bskendig@dry.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (02/08/91)
In article <816@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: >In article <1991Feb7.233305.28984@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@atropa (Dire Wolf) writes: >>I do too. But I think it's especially funny to see the Mac fans knock >>the machine that has all the "features" that prompted owners of the >>"toaster" macs to buy their machines in the first place. It's >>complete, self-contained, non-expandable, and designed for people >>who don't know which way to turn the light bulb when they change it. >>In other words, it's aimed at the Macintosh market. Except that it >>doesn't have a 9" screen. > > There is a small difference betwixt the PS/1 and any Mac, and we all >know what it is. The Mac GUI. > IBM PCs of any kind might have a GUI with Win3, but we all know that >the Mac GUI is far ahead of the Win GUI in terms of standardization and all >that other stuff that makes a Mac GUI a Mac GUI. You forgot two other `small' differences, too: (1) The IBM PS/1, with its color VGA display, is in the same price range as the Mac Classic, with its much smaller monochrome display. In general, for any given set of features, a suitable IBM will still be quite a bit less expensive than a comparable Macintosh. I know you can get a 386 machine (and I believe you can now get a 486 machine) with a decent set of options for under $2000; isn't the base price of a Mac LC (68020, no coprocessor) a bit over $2000? (2) The business world is still predominantly IBM no matter which way you slice it. If a company already has a lot of IBM's but needs more machines, buying more IBM's will probably be more cost-efficient than buying Macs and SoftPC for each of them. With a PS/1, it's now possible for an executive to bring work home with him (oh boy) and use an inexpensive machine that runs the software he uses at work. And besides, the IBM has held its own against the Mac for several years, now, even with the crude IBM command-line interface versus the smoothly-integrated Macintosh GUI. Now that using the IBM has actually become bearable, too, I think it can't help but be giving Apple even more competition. Say you walk into a store and see a $2500 Mac running HyperCard, and a $1700 IBM running Windows and Toolbook, both quite identical to the untrained eye -- but the former requires a $200 program to run the software you use at work, while the latter is made to run it already. Do you splurge on the Macintosh with the smiley-face you get when you boot it up, or do you buy the IBM clone and use the money you've saved to treat your spouse and kids to dinner? I'm ardently anti-IBM, but lately I've been taking a good hard look at the situation. Brand loyalty only goes so far. I feel that the Macintosh interface is pure poetry while the IBM interface is a bad hack that is based on decade-old technology, but there comes a time when you have to decide if you really want to shell out the extra money just for aesthetic pleasure. Would you rather have a nice standard Edit menu, or be able to run OfficeWriter and R:Base to deal with all your company's files? The IBM PC with MS-DOS is an idea whose time has come and gone. OS/2 is an operating system whose time never quite came. The Macintosh is a machine whose time is drawing to a close, because the NeXTs are close on its heels. I think that next year will be a crucial one: Will Mac System 7 be good enough to turn the heads of DOS hackers and steal the thunder from NeXTstep? Or will it be greeted with an enthusiastic ho-hum, leaving NeXT to try to convert the DOS masses to the glories of Unix? And the Mac still doesn't have protected memory. Ugh. One application crashes, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Even Windows/386 can cope with that better! << Brian >> | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | "It's not that I don't have the work to *do* -- I don't do the work I *have*."
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (02/09/91)
In article <6079@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@dry.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >(1) The IBM PS/1, with its color VGA display, is in the same price >range as the Mac Classic, with its much smaller monochrome display. >In general, for any given set of features, a suitable IBM will still >be quite a bit less expensive than a comparable Macintosh. I know you >can get a 386 machine (and I believe you can now get a 486 machine) >with a decent set of options for under $2000; isn't the base price of >a Mac LC (68020, no coprocessor) a bit over $2000? I'd recommend that you get a copy of a current Computer Shopper and maybe PC Magazine and Mac User. Then call a couple of retail stores. I just called ComputerLand. The retail quotes they gave me were $1495 for the Classic and $1995 for the PS/1. (The PS/1 comes bundled with an internal modem, Prodigy, Works, and color display.) The Mac config was a 2/40 and the PS/1 a 1/30. As near as I can tell, you are comparing mail order prices for CLONES (not the IBM versions) to the Mac LC price. (I don't know if that is list or not, but I've found a couple mail order places with prices in the $1700-1800 range (add $400-500 for a VGA quality monitor.)) >(2) The business world is still predominantly IBM no matter which way >you slice it. If a company already has a lot of IBM's but needs more >machines, buying more IBM's will probably be more cost-efficient than >buying Macs and SoftPC for each of them. With a PS/1, it's now >possible for an executive to bring work home with him (oh boy) and use >an inexpensive machine that runs the software he uses at work. Now that is an interesting notion. You have an executive (who presumably isn't all that hardware savvy since you've had him buy a PS/1) INSTALLING 1-2-3 or whatever on his home machine. Right. Software licensing questions aside, I think your executive isn't going to be too happy running that power software on a PS/1. >And besides, the IBM has held its own against the Mac for several >years, now, even with the crude IBM command-line interface versus the Inertia coupled with no Mac clones and Apple's dedication to high margins. >smoothly-integrated Macintosh GUI. Now that using the IBM has >actually become bearable, too, I think it can't help but be giving Have you tried installing Windows? How about using it? >Apple even more competition. Say you walk into a store and see a >$2500 Mac running HyperCard, and a $1700 IBM running Windows and >Toolbook, both quite identical to the untrained eye -- but the former >requires a $200 program to run the software you use at work, while the >latter is made to run it already. Do you splurge on the Macintosh >with the smiley-face you get when you boot it up, or do you buy the >IBM clone and use the money you've saved to treat your spouse and kids >to dinner? I'm sorry, but you won't have time for dinner. You bought a new printer and have to reinstall drivers. It also looks like you're going to have to spend a bunch of time teaching the spouse and kids those obscure commands you learned for each different program. Maybe you those commercials were right. Of course, I'm assuming the machine actually gets used. Check out a computer lab at your local University and see which computer students choose to work with. >I'm ardently anti-IBM, but lately I've been taking a good hard look at >the situation. Brand loyalty only goes so far. I feel that the >Macintosh interface is pure poetry while the IBM interface is a bad >hack that is based on decade-old technology, but there comes a time >when you have to decide if you really want to shell out the extra >money just for aesthetic pleasure. Would you rather have a nice >standard Edit menu, or be able to run OfficeWriter and R:Base to deal >with all your company's files? Uhuh, right. This is a scenario that will apply to _loads_ of people. Not. The Mac has versions of Word, Works, and Word Perfect that will read DOS versions. Our department went through the DOS-Mac choice about 3 years ago. At one point we had equal numbers of each (about 10 of each). Now it is more like 10 PCs and 40 Macs. Even people who SWORE they'd never switch, did. (Well, our head of accounting sticks with her clone, but then she used to work for IBM.) >is an operating system whose time never quite came. The Macintosh is >a machine whose time is drawing to a close, because the NeXTs are Oh please. A machine with an installed base of several million isn't going away any time soon. >close on its heels. I think that next year will be a crucial one: >Will Mac System 7 be good enough to turn the heads of DOS hackers and Who cares? Besides, it would be Windows hackers, and even they wouldn't be interested. Microsoft's extensions to the OS may turn out to be more important than the release of System 7.0. >steal the thunder from NeXTstep? Or will it be greeted with an >enthusiastic ho-hum, leaving NeXT to try to convert the DOS masses to >the glories of Unix? The NeXT may ship machines in the 10s of thousands this year. Yawn. If you want an 040, accelerator cards are coming RSN for most of the machines. The LC and the Tokomac (sp?) 040 card sounds like a nice cost effective combo. >And the Mac still doesn't have protected memory. Ugh. One >application crashes, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. >Even Windows/386 can cope with that better! Yeah, and just how many PCs out there are running Windows/386? Anyways, on my machine, I rarely have a crash that brings down all my programs. Most often, I get an "Application unexpected quit (2)" type of message. It ain't protected memory, but I don't lose all that much work or time from crashes under normal use of the machine. It is silly to bash computers. I have both an si and a 286 on my desk and use both. I just use the Mac more.