there were an upgrade, because I'd still need it for software compatibility and performance testing in my own develop- ment work, but I expect that my interests here are somewhat unusual.] Simply sticking with old hardware and limiting oneself to running old software that still performs reasonably well, as has been suggested by others earlier in this discussion, doesn't seem like a good solution in most cases because that software is generally unsupported by its publishers. If you need a bug fix, for instance, you'll have no choice but to live with it or upgrade to that newer version that you were trying to avoid or (perhaps) can't run at all. I don't necessarily claim to have good answers, but I think these are all good questions. I hope this hasn't come off as some sort of drawn-out flame. It certainly wasn't intended as anything more than a way of bringing up some of my PERSONAL* concerns for the future of the Macintosh and the industry that surrounds it -- as a member of that community since 1984 (yes, I saved my money and bought a 128K Mac when they were the only kind of Mac there was) I care a lot. Cheers, ----Chris ----chrisj@emx.utexas.edu *DISCLAIMER: I'm sure my employer wants nothing to do with my opinions.
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (05/23/91)
In article <49371@ut-emx.uucp> chrisj@ut-emx.uucp (Chris Johnson) writes: >Of course, there may be hardware upgrades for Classic owners at some point, >but what about Mac Plus owners? Will there at least be a formal trade-up >policy for them? Apple ran a "Trade-Up" promotion just recently. They took any kind of computer equipment (yes, even non-apple), in return for a voucher which you could use toward new Apple products. The amount they offered for the equipment was, well, interesting. Here are a few prices, from memory: ImageWriter I: $50 512KE: $150 MacPlus: $300 SE (20MB,FDHD): $600 All equipment had to be in good condition, and clean, or the prices were reduced. Some students decided to hang around the place (a room in a University building) where the Apple reps were evaluating equipment, and try to buy the hardware for more than Apple was offering. The Apple reps insisted the students leave (I seem to recall that they threatened to call the police). While I suppose this promotion may have been nice for a governmental body which might have trouble selling equipment outright, I don't think it won many friends among individuals. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/23/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > If Apple really had a problem with low demand, it could easily flash a > bunch of ads comparing the LC and a 386SX/VGA clone setup head to head. At > this point, Apple is having a hard time meeting market demand, and that isn't > the time to drop your prices. Funny you should say that. Apple has been running full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal on how an LC "eats" a 386SX "for lunch" when running as a file server. (Apparantly, it's about 50% faster at about the same price.) I think Apple has already "dropped it prices" just by introducing the LC. A bare LC CPU (w/ 2 Mb) sells for $1499 at Computer Era in NYC. A bare Classic (w/ 1 Mb) is $799. The $800 price difference is what you pay for (i) a 16 Mhz 68020 vs. an 8 MHz 68000, and (ii) color vs. b/w. I think it's worth it. * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.205657.29565@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: |> Some students decided to hang around the place (a room in a University |> building) where the Apple reps were evaluating equipment, and try to buy |> the hardware for more than Apple was offering. The Apple reps insisted |> the students leave (I seem to recall that they threatened to call the police). |> |> While I suppose this promotion may have been nice for a governmental |> body which might have trouble selling equipment outright, I don't think |> it won many friends among individuals. Last year, the deal at Stanford (as I recall) was much more generous - I got the impression the idea was to move people off 68000 machines, because they were overvalued relative to the trade-up value of 020/030 models. Since the Classic, maybe Apple has decided the 68000 will be around for a while after all. This year, the deal doesn't look great. I think it is only good for someone who has already bought their quota of educational-price Macs and wants another. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/23/91)
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes:
KR> Unless Apple can radically restructure itself in the next 6 months,
KR> there is NO WAY you are going to see Apple have a Mac LC for the
KR> price you list. $1500 does NOT allow for reasonable margins. That
KR> claim of your is totally unsubstantiated.
But Computer Era is selling LC's for $1499! Who's being "unreasonable" here?
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)jnsims01@ulkyvx.bitnet (05/23/91)
In article <1991May17.162934.29993@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > In article <1991May17.153503.21947@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes: >>... This leaves the Classic owner in trouble as far as memory expansion >>is conserned because the Classic Maxes out at 4 meg. > > The 68000 can address a maximum of 16mb. The Classic will never allow > more than 4mb of RAM for hardware reasons ... I think that the Classic as > currently designed was a bad move on Apple's part. I think we're confusing some issues here, and blaming Apple for erroneous assumptions made by purchasers. *THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS FLAME*, only a more-or-less thoughtful observation. If I want reliable transportation for commuting and great gas mileage, I buy an econobox. If I want to look flashy but not go real fast, I buy a psuedo sports car that gets reasonable gas mileage and has a small engine. If I want to look real flashy and go real fast, I grit my teeth and shell out for a *real* sports car with every luxury, appearance, and mechanical bell-and-whistle. In other words, *I* have to do a reality check to balance my desires and my resources. This may include recognition that my Ford Festiva can under no circumstances be regarded as a Ferrari and in no circumstances should I expect it to perform like one. I bought my Classic fully aware of its limitations. But then I've also been a Mac user since the beginning, and know that there are programs that I will not be able to effectively run for speed or size reasons, that I'm going to have to be prepared to wait a while for things to load or process, that I'm not going to be able to add plug-and-play color or large displays, and so forth. What Apple has done is to provide a range of hardware options to which I can match my resources for the mutual satisfaction of their desire for my money and my desire to get the work I have to do done at a reasonable cost. Note that I am *not* defending misrepresentation of capability on Apple's part (ref. the 32-bit ROM issue on machines where the literature implied capability and/or an upgrade) nor am I defending the same sin on the dealer's part ("Sure you can run your DTP, accounting, and CAD systems at the same time on a Classic ... just sign here!") My objection is to the (assumably) knowledgeable folks who spend the bucks for 60 horsepower and then fuss that the unit they bought won't go 160 mph in the .25 mile. All I'm saying is that if you want certain function/performance levels, grit your teeth and buy the appropriate hardware. If those levels of price and performance are not available from Apple for what you want to buy, don't buy their products. And if you find after a period of use that your expectations/needs/desires have changed recognize that *you* have changed, not your hardware, and be willing to pay the cost to satisfy your new wants. I repeat that this is not intended as flame, so don't return any flame. Further sensible discussion of this issue is, of course, welcome. And keep smiling! My wife AND my employer ignore my opinions - feel free to do the same! ........................................................................ . John Norman Sims, Jr. / BITNET: JNSIMS01@ULKYVM or JNSIMS01@ULKYVX . . Univ. of Louisville / Computing & Telecommunications / (502)588-5565 . ........................................................................ You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May17.162934.29993@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: [expressing disappointment in the conservatism of the Classic's design] In article <1991May23.113817.360@ulkyvx.bitnet> jnsims01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes: [cogent thoughts concerning you-get-what-you-pay-for, know your needs, etc.] >All I'm saying is that if you want certain function/performance levels, grit >your teeth and buy the appropriate hardware. If those levels of price and >performance are not available from Apple for what you want to buy, don't buy >their products. And if you find after a period of use that your >expectations/needs/desires have changed recognize that *you* have changed, not >your hardware, and be willing to pay the cost to satisfy your new wants. I agree with John. But I still have the two questions I posed in my first article. 1) Why doesn't the Classic have a 12mhz 68000? (I know that 16mhz is not available in large enough quantities) 2) Why doesn't the Classic use the Portable's memory layout, which allows up to 9mb of RAM? (I of course do NOT mean that the Classic should use static RAM :-) Those are my main disappointments. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900