hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) (08/14/90)
Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new
low costs Mac's ?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans C Larsson Email: hans@smab.se
Saab Missiles, Swedenbrandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/15/90)
In article <1990Aug14.115426.7016@smab.se> hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) writes: >Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new >low costs Mac's ? Hahahahahahahaha.....Low Cost? Hahahahahaha... MAC IIsi 20 MHz 68030, 1 slot, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD.....$4200 MAC LC ("Low Cost" -teehee) 16 MHz 68020, 1 slot?, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD....$2500 MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 Maybe this is low cost in terms of Brazillian money... ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED "I know engineers; Software Design Engineer they love to Grass Valley Group change things..." brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ==============================================================================
hironobu@sra.co.jp (Hironobu Suzuki) (08/15/90)
In article <1290@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: %>Path: sramha!sran124!sragwa!wnoc-tyo-news!ccut!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold!brandonl %>In article <1990Aug14.115426.7016@smab.se> hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) writes: %>>Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new %>>low costs Mac's ? %>MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) %>Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 Oh! It's Low cost Mac. Now in Japan... MacSE 2Mbyte RAM 20Mbyte HardDisk ---> 490000yen ($3266) (NOT MacSE/30!!) --hironobu
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (08/15/90)
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: >In article <1990Aug14.115426.7016@smab.se> hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) writes: >>Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new >>low costs Mac's ? >Hahahahahahahaha.....Low Cost? Hahahahahaha... >MAC IIsi >20 MHz 68030, 1 slot, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD.....$4200 >MAC LC ("Low Cost" -teehee) >16 MHz 68020, 1 slot?, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD....$2500 >MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 >Maybe this is low cost in terms of Brazillian money... Please. No-one pays list. In fact, 30% off list is normal. At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive (especially considering that they are far superior to DOS machines, as virtually everyone who has used both realizes; micros are not evaluated solely on CPU speed). Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
ogawa@sm.sony.co.jp (Masato Ogawa) (08/15/90)
In article <1990Aug15.054139.24585@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: > >MAC LC ("Low Cost" -teehee) > >16 MHz 68020, 1 slot?, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD....$2500 > > : > Please. No-one pays list. In fact, 30% off list is normal. At these > prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive (especially considering that they > are far superior to DOS machines, as virtually everyone who has used both > realizes; micros are not evaluated solely on CPU speed). And it is rumored that Apple II emulator card could be attached. Color monitor. This machine would be for the replacement of Apple IIGS in school. -- ========================================================================== Masato Ogawa Sony corp. ogawa@sm.sony.co.jp Tokyo, Japan ==========================================================================
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (08/15/90)
In article <1290@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: >In article <1990Aug14.115426.7016@smab.se> hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) writes: >>Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new >>low costs Mac's ? >Hahahahahahahaha.....Low Cost? Hahahahahaha... > >MAC IIsi >20 MHz 68030, 1 slot, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD.....$4200 > >MAC LC ("Low Cost" -teehee) >16 MHz 68020, 1 slot?, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD....$2500 > >MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 > >Maybe this is low cost in terms of Brazillian money... Well Brandon, maybe you've done one too many late-night designing your software. These are SUGGESTED RETAIL LIST PRICES. That's right, the price that -nobody- pays. Here's some other other examples of SRLPs as of July: CPU SRLP Educational Mac Plus $1799 $649 Mac SE HD20 $2969 $1063 Mac IIcx HD40 $5369 $3007 Mac IIci HD40 $6969 $3239 Mac IIfx HD80, 4 Meg $9869 $5817 I don't know what current "Street" prices are, but I've seen the Plus selling for as low as $899 via retailers. Brandon, from your gleeful tone, perhaps you're one of those <ick> MS-DOS advocates that tries to sneak on here and rile people up occasionally. <Hmmm...> Where's the comp.sys.mac.thought.cops when you need them? <grin> (That's right kids, lots and lots of smileys....) -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen! Will IRCC survive? Nahhh...." _|
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/16/90)
In article <1990Aug15.054139.24585@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: > >Please. No-one pays list. Yes, some do. Especially those people who want one for the home that have to deal with the likes of ComputerLand, etc. >Macs seem a lot more competitive (especially considering that they >are far superior to DOS machines, as virtually everyone who has used both >realizes; micros are not evaluated solely on CPU speed). Nor should they be evaluated solely on one user's enthusiasm, biases, and ignorances. ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED "I know engineers; Software Design Engineer they love to Grass Valley Group change things..." brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ==============================================================================
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/16/90)
In article <3770@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: > Well Brandon, maybe you've done one too many late-night >designing your software. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ humor? Hmm.. > Brandon, from your gleeful tone, perhaps you're one of those ><ick> MS-DOS advocates that tries to sneak on here and rile people up >occasionally. <Hmmm...> Where's the comp.sys.mac.thought.cops when >you need them? <grin> > No. I do not own, nor do I wish to own, a PC. I work with Macs. I like them a lot. I do not care for Apple's pricing structure a lot. Apple products have almost always been over-priced. Partly because of the large amount of R&D, and partly because they can get away with it. It is for this second part that I hold disdain. There are too many snotty-elitist-Mac-users who do not know the relative merits of other types and brands of computers, and have comments too narrow for discussion. (That's right kids, lots and lots of smileys....) ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED "I know engineers; Software Design Engineer they love to Grass Valley Group change things..." brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ==============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/16/90)
------ In article <1294@gold.GVG.TEK.COM>, brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes... >In article <1990Aug15.054139.24585@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >> >>Please. No-one pays list. > >Yes, some do. Especially those people who want one for the home that have >to deal with the likes of ComputerLand, etc. Does ComputerLand _really_ charge list? So few retail stores do. If one really wants one for the home and the only store for 500 miles is ComputerLand, try checking out one of the New York stores in the New York Time's Science Section on Tuesdays. They certainly don't sell for list. And they do mail order, I believe. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/16/90)
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >> MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >> Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 [...] > Mac Plus $1799 Well, it seems to me that if the SRLP of the current low-end Mac is $1800 and the SRLP of the new low-end Mac is $2000, one way or another, it will probably end up being more expensive to get a low-end Mac. Can this really be true? I am probably in a minority, but the argument that the price for an SE will have effectively dropped doesn't hold water with me since I consider that a Plus and an SE are essentially the same as each other in terms of functionality. > I don't know what current "Street" prices are, but I've seen > the Plus selling for as low as $899 via retailers. Tell me where! The best non-educational resale price here in New York for a Plus is currently hovering at about $1050. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
stuart@cbnewsc.att.com (S. D. Ericson) (08/16/90)
> In article <1290@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: > > > >MAC IIsi > >20 MHz 68030, 1 slot, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD.....$4200 > > > >MAC LC ("Low Cost" -teehee) > >16 MHz 68020, 1 slot?, 2MB RAM, 40 MB HD....$2500 > > > >MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) > >Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 > > > >Maybe this is low cost in terms of Brazillian money... > One important part of the MacLeak article that was missed, the Macintosh Classic INCLUDES A 40MB harddisk as well. So it comes out cheaper than a Mac Plus. What I wonder about (and wasn't specified in the article) is whether the Mac LC and Mac IIsi prices include monitor, keyboard, etc. $2500 for a Mac II class machine is not bad... Stuart -- Stuart Ericson AT&T Bell Laboratories USEnet: att!ihlpa!stuart IH 1C215 ARPA: stuart@ihlpa.att.com 2000 N. Naperville Road Voice: (708) 979-4491 Naperville, Il 60566-7033
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (08/16/90)
In article <1990Aug15.185500.19276@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >>> MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >>> Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 >[...] >> Mac Plus $1799 > Well, it seems to me that if the SRLP of the current low-end Mac is >$1800 and the SRLP of the new low-end Mac is $2000, one way or another, it >will probably end up being more expensive to get a low-end Mac. Note that the prices that have "leaked out" for the Classic, LC, and IIsi are for 2 meg RAM, 40 Meg HD configurations. Add an extra 1 Mb, a 40 Mb HD, and an expansion slot to a Plus and your added around $500 to the price. That makes it $2300 for the Plus, and still $2000 for the Classic - with the same configuration. Not bad, Apple. >> I don't know what current "Street" prices are, but I've seen >> the Plus selling for as low as $899 via retailers. > > Tell me where! The best non-educational resale price here in New >York for a Plus is currently hovering at about $1050. Poor guy. I'm in Columbus, Ohio. MicroCenter, the largest local retailer, is asking close to what you've just said. But Heath-Zenith runs a little store out on the NE side of Columbus, and it's probably one of the best-kept secrets of retail computing in the city. The best prices (including the $899 Plus), best service department in the MidWest (rated as such), and knowledgable salespeople <gasp!>. Authorized dealers, even. Great store. -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen! Will IRCC survive? Nahhh...." _|
ews00461@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (08/16/90)
These prices seem much more competitive when you consider the 40 mb hard disk and 2 mb ram included with each. Unless I am very mistaken, that it was MacWeek says on page 8, August 7. Now consider $ 2000 list for a Macintosh SE, with a 40 mb hard disk and 2 mb ram. Now think of Educ discount. I'll buy one. Or maybe the II LC. Still, I am rather impressed. So far. Eric W Sink University of Illinois e-sink@uiuc.edu
jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) (08/16/90)
In article <1294@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: > >Yes, some do. Especially those people who want one for the home that have >to deal with the likes of ComputerLand, etc. No one said you HAD to buy from ComputerLand.. I've been to a few in my area and I find them to be overpriced and underinformed. (just my opinion) -- /\ Jay Giurleo Worcester Polytechnic Institute /\/\ jayg@wpi.wpi.edu Box 2080 /\/\/\ 100 Institute Road /\/\/\/\ Worcester, MA 01609
CAH0@bunny.gte.com (Chuck Hoffman) (08/17/90)
In article <1295@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: > There are too many snotty-elitist-Mac-users who do not know the relative merits > of other types and brands of computers, and have comments too narrow for > discussion. 1. Elitist Mac users? To me, that sounds like an oxymoron. 2. Snotty? Probably just a function of the wind chill factor. 3. Comments too narrow? I think narrowness is as much a function of the listener as the speaker. I know that when I get narrow as a speaker, my listeners inevitably broaden the topic for me. There's always something to be learned, maybe even from narrowness itself and the process around it. I hope that such a comment won't discourage someone from participating in this forum. 4. Lighten up. It's much more fun. -Chuck - Chuck Hoffman, GTE Laboratories, Inc. cah0@bunny.gte.com Telephone (U.S.A.) 617-466-2131 GTE VoiceNet: 679-2131 GTE Telemail: C.HOFFMAN
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/17/90)
In article <14532@wpi.wpi.edu> jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes: >No one said you HAD to buy from ComputerLand.. I've been to a few in my area >and I find them to be overpriced and underinformed. (just my opinion) Contrary to the beliefs of many people who live in large cities or the burbs, there is often only one (if at all) Apple dealer in smaller population centers. Mail order is iffy, and a risk, if not in money, then in time for return on repairs or defects (and hassle). I do agree with your assessment of ComputerLand. Charge what the market can bear, realizing that that move can restrict the size of said market. ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED "I know engineers; Software Design Engineer they love to Grass Valley Group change things..." brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ==============================================================================
mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (08/17/90)
In article <14532@wpi.wpi.edu> jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) writes: > >No one said you HAD to buy from ComputerLand.. I've been to a few in my area >and I find them to be overpriced and underinformed. (just my opinion) Computerlands vary in quality from town to town. It's a franchise, and different franchises may be better or worse in terms of hiring talented, knowledgeable people. Thus, if you got bad service from a ComputerLand in Chicago, it doesn't mean you won't get good service from a ComputerLand in Houston. Or vice versa. --Mike Mike Godwin, UT Law School | --S is for 'Save me!' No longer a bar-exam nerd | --T is for 'Take it slow!' mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | --O is for 'Oh, no!' (512) 346-4190 | --P is for 'Please, please don't go!'
pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) (08/17/90)
In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com
>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive
Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I
can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of
RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac
Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price
range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT
clone is about $700.
UUCP: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac
ARPA: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac@nosc.mil
INET: pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.comgaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (08/17/90)
In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com > >>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive > >Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I >can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of >RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac >Classic. <sigh> But, do you get a mouse, a good GUI (with a large number of applications on the market that suport said GUI), built-in networking (LocalTalk still beats <null>), and the graphic/typeface/printer support that makes Macintosh what it is? Nope. As a car salesman told me, "In the end, it isn't which one stacks up best statistically, but which one you -like-, which one feels right." For me, and most other Mac enthusiasts, that's what matters. Not whether or not we can buy a cheap off-brand clone. Besides, I don't really think we want the typical garbage of another comp.sys.mac vs comp.sys.ibm-pc war again, do we? Nope, I didn't think so... -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen! Will IRCC survive? Nahhh...." _|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (08/17/90)
In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com > >>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive > >Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I >can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of >RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac >Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price >range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT >clone is about $700. You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do Apple to IBM. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/17/90)
In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: > >> (Clone vs. fabled "low-cost" Mac comparison deleted) > >You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear >that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do >Apple to IBM. It's not clear to me why IBM has to be singled out. Apple completely controls the hardware and OS of the Mac; IBM does neither. As for support, etc., many 2nd tier clone makers (ALR, Everex, AST, Dell, not to mention Compaq) offer similar if not better service and support than IBM. As for Apple and IBM, they both charge a lot of $$$ for the machines; I'd say the similarities end somewhere around there... Aaron Wallace
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (08/18/90)
I guess I got in on this thread a little late. What is meant by a "Classic Mac"? I assume we're not talking the Plus, here, or else the prices quoted a couple of articles ago (circa $1400) are about 2x actual.... And I agree that a flame war is in no-one's interest; I use my mac more than my HP DOS-type machine, but each has its strengths and weaknesses and thus will it always be. - - - - - - - - Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. [Fudd's first law of opposition]
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (08/18/90)
In article<3965@crash.cts.com>pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com >>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive >Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I >can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of >RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac >Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price >range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT >clone is about $700. > Who wants an xt clone, thats some comparison? Who wants an AT clone if they want a Mac? Who wants to run DOS if they want a Mac? Comparing PC and Mac pricing is an effort in futility. If you want a Mac, you'll pay for one. You want to suffer thru DOS, you'll get a clone and poor to mediocre service with it, and the learning experience of a life time to get it running? If you get a decent PC from say IBM (remember them) Compaq and perhaps a few other names, you are going to spend just as much if not more for your PC and the pain to learn how to use it (assuming a novice computer user is the buyer) Mac's may cost a little more, but depending on very specific needs, in most cases its probably worth it. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >> >>You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear >>that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do >>Apple to IBM. > >It's not clear to me why IBM has to be singled out. Apple completely controls >the hardware and OS of the Mac; IBM does neither. As for support, etc., many >2nd tier clone makers (ALR, Everex, AST, Dell, not to mention Compaq) offer >similar if not better service and support than IBM. As for Apple and IBM, >they both charge a lot of $$$ for the machines; I'd say the similarities end >somewhere around there... Ok, then, let's try this: Apple designs their own machine. An original machine, not based on the hardware or ROMs of another company. The clone makers started with existing technology that had been made "free game" for companys to work with, namely the Phoenix BIOS. Said clone makers thus lack the R&D costs of Apple, having come in much further along the design trail. Thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in R&D costs, having designed their PC architecture from the same ground level as Apple. Apple designs the OS for their machines. Microsoft does this for the DOS machines (although, arguably, you can buy another OS). Microsoft and IBM are more closely aligned than Microsoft and any other clone maker, thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in OS development and packaging. IBM has a larger voice than any clone maker when it comes to determining the future of PC hardware. Thus, IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in "control of hardware." Unlike most of the other clone makers, IBM sells it's computers agressively through all channels: magazine, TV, newspaper, educational outlets, retail outlets, volume business sales, and mail order. Apple pursues similar sales strategy. Most of the clone makers have limited advertising, and rely -heaviliy- on mail order, choosing not to have the overhead of sales agents. Thus, IBM is closest to Apple in sales and marketing. I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own machines for the fairest comparison. Shall we take it to alt.religion.computers? -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen! Will IRCC survive? Nahhh...." _|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >>In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: >> >>> (Clone vs. fabled "low-cost" Mac comparison deleted) >> >>You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear >>that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do >>Apple to IBM. > >It's not clear to me why IBM has to be singled out. Apple completely controls >the hardware and OS of the Mac; IBM does neither. As for support, etc., many >2nd tier clone makers (ALR, Everex, AST, Dell, not to mention Compaq) offer >similar if not better service and support than IBM. As for Apple and IBM, >they both charge a lot of $$$ for the machines; I'd say the similarities end >somewhere around there... Apple and IBM were both FIRST. (Apple is FIRST and ONLY) And last time I checked, those prices you gave were way out of line for a Compaq Deskpro 386. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/18/90)
In article <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >>In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: (Assertion that Apple can be compared only to IBM, and my arguments against this, omitted ) > Ok, then, let's try this: > > Apple designs their own machine. An original machine, not >based on the hardware or ROMs of another company. The clone makers >started with existing technology that had been made "free game" for >companys to work with, namely the Phoenix BIOS. Said clone makers >thus lack the R&D costs of Apple, having come in much further along >the design trail. Thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in R&D >costs, having designed their PC architecture from the same ground >level as Apple. This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail others. Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz 486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal. Okay, a fast 386 can be based on slower ones (although IBM wasn't the first with one of those, either), but designing a 486 motherboard requires doing some original R+D or modifying a non-IBM design. The current leading-edge video standard for PCs is Super VGA, another non-IBM invention (although arguably based on VGA). Then there's the IDE and EISA interfaces, both non-IBM... > Apple designs the OS for their machines. Microsoft does this >for the DOS machines (although, arguably, you can buy another OS). >Microsoft and IBM are more closely aligned than Microsoft and any >other clone maker, thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in OS >development and packaging. Okay, IBM and MS have a codevelopment agreement for DOS, but IBM's input has been minimal. To say that IBM is a major factor in the design of DOS is inaccurate. And IBM had nothing to do with Windows... Oh, and recent press asserts that IBM will turn its DOS stuff over to MS completely. > IBM has a larger voice than any clone maker when it comes to >determining the future of PC hardware. Thus, IBM is the closest >analogue to Apple in "control of hardware." Not at all true. This honor goes to Compaq. Note that very few makers adopted MCA despite IBM's pushing it. Also, IBM has been among the last to release 386 and 486 machines. They had nothing to do with SVGA, while their 8514A standard has met with minimal success. IBM's machines in general are the most "nonstandard" in terms of design. While most programs are guaranteed to run on IBMs, they'll also run on Compaqs and leading clones with the same level of confidence. > Unlike most of the other clone makers, IBM sells it's >computers agressively through all channels: magazine, TV, newspaper, >educational outlets, retail outlets, volume business sales, and mail >order. Apple pursues similar sales strategy. Most of the clone >makers have limited advertising, and rely -heaviliy- on mail order, >choosing not to have the overhead of sales agents. Thus, IBM is >closest to Apple in sales and marketing. Perhaps, although Compaq and a number of 2nd tier makers advertise aggressively as well. Zenith's educational program here is stronger than IBM's, for example. And Compaq, Zenith, HP, and others also do a lot of volume business sales business... > I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when >comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own >machines for the fairest comparison. > Fair? Only to justfy Apple's or IBM's prices... > > Shall we take it to alt.religion.computers? I thought I was there already (smileys...) Aaron Wallace
stuart@tellabs.com (Rick Stuart) (08/18/90)
In article <3770@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: ... >>>Has anyone out there heard any new rumours about Apple's new >>>low costs Mac's ? >>Hahahahahahahaha.....Low Cost? Hahahahahaha... ... >>MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >>Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 ... > > Well Brandon, maybe you've done one too many late-night >designing your software. These are SUGGESTED RETAIL LIST PRICES. >That's right, the price that -nobody- pays. Here's some other other >examples of SRLPs as of July: > >CPU SRLP Educational >Mac Plus $1799 $649 ... Come on, Apple is dumping the Plus. (I'v seen a local bank and even Wallgreen Drug Stores giving them away!) That explains the Plus' LOW price. It isn't fare to include the Plus' SRLP/Educational prices when making comments about what can be expected when it's "replacement" (the Mac Classic) comes to market. At best I would agree with others that a 30% discount is all anyone can count on... ...R.Stuart
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > >This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail >others. Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz >486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal. Okay, a fast 386 can be Uh, no, they only just recently came out with a RISC machine which blows the pants off most every iAPX86 machine... :-) And it fits on the desktop, too... R. x ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "Who could sleep when there's a hunk with no clothes on wandering around at five in the morning, knocking over furniture?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
moreno@cs.umn.edu (Andres Moreno) (08/18/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear >that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do >Apple to IBM. I have not followed this debate in this group, but I do agree that it gets boring after a while discussing the particular merits of one's machine based on merit. I intend to buy a new machine to replace my atari (yes, there are atari/amiga wars as well) and I don't understand why I should consider my purchase based on IBM list prices whey I can buy the same machine with the same chips, for a *much* more reasonable price. Yes, you'll respond, but you pays for the R/D? You and me, but not just by buying Apple, but by buying Xerox, AT&T, by paying professors, etc. For the record, when was the last time that Apple had *great* technology for the average Joe? If my memory serves me right, it was the Mac, and then, the technology was developed by people at Xerox. (Not to diminish Apple's role, it takes both a great idea, and the commitment to follow thru.) IN OTHER WORDS, I WILL NOT FINANCE ANYBODY'S R/D ABOVE MY CURRENT SUPPORT, WHICH ALL THINGS SAID, I DEEM ENOUGH. regards, Andres F. Moreno
pmiach@uluru7.ecr.mu.oz (Paul Anthony MIACH) (08/18/90)
Well, Hi all,
I've been reading about the low cost Mac in this news group since it
started (the debate, not the group). About two weeks ago I heard at a talk/
demonstration by a high ranking Apple Aust employe. He gave us some 'hints' as
to what Apple has planed. Before I go any further, he said this is what *Apple
should do*. Ok, so lets see how good my long term memory is...
1) The Mac+ will not be droped. It will be improved. i.e by adding space
for an internal SCSI etc...
2) There will be no colour Mac SE (We were told that Apple had a demo
up and running..) because it would be to expensive. This seems to
follow the idea of not making the user play for something that he
does not want.
3) There will be a new Apple Mac II computer(s). It will not be as
powerful as the IIci (not that the ci is slow), and I got the
impression that it would be faster than a stock Mac II. I have no
idea about the CPU etc.
4) There will be an other MAc portable. The new protable is to be
designed on the following plan, i) Weight, ii) Battery life and iii)
Mac functionality. There may also be a set of programmes built into
ROM.
5) There will be a new low cost colour monitor for the Mac II's and the
IIgs. It will be capable of displaying the full spectrum of colours,
all 16.7 million of them. Expected cost, $700 (Aust or US can't
remember).
6) As for the Apple II emulation cards, there won't be any from Apple.
(It would be cheaper to buy the Apple II).
Well that is all I can remember. Once again, this was not stated as fact
and as such it could all be BS, not to mention that *I* could be wrong. One
thing that I am sure of is that something BIG is going to happen on the 15
October. We were told that the media hype would be on the same scale as the
origional launch of the Mac was in 1983, if not bigger.
We were told not to expect any price cuts, only for the amount of power
per buck to increase. So It looks as if there will be no low cost Mac's, only
more powerful ones at the same price.
Paul Miach
pmiach@ecr.mu.oz.au
{UUCP,uunet}!munnari!gondwana!pmiachallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) (08/19/90)
As quoted from <3941@husc6.harvard.edu> by siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel): +--------------- | In article <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: | > | >This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail | >others. Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz | >486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal. Okay, a fast 386 can be | | Uh, no, they only just recently came out with a RISC machine which | blows the pants off most every iAPX86 machine... :-) And it fits on the | desktop, too... +--------------- Sun and DG (among others) didn't have fast desktop RISC machines first? That'll sure surprise them --- and me, since I got to play with an AV300 before IBM announced the RS/6000. A *released* machine, not a pre-release alpha or beta. Besides, by changing the argument to RISC boxes, you've left the original subject. Of course, you're free to start a discussion on your new thread, if you wish, but you can't use it to justify or denigrate arguments about comparing Apples to PClones. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Delphi: ALLBERY uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery America OnLine: KB8JRR
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (08/19/90)
Jim Gaynor writes in a message on 08/16/90 at 12:38:50 ... JG> Poor guy. I'm in Columbus, Ohio. MicroCenter, the JG> largest local retailer, is asking close to what you've just JG> said. But Heath-Zenith runs a little store out on the NE side JG> of Columbus, and it's probably one of the best-kept secrets JG> of retail computing in the city. The best prices (including JG> the $899 Plus), best service department in the MidWest (rated JG> as such), and knowledgable salespeople <gasp!>. Authorized JG> dealers, even. Great store. I'll quarrel with you on the "knowledgeable salespeople" issue, Jim, but will double your enthusiasm for Heath-Zenith's service department here in Columbus. I am utterly astounded what can happen when people run a store with a little common sense and the desire to make money. The combination of those two attributes is deadly--it creates happy customers! I'm pretty sure Micro Center has investigated this, and considers the above combination pretty much the same as poison gas... Heath-Zenith's service is not to be believed. I had a problem with my Plus, took it in at lunch, and waited--and walked away an hour later with the screen fixed, voltages adjusted, and the guts cleaned out. I also actually watched the service manager clean, very thoroughly, a mouse from a 128K, a mouse which was being used on that same machine upgraded to a Plus. Yes, the feet were worn, yes, the insides were mucked up, but rather than insist the customer buy a new mouse at $90, he spends 15 minutes cleaning it up. Anyone in central Ohio should run, not walk, to Heath-Zenith on Morse Rd. Outside of central Ohio, check for your nearest H-Z store and give them a good, hard look. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (08/19/90)
> > I don't know what current "Street" prices are, but I've seen > > the Plus selling for as low as $899 via retailers. > > Tell me where! The best non-educational resale price here in New > York for a Plus is currently hovering at about $1050. Anywhere in Columbus, OH. And one store, ADS Systems, is offering a special to schoolteachers--$680 for a Plus. That's about $20 better than the OSU offer. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (08/19/90)
PK> Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 PK> machine (if I can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 PK> with more slots, 1 meg of RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, PK> and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac Classic. If the PK> Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price range PK> would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 PK> and an AT clone is about $700. But why do you need more slots than a Classic? To handle all the stuff that any Mac has built-in--networking, serial ports, hard/floppy disk ports, sound port, mouse port. So saying that "a 20 MHz 386 machine has more capability than a Mac" is faulty reasoning. Just because you can stuff more into it, doesn't mean it's better. Quite to the contrary--that it needs all those slots simply points out its shortcomings. 1 meg of RAM on that 386 machine? Well, strong rumor has it the Classic will be shipped from the factory with 2 megs. Yes, in raw terms, a 20 MHz 386 machine is faster than an 8 MHz 68000 machine. Now, do this: graft the holy grail of OS enhancements, Windows 3.0, onto that 386 machine. Now, let's talk performance in terms of what the user can do and how well/quickly he can do it. We're probably at about the same level, comparing your machine and the Classic. Now, for an exercise, go ahead and install Windows 3.0 on that $700 (that's without monitor and hard drive) 12 MHz 286 AT clone. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
paulr@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Raulerson) (08/19/90)
I don't believe that being forced to compare Apple products only to IBM
products has *ever* been made a "clear" priority. For one thing, hardly
anyone *buys* pure IBM products. For another, why would you *want* to, except
to make Apples profiteering a bit easier to stomach?
IMHO, Macs are purely *wonderful* machines, but Apple has had too much
practice overpricing 'em and putting the shaft to early buyers. I have a
512K machine here, with 130mb od fas SCSI disk on it and 4 megabyes. Total
cost of upgrading that machine to the stated capablity was *less* than the
Apple approved upgrades of drive/rom and motherboard replacement. (*sigh*)
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!paulr
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!paulr@nosc.mil
INET: paulr@pnet51.orb.mn.orgpaulr@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Raulerson) (08/20/90)
Comparing PC and Mac pricing is an effort in futility. If you want
a Mac, you'll pay for one. You want to suffer thru DOS, you'll get
a clone and poor to mediocre service with it, and the learning
experience of a life time to get it running? If you get a decent
PC from say IBM (remember them) Compaq and perhaps a few other
names, you are going to spend just as much if not more for your PC
and the pain to learn how to use it (assuming a novice computer user
is the buyer) Mac's may cost a little more, but depending on very
specific needs, in most cases its probably worth it.
-------
Have you *ever* tried to get tech support out of IBM? They *never*
have the answer readily available and usually when they do it is
"WHy not buy the (upgrade || another model || a replacement) instead?
Jeesh- *any* clone dealer can tell you which motherboards are good/bad,
and why, which cards do what and where, and usually put everything
together for you, test it, and replace it if it goes bad for no charge.
Apple? Well, they are a *little* better, but if it wasn't for Bix and the
internet, there would be precious little support.
I think I can safely say those things, becuase I am typing this on a Mac,
and my son is about 3feet away using the 386 PC (Clone! Of course!) with
MS-Windows. That also addresses the part about learning to use either
computer. He just turned 7 and uses Macs and PC's (with and without windows)
like an old pro. :-)
Paul
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!paulr
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!paulr@nosc.mil
INET: paulr@pnet51.orb.mn.orgpkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) (08/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu I'm not trying to start a "computer war", because I'm on the Mac side. Just as you say, that IBM clone doesn't come with any of the things which make the Mac a computer that's easy to use. We know that. But then again, Mac enthusiasts who know that aren't looking for the low end Mac-they want the high powered Macs. The average person who wants a first computer will say "the Mac looks really nice, but it's a little expensive." to which some uninformed bystander will say "so get an IBM clone 73624 which can do everything a Mac can do and cheaper". The poor buyer might get stuck with that machine. But if the Mac costs the same, that person will walk away with a good, high-quality machine. UUCP: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac ARPA: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac@nosc.mil INET: pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com
pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) (08/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from russotto@eng.umd.edu >You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear >that that is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, you have to do >Apple to IBM. No, No, No!! I'm not trying to compare features as I am the price differential. Granted, one should compare an Apple with an IBM, and an Apple clone with an IBM clone, but that's not possible. Now when comparing low cost systems, you want to find the lowest price to portray each computer in the best light. I found relatively low prices for the clone to show that a person who wants to buy an low end system with a broad user base can find it cheaper (not necessarily better) with a clone. Sorry if I've caused any confusion about this whole thing. UUCP: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac ARPA: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac@nosc.mil INET: pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com
cnap73@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (08/20/90)
In article <3941@husc6.harvard.edu>, siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes: > In article <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >> >>This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail >>others. Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz >>486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal. Okay, a fast 386 can be > > Uh, no, they only just recently came out with a RISC machine which > blows the pants off most every iAPX86 machine... :-) And it fits on the > desktop, too... > Another one in the "Not Only, But Also..." department : At last summer's launch of the 80486, both Intel and IBM produced 486 motherboards. The Intel board, despite inside access to 486 specs was extremely messy; the IBM board was neater, faster and reportedly the conversion of a DOS version to work with the hardware took "only a few hours". Not bad for a trailing R&D department... Stewart Fleming, University Of Strathclyde, Scotland > Rich Siegel
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (08/21/90)
In article <3965@crash.cts.com>, pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com > >>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive > > Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I > can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of > RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac > Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price > range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT > clone is about $700. Looking in the PC Today database of lowest PC prices, I see 4 of about 20 systems that are around $1300 for a 20 Mhz 386. Those include one disk drive, no hard disk, 1 meg RAM, Hercules mono monitor (which are terrible), and a sticker on it which says something to the effect of "Made with pride by Joe in Joe's No-name Computer Store". Hope you know Joe personally. Basically the issue is you get what you pay for. I'm perfectly willing to buy a PC clone from someone like Dell, but there's no way I would buy one from Joe's No-Name Computer Store, especially mail order. I'm a consultant and don't need much in the way of tech support, but I do like to think that the company will be around as long as I own the computer. The other thing you have to realize about the mega-low cost PC clone is that they use junk parts. THe reason Dell's prices are higher than Joe's are because Dell uses brand name parts. It also helps that Dell has excellent technical support. You can carry the analogy to the Yugo cars. They are incredibly cheap, but you run the risk of having the engine fall out when you sit down in it. That's why people still pay more for Hondas and Toyotas. So sure, the Mac Classic price might be a tad high, but you are getting something for that. Apple has consistent quality (occasionally bad, but consistent and they usually fix the big boo-boos), so you can be guaranteed of getting a Mac that works and works like all the rest of them. This is not true with PCs any more. Just ask the people whose hard disks were trashed by Windows 3.0 because they used a non-standard, but popular partioning scheme. That's not compatibility in my eyes. So yes, you are right about the PC-clones being cheaper. But when you are comparing apples and oranges (pun intended), you have to keep in mind what makes up the orange. And yes, Apple will probably lose some customers because their prices are higher. IBM and Compaq also lose customers because of that. But if people don't realize they are comparing apples and oranges, they obviously don't know enough about what they are getting into and should do more research. And if they still buy a mega-low cost PC clone, they get what they pay for. (And I won't even get into the real-world costs of making a PC clone into a supposedly graphical machine with Windows 3.0.) > > > > UUCP: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac > ARPA: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac@nosc.mil > INET: pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com -- Adam C. Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I ain't worried and I ain't scurried and I'm having a good time" -Paul Simon
sellers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Todd Sellers) (08/21/90)
In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from boris@world.std.com > >>At these prices, Macs seem a lot more competitive > >Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I >can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of >RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac >Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500-$700 price >range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT >clone is about $700. > In the above example you are comparing Apples to lemons (no pun intended). What is the price for an IBM 20MHz 386 with an IBM Monitor and IBM Keyboard? I think those prices are much closer to Apple's. Don't get me wrong, I still think that Apple's prices are too high, I just don't think that you can compare a Macintosh to a PC clone considering price. +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Todd Sellers | EMail to (sellers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM) | | NCR E&M Columbia | or (todd@pibtest.Columbia.NCR.COM) | | West Columbia, South Carolina | <THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK> | | 29169 | <INSERT YOUR FAVORITE DISCLAIMER HERE> | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (08/21/90)
In article <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: > I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when >comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own >machines for the fairest comparison. I dunno. Would IBM have sold more or fewer machines if there was no clone market? Lest you think that a ridiculous question: 1. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy IBM. 2. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy nothing, or an entirely different architecture. This would reduce the "IBM-compat" market, providing less incentive for software developers, which would in turn reduce sales. Further, the "friends" of these non-IBM-buyers would not be as likely to consider IBM, as they would not have to share their data with an IBM owner. Now, as there IS no Mac clone market (yet), it seems to me that you must compare Apple to IBM if you think clones have hurt IBM, but if you think clones have helped IBM, then you must compare Apple to the clones. Have I completely lost everybody yet? -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/21/90)
In article <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >In article <3965@crash.cts.com>, pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: > >Looking in the PC Today database of lowest PC prices, I see 4 of about >20 systems that are around $1300 for a 20 Mhz 386. Those include one >disk drive, no hard disk, 1 meg RAM, Hercules mono monitor (which are ^^^^^^^^^^ >terrible), ^^^^^^^^^^^ Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally agreed to be good. Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely readable; I agree). The Herc has enough horizontal resolution to display 80 columns well--and 10 pt is quite readable. As for the quality of said monitor, almost all clones come with Samsung mono monitors. Crack a recent SE or Plus and guess who makes the tube? Samsung... BTW, sounds like the PC Today database is a bit steep. I've seen 386 sx and dx machines with monitor, 66 Mb 23 ms hard disks, 1 meg, and so for for about $1000--in places I'd gladly to business with (and have, too). >and a sticker on it which says something to the effect of >"Made with pride by Joe in Joe's No-name Computer Store". Hope you >know Joe personally. It's not good to write off all smaller clone shops in such a wholesale way. I've dealt with a number of them that are extremely knowledgable and helpful--more so than most salespeople I've found in ComputerLand-type places. Salespeople are just that--they sell things, and may have sold cars or aluminum siding a few weeks before pushing computers. Many of the people selling computers in clone shops also are the technical support, and many have been assembling systems for years. >Basically the issue is you get what you pay for. I'm perfectly willing >to buy a PC clone from someone like Dell, but there's no way I would >buy one from Joe's No-Name Computer Store, especially mail order. I'm >a consultant and don't need much in the way of tech support, but I do >like to think that the company will be around as long as I own the >computer. While this is nice, it is not essential--most parts are under guarantee by their makers (Seagate, Samsung, Teac, whomever)... > The other thing you have to realize about the mega-low cost >PC clone is that they use junk parts. Again, this may be true for a few shops, but in general I've found the same quality of parts in low-end clones and ALR/Dell-type machines. And some things like floppy and hard disks are always from a big-name maker. As can be seen in the PC Mag system comparisons, the name-branders and no-namers frequently use a lot of common parts (hard drives, controllers, monitors, moptherboards/BIOSs, etc.) >THe reason Dell's prices are >higher than Joe's are because Dell uses brand name parts. It also >helps that Dell has excellent technical support. You can carry the >analogy to the Yugo cars. They are incredibly cheap, but you run the >risk of having the engine fall out when you sit down in it. That's why >people still pay more for Hondas and Toyotas. > >So sure, the Mac Classic price might be a tad high, but you are >getting something for that. Apple has consistent quality (occasionally >bad, but consistent and they usually fix the big boo-boos), so you can >be guaranteed of getting a Mac that works and works like all the rest >of them. The fx in the back room here doesn't work like the SE--a lot of our disk recovery stuff crashes on it... Haven't even touched the ci... >This is not true with PCs any more. Just ask the people whose >hard disks were trashed by Windows 3.0 because they used a >non-standard, but popular partioning scheme. FYI, *very* few people had such a problem--Microsoft confirmed only 12 or so cases (not that they're unbiased, but the conditions that create the problem are very unlikely.) >That's not compatibility >in my eyes. But the problems with the ci and fx are??? :) Seriously, having to revise the System for each new machine suggests that they're not too intercompatible, either. (Stuff about comparing apples and oranges deleted) >(And I won't even get into the real-world costs of making a PC clone >into a supposedly graphical machine with Windows 3.0.) I will: $30-50 for a mouse, $75 for a meg upgrade, $100 for Windows 3.0, and for the speed hungry, $125-$350 for a fast 286 or 386sx motherboard upgrade. This is assuming an upgrade from a c.1984 AT-class machine... Aaron Wallace
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/21/90)
In article <43.26cfe9c6@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cnap73@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes: >In article <3941@husc6.harvard.edu>, siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes: >> In article <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >>> >>>This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail >>>others. Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz >>>486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal. Okay, a fast 386 can be >> >> Uh, no, they only just recently came out with a RISC machine which >> blows the pants off most every iAPX86 machine... :-) And it fits on the >> desktop, too... >> > >Another one in the "Not Only, But Also..." department : At last summer's >launch of the 80486, both Intel and IBM produced 486 motherboards. The Intel >board, despite inside access to 486 specs was extremely messy; the IBM board >was neater, faster and reportedly the conversion of a DOS version to work with >the hardware took "only a few hours". > >Not bad for a trailing R&D department... Great! Which IBM machine has one in it that can be bought now? Aaron Wallace
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug20.204840.10895@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >In article <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Me) writes: >> I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when >>comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own >>machines for the fairest comparison. > >I dunno. Would IBM have sold more or fewer machines if there was no >clone market? Lest you think that a ridiculous question: > >1. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy IBM. >2. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy nothing, > [...thus undermining IBM retroactively...] > >Now, as there IS no Mac clone market (yet), it seems to me that you >must compare Apple to IBM if you think clones have hurt IBM, but if >you think clones have helped IBM, then you must compare Apple to the clones. > >Have I completely lost everybody yet? Perhaps yourself. <grin> I can't see how you can make that claim. While the cheap clone market, by my estimation, actually boosted IBM by helping popularize the MS-DOS "standard", I can't see how that boost makes the clones the closest MS-DOS analogue to Apple. The only way I could see your logic would be if you considered the clone market as a whole the main "carrier" of the MS-DOS market, and Apple the main "carrier" (true) of the Mac market. The problem with -that- analogy is that the clone market is a -huge- number of companies. Zenith, Dell, Grid, Laser, HP, NEC, AST, Zeos, PCMAX, Epson, and innumerable others. The Mac market is -one- company. You can't compare that. This -entire- argument was based on choosing -one- PC manufacturer that most closely paralleled Apple. The entire Clone market, I hate to say, isn't it. <grin> I knew that Philosophy major would come in handy. -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen! Will IRCC survive? Nahhh...." _|
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > In article <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... > VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally > agreed to be good. > Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? > > I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the > most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely > readable; I agree). Number of pixels is not everything. The graphic capabilities in Hercules mode are extremely limited, which makes the abilities of WordPerfect to display correct font sizes and graphics useless except in Preview mode. I would disagree that the SE resolution is barely usable for text processing. First of all, it depends what font you use - New York 10 pt is perfectly readable for me and my vision isn't wonderful. You get the same amount of text on the screen and the sharper characters make it equally as easy to read. And it's not green or amber. > BTW, sounds like the PC Today database is a bit steep. I've seen 386 sx and > dx machines with monitor, 66 Mb 23 ms hard disks, 1 meg, and so for for > about $1000--in places I'd gladly to business with (and have, too). > Certainly possible. It was just an easy way to find a list of prices, which is fairly hard to do in a systematic format elsewhere. They also list clearly what you get, which is hard to figure out sometime with the ads. > It's not good to write off all smaller clone shops in such a wholesale > way. I've dealt with a number of them that are extremely knowledgable > and helpful--more so than most salespeople I've found in ComputerLand-type > places. Salespeople are just that--they sell things, and may have sold cars > or aluminum siding a few weeks before pushing computers. Many of the people > selling computers in clone shops also are the technical support, and many > have been assembling systems for years. Many have, but a buyer has no way of knowing which have and which haven't, particularly if he or she is not particularly knowledgeable. I won't defend the big dealers like COmputerLand, because all the ones I've talked to have been notably dumb (what's a DRAM?). You simply have no way of knowing whether or not a small no-name shop (of any sort) is good without risking it a few times. >>Basically the issue is you get what you pay for. I'm perfectly willing >>to buy a PC clone from someone like Dell, but there's no way I would >>buy one from Joe's No-Name Computer Store, especially mail order. I'm >>a consultant and don't need much in the way of tech support, but I do >>like to think that the company will be around as long as I own the >>computer. > > While this is nice, it is not essential--most parts are under guarantee > by their makers (Seagate, Samsung, Teac, whomever)... But it is often hard to get in touch with the part manufacturers for one (since the documentation with clones is often terrible and incomplete), and who wants to call a different company each time something different breaks. Not mention the problem of what happens when one of the part manufactures blames the dealer or another manufacturer and refuses to help. >> The other thing you have to realize about the mega-low cost >>PC clone is that they use junk parts. > > Again, this may be true for a few shops, but in general I've found the same > quality of parts in low-end clones and ALR/Dell-type machines. And some > things like floppy and hard disks are always from a big-name maker. As > can be seen in the PC Mag system comparisons, the name-branders and no-namers > frequently use a lot of common parts (hard drives, controllers, monitors, > moptherboards/BIOSs, etc.) Not my experience, but not really worth arguing. I don't get PC Magazine, but do they really review every no name clone maker's machine and check what's inside? PC World certainly doesn't. > The fx in the back room here doesn't work like the SE--a lot of our disk > recovery stuff crashes on it... Haven't even touched the ci... But it is consistent with the other fx's on the market. In a few months the problems will be ironed out, just like they were for the II, the SE/30, the IIx, etc. The IIci is almost to that point now, but not quite. You never hear of compability complaints from SE/30 or Mac II owners any more, do you? >>This is not true with PCs any more. Just ask the people whose >>hard disks were trashed by Windows 3.0 because they used a >>non-standard, but popular partioning scheme. > > FYI, *very* few people had such a problem--Microsoft confirmed only 12 or so > cases (not that they're unbiased, but the conditions that create the problem > are very unlikely.) True, but there are a number of other problems with Windows and PC compatibilities. Everyone and their brother has a slightly different version of DOS, which makes a difference if you want the clock to work, for instance. Windows merely brings out the hardware incompatibilities because it does so much to the system. > I will: > $30-50 for a mouse, $75 for a meg upgrade, $100 for Windows 3.0, and for the > speed hungry, $125-$350 for a fast 286 or 386sx motherboard upgrade. This > is assuming an upgrade from a c.1984 AT-class machine... This is a minimum Windows system. Try a Logitech mouse for &75, four meg of RAM, a bigger hard disk (gotta have swap space for the virtual memory and it should be a fast disk to boot), and at least a 25 Mhz 386 motherboard with VGA display. That's a tad more expensive than your $300-$600 upgrade cost. Also, upgrades tend to bring out compatibility problems becuase the BIOS is an older version etc. > > Aaron Wallace No offense meant or taken, the issues are simply not clear-cut and opinions on both sides deserve to be heard. -- Adam C. Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I ain't worried and I ain't scurried and I'm having a good time" -Paul Simon
an12280@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (David Gutierrez) (08/22/90)
In article <36195@ut-emx.UUCP> mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes: > Thus, if you got bad service from a ComputerLand in Chicago, it doesn't > mean you won't get good service from a ComputerLand in Houston. Or > vice versa. True, although you *will* get bad service from a ComputerLand in Houston. I haven't tried this for a couple of years, but I used to get a kick out of calling up the local ComputerLand and asking about Macs. They always said that they didn't sell Macs because they "weren't serious business machines." David Gutierrez an12280@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (08/22/90)
In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... > VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally > agreed to be good. > Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? > > I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the > most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely > readable; I agree). I don't want to get into this little war - just a correction. I don't believe it is correct to equate number of pixels with resolution. Number of pixels per inch (per cm or whatever if you prefer), maybe. To compare a 9" screen with a 13 inch screen by counting the pixels is meaningless. The "standard" for Mac screens is 72dpi. Whether this is adequate for a 10pt font depends on the font (Times is not great at this size; some others are OK). How many dpi is Hercules? Do Hercules screens have square pixels? Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/22/90)
In article <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>, >aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >> Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... >> VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally >> agreed to be good. >> Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? >> >> I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the >> most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely >> readable; I agree). > >I don't want to get into this little war - just a correction. I don't believe >it is correct to equate number of pixels with resolution. Number of pixels >per inch (per cm or whatever if you prefer), maybe. To compare a 9" screen >with a 13 inch screen by counting the pixels is meaningless. > >The "standard" for Mac screens is 72dpi. Whether this is adequate for a >10pt font depends on the font (Times is not great at this size; some others >are OK). How many dpi is Hercules? Do Hercules screens have square pixels? Okay, maybe resolution was the wrong term; my point was that the Herc can display more on the screen (or the same amount with better detail) than can the compact Macs. Most cheap Herc monitors are of the 10-12" variety, which would translate to about the same resolution in terms of dpi. Comparing 9" and 13" screens by counting pixels is not meaningless--the more pixels there are, the more can be displayed. A 4.5" 256x174 would have the same resolution as the SE/Plus, but would be useless for word processing. Likewise a 10" Herc (or so) would have roughly the same resolution but would be able to display more, just as a Mac II can display more than an SE/Plus. Anyway, my point was that the Herc is not "terrible," even by today's standards... Aaron Wallace
awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (08/22/90)
In article <1990Aug21.233312.7181@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >Anyway, my point was that the Herc is not "terrible," even by today's >standards... While I'll agree that Hercules res isn't terrible, you can't just compare dpi. If I remember right, Hercules res is around 720x350. The Mac is 512x342. If you work out the dpi, you'll find the Herc doesn't come out so well. Pile on top of that the fact that the pixels on the Mac screen are much more crisp than on a Hercules screen.
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/22/90)
In article <36573@ut-emx.UUCP> awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1990Aug21.233312.7181@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > >>Anyway, my point was that the Herc is not "terrible," even by today's >>standards... > >While I'll agree that Hercules res isn't terrible, you can't just compare dpi. >If I remember right, Hercules res is around 720x350. The Mac is 512x342. If >you work out the dpi, you'll find the Herc doesn't come out so well. Pile on My monitor is a 10"er. Works out to roughly the same (720/10 ~= 72; I know, the 10" is the diagonal measurement, but it's nominal anyway... With a handy ruler I measured the width...) >top of that the fact that the pixels on the Mac screen are much more crisp than >on a Hercules screen. The crispness of the pixels relates to the quality of the monitor (and to a much lesser extent the quality of the Herc-compatible board itself). I find that my Samsung is as crisp as a Mac--no surprise since Samsung makes the tubes for both... Aaron Wallace
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/22/90)
------------ Let's see what this discussion has brought to light so far: 1) The Macintosh, which is produced by a company which spends considerable money on: Major Reasearch & Development (I think it was $700 million last year) National Marketing/Advertising and some lesser amount on: Charitable Contributions costs more than some IBM clones made by companies which most likely spend little if any money on the above. 2) IBM clones often have less reliability both in terms of hardware and service than Macintoshes. 3) IBM and Compaq, which do spend money in similar ways to Apple, produce hardware which is comparable in price to Apple's. Therefore, it is concluded, the Macintosh is grossly overpriced. I would argue that this argument is somewhat less than convincing. To put it mildly. Of course I would also argue that Apple would place itself better strategically by lowering the price of the Mac and broadening their market share (and they would make the world of Macintosh computing available to a broader segment of society which would be IMHO a good thing in itself). And Apple is indeed indeed lowering Mac prices and making the Mac more affordable. I would say to those who argue that the Mac is grossly overpriced: you get what you pay for. If you want less reliability, less overall system integration, fewer features, and a GUI which -- while good -- shows its CLI heritage all too well, then buy a no-name clone with Windows. And I'm not being sarcastic: if that is all you want, then there is indeed no reason to buy a Mac. If you do need a superior computer, though, then you may have to pay a bit extra to get it. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/22/90)
In article <66968.26D14DFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >But why do you need more slots than a Classic? Fax modems, CPU accelerators, memory beyond 4 meg, *real* netowrking (like EtherTalk), better/color video, and anything that may spring up in the future. What if 2.88 meg floppy drives come out? On the 386, just put in a controller and drive; on the Plus, it's the motherboard/ROM swap. Maybe. >To handle all the stuff that >any Mac has built-in--networking, serial ports, hard/floppy disk ports, sound >port, mouse port. It's nice to include it all--but not on the motherboard. What if you want, say, a 1:1 interleave HD controller, a high-density floppy controller, faster networking, or, as happens, something breaks? Swapping cards is cheaper than swapping motherboards, as a friend of mine with an old SE discovered when looking into getting a "super"drive. I can stuff one of those in an XT for about $130... >So saying that "a 20 MHz 386 machine has more capability >than a Mac" is faulty reasoning. Just because you can stuff more into it, doesn't >mean it's better. Quite to the contrary--that it needs all those slots simply >points out its shortcomings. I'd call it flexibility; and for the record, many motherboards nowadays have built in printer, serial/mouse, hard/floppy, and video controllers. All of which usually can be selectively disabled as needed. >1 meg of RAM on that 386 machine? Well, strong rumor has it the Classic will >be shipped from the factory with 2 megs. Add $70. >Yes, in raw terms, a 20 MHz 386 machine is faster than an 8 MHz 68000 machine. > Now, do this: graft the holy grail of OS enhancements, Windows 3.0, onto that >386 machine. Now, let's talk performance in terms of what the user can do and >how well/quickly he can do it. We're probably at about the same level, comparing >your machine and the Classic. Remember that MacWeek found that a 10 MHz AT and a Plus/SE run at about the same level of performance, subjectively and otherwise. MacUser (or was it MacWeek) also had a Windows/Mac benchmark set, but the results were flawed because the graphics test compared Illustrator for the Mac with Corel Draw for Windows in the only test in which there was an appreciable difference. >Now, for an exercise, go ahead and install Windows 3.0 on that $700 (that's >without monitor and hard drive) 12 MHz 286 AT clone. Better yet, find a dealer whose prices are more in line with the industry, get the $700 12 MHz AT clone *with* 40 meg hard disk and monitor, and then give it a try... (p.s. it works!) Aaron Wallace
awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (08/23/90)
In article <1990Aug22.164847.7912@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >It's nice to include it all--but not on the motherboard. What if you want, >say, a 1:1 interleave HD controller, a high-density floppy controller, faster >networking, or, as happens, something breaks? Swapping cards is cheaper than >swapping motherboards, as a friend of mine with an old SE discovered when >looking into getting a "super"drive. I can stuff one of those in an XT for >about $130... The SCSI port handles most of what you're talking about. With software, I can format a SCSI drive to 1:1 even on a Plus. I can hang an Ethernet connector off SCSI. It won't do full 10Mbit/sec, but the Plus couldn't drive it that fast anyway. You can hang a 2.4 meg floppy off the Plus and better already. It may cost a bit more, but not the cost of a motherboard swap. Basically all you're telling us is that if you know where to buy, you can get things cheaper. >Better yet, find a dealer whose prices are more in line with the industry, >get the $700 12 MHz AT clone *with* 40 meg hard disk and monitor, and then >give it a try... (p.s. it works!) I just scanned the current issues of PC Magazine and Computer Shopper. That '286/40M HD/monitor combo runs more like $1000-1100 in most of the ads I scanned, and I don't know many dealers that beat mail order prices. It may well be that you can part together a 12Mhz 286 for $700, but I wouldn't call that price any sort of industry price.
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (08/23/90)
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >So yes, you are right about the PC-clones being cheaper. But when you >are comparing apples and oranges (pun intended), you have to keep in ^^^^^^^ lemons? -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (08/23/90)
In article <1990Aug22.164847.7912@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >In article <66968.26D14DFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > >>But why do you need more slots than a Classic? > >Fax modems, CPU accelerators, memory beyond 4 meg, *real* netowrking >(like EtherTalk), better/color video, and anything that may spring up in the >future. All available, except better/color video, without using a slot. Better color/video is available using the PDS, which has been available on the SE. > What if 2.88 meg floppy drives come out? On the 386, just >put in a controller and drive; on the Plus, it's the motherboard/ROM swap. >Maybe. Really? I upgrade from a 400k drive to an 800k drive with a ROM/drive swap. The fact that Apple didn't make the 800k to 1.44M upgrade available to models that didn't have the same ROM capacity is unfortunate. I can get a non-Apple 1.44M drive for my Mac from a third party, just like IBM clone folks. Just not from Apple. Shucks. > >>To handle all the stuff that >>any Mac has built-in--networking, serial ports, hard/floppy disk ports, sound >>port, mouse port. > >It's nice to include it all--but not on the motherboard. What if you want, >say, a 1:1 interleave HD controller, a high-density floppy controller, faster Uh. I *have* a 1:1 interleave hard disk on my 512ke. The only time I swapped a mother board was when I went from a 128k to the 512k. Oh, sorry, I spent $79 for a SCSI port. You ignored the $150 to $500 it costs a IBM'er to add a network. I guess it wasn't important to you. >networking, or, as happens, something breaks? Swapping cards is cheaper than >swapping motherboards, as a friend of mine with an old SE discovered when >looking into getting a "super"drive. I can stuff one of those in an XT for >about $130... I'll give you a lower cost ($130 vs. $400) on the superdrive. You still lose on the network, and on the PC to XT upgrade vs. the Mac 128 to MacPlus upgrade. Or the XT to AT upgrade vs. Mac 128 to MacPlus upgrade. In case you don't remember: $1000/0 = infinity. >>Yes, in raw terms, a 20 MHz 386 machine is faster than an 8 MHz 68000 machine. >> Now, do this: graft the holy grail of OS enhancements, Windows 3.0, onto that >>386 machine. Now, let's talk performance in terms of what the user can do and >>how well/quickly he can do it. We're probably at about the same level, comparing >>your machine and the Classic. > >Remember that MacWeek found that a 10 MHz AT and a Plus/SE run at about >the same level of performance, subjectively and otherwise. MacUser (or >was it MacWeek) also had a Windows/Mac benchmark set, but the results were >flawed because the graphics test compared Illustrator for the Mac with >Corel Draw for Windows in the only test in which there was an appreciable >difference. I'm sorry there weren't comparable graphics programs *available*. > >>Now, for an exercise, go ahead and install Windows 3.0 on that $700 (that's >>without monitor and hard drive) 12 MHz 286 AT clone. Fine, now if your no-name $700 clone is still working in 6 years with as little maintanence as my 6 year old Mac 128k I'll believe it is comparable. > >Better yet, find a dealer whose prices are more in line with the industry, >get the $700 12 MHz AT clone *with* 40 meg hard disk and monitor, and then >give it a try... (p.s. it works!) > >Aaron Wallace Will it still be working in 6 years? Which industry? Can you really give a name and address where I can buy a 12mhz AT clone for $700 with a 40 Meg hard drive? Would I trust it to turn on? What I find is: Mono -> $900 EGA -> $1150 VGA -> $1250 All with no hard disk, but with an HD controller. 40 meg, add $300. Thanks, but no thanks jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
kf@mbunix.mitre.org (Fong) (08/24/90)
To: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ? Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA Cc: Bcc: This "discussion" about the low-cost Mac vs. clones depends on who you (and Apple) believes to be the buying market. If you're talking about corporate and education purchasing, it is best to compare Apple pricing to IBM and Compaq pricing. Corporations, schools and universities buy IBM, Compaq, and Apple although they are beginning to also centralize on a single clone as well (like Dell or NEC). If you're talking about first-time, home, or small business buyers, it is best to compare Apple pricing to clone pricing. I've had many of my no-educational-discount friends buy a clone because they just couldn't spend, or more precisely, justify the spending of an extra $500 to $1000 dollars. (However, almost all who qualified for an educational discount or who use Macs at the workplace bought Macs for home.) Why does Apple price so high? Because the market that they sell to allows them to. Corporate, school and university sales account for over 85% of computer purchases (I think I read this in PCWeek.) Institutions buy IBM, Compaq, and Apple because of long-term "support" (major vendors allow MIS departments to set up in-house centralized purchasing, support, service, and training, with the security of knowing the company will be around for the next decade). For now, these are the largest known markets. So what's the practical problem? At the Mac II-and-up level, there is no price problem in selling Macs to institutions because when all the pieces are put together, Macs are cheaper than 386-level machines from IBM/Compaq. The problem is that in the last two years, 88/86/286-based systems made up over 65% of PC purchases (from PCWeek and ComputerWorld). (IBM/Compaqs account for over 85% of these PCs purchased by corporations). The Mac SE just can't compete in price with these low-end systems - partly because the 9" screen creates a need to spend more money to get another monitor/board to make it really usable in an office environment. And Apple also does not have an alternative for the 386sx machines, which had a 9% market share this past year and expected to be much greater in years to come. How does Apple solve the problem? To make up for this shortcoming, we now have the low-end Macs (Classic, LC, and IIsi). I believe that while everyone thinks these Macs are for the general public (the rest of us), Apple thinks about gaining market share by selling them to these same large institutions, and plans to price them competitively but relative to IBM/Compaqs. Given recent statements that prices won't be lowered, but that there will be better performance at a given price, I wouldn't be surprised (but will be disappointed) if the 2MB Mac Classic lists for $1799, the 2MB Mac LC lists for $2599 (monitor extra), and the 2MB Mac IIsi lists for $4369 (kb, monitor extra); add $500 for 40MB HD. Of course, for the buyer who is looking at clones, these prices are high, even with 30% street discount. But in the corporation/school/university markets, these Macs have enough performance at "competitive" prices. Where does that leave the rest of us? My belief is that the Macintosh interface and system integration, and the Apple name (developed via quality, reliability, and long-term support) are worth something extra in cost (in the same way that I'd buy a Honda instead of a Yugo). But until you have used the Mac regularly (and also know what it is like to use a PC) or unless you have a particular application in mind and seen it in use on the Mac, you won't be convinced that its worth something extra. This is especially, especially true for the first-time buyer (home or small business) who is cost-conscious and looking in the $500-$1000 range. I don't think there is any hope for a Mac in this range in the near future. If the buyer can be convinced to pay something extra (in the same way, people pay about $150 extra for a Sony TV), then there is hope for the Mac Classic. Since Apple may find that this model not very attractive to corporations, it may be willing to price it relative to the IBM PS/1 or a mid-range clone. If Apple prices the 2MB Classic w/40MB HD to sell at $1299 (list $1999), I think it would be competitive. In other words, my friends who bought 286 clones would buy a Mac SE 2/40 for $1300 but not at the previous price of $2100. I don't think Apple will price the Mac LC or IIsi relative to clones. At the rumored price levels, the LC, also called the K-12 school replacement for the Apple II, with a 40MB HD, monitor and a 55% school discount, would cost about $2000, which is about the upper limit for schools. The IIsi has been called the replacement for the IIcx, which has been the most popular business Mac. The IIsi will provide a Mac for businesses who don't need the power or the expansion slots of the IIci. So, Apple, just like IBM and Compaq, will not have the lowest price. They will continue to aim at the "institution" markets, where they will compete on "innovation", "system software and hardware quality and integration", "long-term support", and "image/reputation". Unless a buyer is willing to pay the premium for these seemingly intangible/luxury items, he/she will always buy elsewhere. And so, it doesn't matter what the lowest price clone is. No matter how you feel, rightly or wrongly, that's not the person Apple is selling to. Just my $.02 opinion, Kevin Kevin Fong, MITRE Corporation Standard disclaimer should follow here.
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (08/25/90)
Aaron Wallace writes in a message on 08/22/90 at 16:48:47 ... AW> Better yet, find a dealer whose prices are more in line with AW> the industry, get the $700 12 MHz AT clone *with* 40 meg hard AW> disk and monitor, and then give it a try... (p.s. it works!)... $700 12 MHz AT w/drive & monitor? Izzat what they're going for now? wow... For the record, I like the AT machines and up; I mean, whatever does the job best. And for what I do at work, dBASE on a fast 386 clone does it _much_ better than anything else, save a faster 386 or 486 or a faster (or RAM) hard drive. For $700, that's really a good setup. One year ago, such a beast with a 20 megger was $1500. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
rmf@bpdsun1.uucp (Rob Finley) (08/25/90)
In article <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>, >aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >> Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... >> VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally >> agreed to be good. >> Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? >> >> I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the >> most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely >> readable; I agree). > >I don't want to get into this little war - just a correction. I don't believe >it is correct to equate number of pixels with resolution. Number of pixels >per inch (per cm or whatever if you prefer), maybe. To compare a 9" screen >with a 13 inch screen by counting the pixels is meaningless. God. I thought the Amiga enforcers (er. users.) were bad... One feature of the Mac video system IMHO is that you can choose your resolution. Do you want 1024 by 1024 with SUPER FAST rendering? Run, get the new Apple display board (don't remember what it was called...) with the AMD display coprocessor built in. Want it in monochrome? Wan't a nice 19" Sony that instantly doubles the cost of your system? Get a Mac and be quiet about it. In my case, the standard MacII resolution is fine for now. I know that Truevision makes a display coprocessor for the MacII family that puts out NTSC compatible video with 32 bits per pixel! It still uses the (supports) the Mac desktop. Do that with your IBM or Amiga. Now, if I got a high resolution board for my IBM that I am writing this on now, I can EXPECT that my software (Workview Viewlogic) WON'T use my extended modes. They have no plans for them either. Eventually, we could get this functionality on the other machines as well. All to often it is cheaper just to get a completely separate machine. (Do I want an Amiga that can run IBM PC software? Hell no!) I don't yet own a Mac but I rest easy that I have a mind boggling big choice of display adapters and with very few exceptions (unusual in this industry. Isn't it?) they will work with my software collection. Amiga users don't have this problem either. Someday, after the mac, I might get an Amiga also.... Maybe... P.S. Are all ComputerLand's demented? Just wondering. ----- "Lets go kick some Earthling butt!" -- Spaced Invaders quintro!bpdsun1!rmf@lll-winken.llnl.gov uunet!tiamat!quintro!bpdsun1!rmf
pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) (08/26/90)
In-Reply-To: message from Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG AF> any Mac has built-in--networking, serial ports, hard/floppy disk ports, AF> sound port, mouse port. Execellent point-I have overlooked this. The price of networking on an IBM is great. Although the average user may not use networks (especially for a low end machine), to be fair one should throw the price of a network port into the IBM package. You should also add the price of a sound port, modem and printer ports, and I can see where the price would add up (I'd figure $100-$200 per port, but I'm not an expert in that field). When all of that is added to the price, I believe that they are probably equible in cost. Thanks for mentioning that-it made me trust Apple a little more.... UUCP: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac ARPA: crash!pro-truckstop!pkovac@nosc.mil INET: pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (08/26/90)
In-Reply-To: message from Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG > > > I don't know what current "Street" prices are, but I've seen > > > the Plus selling for as low as $899 via retailers. > > > > Tell me where! The best non-educational resale price here in New > > York for a Plus is currently hovering at about $1050. > Anywhere in Columbus, OH. When I was in Hawaii last month, I saw an add in the local newspaper, advertising Mac Pluses for $750 at the downtown Honolulu Heath Zenith store. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
jpm@cs.hut.fi (Jussi-Pekka Mantere) (08/27/90)
In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: Take a Mac Classic at $2000, take off 30% and you have a $1400 machine (if I can do math). For $1300 you can get a 20Mhz 386 with more slots, 1 meg of RAM, a drive, monochrome monitor, and keyboard. That's enough to bury the Mac Classic. If the Mac Classic is similar to the SE or Plus, the $500- $700 price range would be best. After all, an IBM XT clone costs around $400 and an AT clone is about $700. As someone wrote in a recent Mac-mag, (where's my Knowledge Navigator when I need one :-), Macintosh is the only computer he is willing to pay premium for. I totally agree... Chape
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) (08/28/90)
Look, I'm not trying to get into a "macs are clearly superior to any PC-brick" argument. So don't flame-o me for bringing this up, but... jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <1990Aug22.164847.7912@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >>In article <66968.26D14DFC@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >> >> What if 2.88 meg floppy drives come out? On the 386, just >>put in a controller and drive; on the Plus, it's the motherboard/ROM swap. >>Maybe. >Really? I upgrade from a 400k drive to an 800k drive with a ROM/drive swap. Mucho dolores, too. Like, more than a shiny new 12MHz AT board. With a new BIOS. >The fact that Apple didn't make the 800k to 1.44M upgrade available to >models that didn't have the same ROM capacity is unfortunate. >I can get a non-Apple 1.44M drive for my Mac from a third party, just >like IBM clone folks. Just not from Apple. Shucks. Well, this is a big Apple problem, IMNSHO. Not just unfortunate. You can't BUY a SIWM for your Mac, for love nor money--and that's the only Official Apple way to support 1.44 Mbyte floppy drives. If there's a way to add one to my Plus--I'd love to see it. Moreover, I'd like to buy it. I'd love it even more if it were compatible and didn't break with every new software update. Shucks ain't the word for it. On the PC, this isn't the case: you can get any ol' 4-port floppy controller and hang 3 or 4 floppy drives of any size off it. And that's $70-120 plus the drives. (Ok, so IBM didn't directly support >2 floppy drives. They aren't perfect, by any means.) Oh, anyone got an extra SIWM they wanna give me? 'n' the version of the 128K ROMs that support it? Alex -- Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3
Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) (08/28/90)
> To make up for this shortcoming, we now have the low-end Macs (Classic, LC, > and IIsi). I believe that while everyone thinks these Macs are for the > general public (the rest of us), Apple thinks about gaining market share > by > selling them to these same large institutions, and plans to price them > competitively but relative to IBM/Compaqs. Kevin, I thought your post made some good points but I don't think that the Mac is the right machine for members of the general public. The typical person who asks me about what kind of computer that they should buy will use the thing about two hours a week for light word processing and ballancing their checkbook. The primary advantage of the Mac, the consistent user interface across applications, will be totally lost on them because they will only get one or two applications. Another mistake these folk often make is to get the cheapest 386 that they can find in Computer Shopper. These thing often don't work as shipped and the support (if there is any) is terrible. But people buy these thing because all the computer magazines say they need a 386. Then they only run Word Perfect. What these folks need is a solid 8086 machine. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!56.12!Chris.Gehlker Internet: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug28.080659.29958@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us>, alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes: > > jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: > > >Really? I upgrade from a 400k drive to an 800k drive with a ROM/drive swap. > Mucho dolores, too. You got lots of pains in the bargain? A big girlfriend name Dolores? Lots of 'em? (Yeah, it was expensive...muchos dolares.) Sorry...sleep's been a rare commodity of late. :} ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug28.080659.29958@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes: >You can't BUY a SIWM for >your Mac, for love nor money Ummm...perhaps because it's a SWIM chip, not a SIWM chip. Just picking nits. > Alex David -- David Walton Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago { Any opinions found herein are mine, not } Computing Organizations { those of my employers (or anybody else). }
d_volaric@vaxa.cc.uwa.oz.au (08/29/90)
In article <3823@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: > In article <1990Aug15.185500.19276@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >>gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >>>> MAC Classic (Yeah, right...) >>>> Basically replaces Mac Plus and Mac SE......$2000 >>[...] >>> Mac Plus $1799 >> Well, it seems to me that if the SRLP of the current low-end Mac is >>$1800 and the SRLP of the new low-end Mac is $2000, one way or another, it >>will probably end up being more expensive to get a low-end Mac. > > Note that the prices that have "leaked out" for the Classic, > LC, and IIsi are for 2 meg RAM, 40 Meg HD configurations. Add an > extra 1 Mb, a 40 Mb HD, and an expansion slot to a Plus and your added > around $500 to the price. That makes it $2300 for the Plus, and still > $2000 for the Classic - with the same configuration. Not bad, Apple. > Great, that should mean that the low-end (I could make a very stupid joke at this point) Macs are cheaper as raw machines. Will we have to pay for Apple's over priced peripherals and memory or will we be able to buy these machines raw? BTW, does anyone know wether the "Classic" Mac will be the same shape as the Plus? I doesn't bother me to much though - I've got my Plus and I'm holding on to it. It should be a collectors item soon :-). Darko Volaric, Dvorak Computer.
jordan@Morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) (08/29/90)
Alex Pournelle <alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> writes: > What if 2.88 meg floppy drives come out? On the 386, just > put in a controller and drive; on the Plus, it's the > motherboard/ROM swap. If there's a way to add one to my Plus--I'd love to see it. Moreover, I'd like to buy it. I'd love it even more if it were compatible and didn't break with every new software update. Shucks ain't the word for it. Check out Rapport/Drive 2.4 from Kennect -- about $400, gives you what SWIM gives you plus an additional format, 2.4Mb. I've had one for about two months now, and it's great. AFE works just fine, and I transfer files between my Pee-Cee laptop and my MacII all the time. /jordan
ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug28.080659.29958@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes: >Well, this is a big Apple problem, IMNSHO. Not just unfortunate. >You can't BUY a SIWM for >your Mac, for love nor money--and that's the only Official Apple way to >support 1.44 Mbyte floppy drives. If there's a way to add one to my >Plus--I'd love to see it. Moreover, I'd like to buy it. I'd love it I share your frustration with the excessive price of Apple upgrades (and new computers too :-). The Mac does have built-in SCSI however, and I recall seeing a ad for a FDHD-compatible SCSI drive recently somewhere (sorry, don't have the specifics). Unfortunately I'm sure it will still be considerably more expensive than an MSDOS-type drive.... ||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego ||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud ||| ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu
grahams@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) (08/30/90)
In article <25541.26DA84DD@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) writes: [Much deleted] >magazines say they need a 386. Then they only run Word Perfect. What these >folks need is a solid 8086 machine. > If they only use the computer for a few hours a week and for word-processing, what they need is a typewriter. Much cheaper, easy to learn, familiar interface, low software cost... Otherwise, why shouldn't they buy a machine which, while more expensive, is easier to learn and use? (These people aren't going to be buying Windows 3.0 either.) Steve Graham graham@isis.ee.washington.edu
warner@scubed.com (Ken Warner) (08/30/90)
Le'see now...at my UCSD bookstore they sell a Mac SE/30 for $1975. With 4 meg and an 80 Mb HD it sells for $3140. So that means: 4 meg and 80 Mb Hd are worth $1165...right? But wait--a Mac IIcx sells for $3190. With 4 meg and an 80 Mb HD for $4495. So that means: 4 meg and 80 Mb HD are worth $1305...right? Now; a Mac IIci with 4 meg sells for $4100. With 4 meg and an 80 Mb HD for $4595. So that means: an 80 Mb HD is worth $495...right? So does that mean 4 meg of memory is worth $810 or $670? But wait...there's more: Mac IIx for $3595. With 4 meg and an 80 Mb HD it sells for $5370. So that means: 4 meg and 80 Mb Hd are worth $1775...right? Hummm...low cost Mac's you say? Ken Warner
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/30/90)
In article <25541.26DA84DD@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) writes: >The typical person who asks me about what kind of computer that they should >buy will use the thing about two hours a week for light word processing and >ballancing their checkbook. > The primary advantage of the Mac, the consistent user interface across >applications, will be totally lost on them because they will only get one or >two applications. That's the difference between people who use Macs and PCs. A PC user WILL only use one or two programs because it takes too damn long to figure each program out. The trouble they'll put up with will make them put the PC in a dark corner of their house only to be used when it HAS to be. Mac users generally start out with few programs, and expand because it's SO easy. The Mac is still the only computer that can easily take someone who is afraid of a computer, and make them into an evangelist. >Another mistake these folk often make is to get the cheapest 386 that they >can find in Computer Shopper. These thing often don't work as shipped and >the support (if there is any) is terrible. But people buy these thing >because all the computer magazines say they need a 386. Then they only run >Word Perfect. What these folks need is a solid 8086 machine. That's your opinion... i'll just be glad that you aren't doing MY consulting. :-)
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/30/90)
In article <6850@milton.u.washington.edu>, grahams@milton.u.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: > In article <25541.26DA84DD@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) writes: > [Much deleted] > >magazines say they need a 386. Then they only run Word Perfect. What these > >folks need is a solid 8086 machine. > > If they only use the computer for a few hours a week and for > word-processing, what they need is a typewriter. Much cheaper, > easy to learn, familiar interface, low software cost... ***TYPEWRITER??!!!*** (Getting out garlic, torches, sharpened stakes...) Those wonderful devices that let you retype four pages of a five-page document when you decide to move a paragraph on page one...or retype and entire page if you find a spelling error on it (and you *will* find the spelling error at the worst possible time and in the least convenient possible place). Where's my nitroglycerine?... ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/30/90)
In article <25541.26DA84DD@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) writes: >Kevin, I thought your post made some good points but I don't think that the >Mac is the right machine for members of the general public. The typical >person >who asks me about what kind of computer that they should buy will use the >thing >about two hours a week for light word processing and ballancing their >checkbook. As the so-and-so who started this surprisingly dynamic thread, I agree that in 1990, the average person does not "need" a computer. In 1910, the average person did not "need" a car, either. Our homes grow with our tools. However, the push is for intruction in general, and education specifically. Education is under-funded, and thus little money for computers. If there's little money in a market, there will be few of the best and brightest in it, relative to business applications, for example. > The primary advantage of the Mac, the consistent user interface across >applications, >will be totally lost on them because they will only get one or two >applications. > A good cross-application UI is great, but a good, single application UI is also. It wouldn't be a waste. ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED ::::=:::==::===:==== FOR EVERY VISION, Software Design Engineer ::::=:::==::===:==== THERE IS AN Grass Valley Group ::::=:::==::===:==== EQUAL AND OPPOSITE brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ::::=:::==::===:==== REVISION. ==============================================================================
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/31/90)
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >***TYPEWRITER??!!!*** Let's not over-react. I'm a big fan of not throwing away perfectly good tools just because something sexier has come along. For some jobs (say, typing 1-off envelopes or labels, or filling out pre-printed forms), you can't touch the ease of use of a typewriter with any word processor that I know of. And, for the person who really does just produce a couple of letters a week, a nice simple memory typewriter should work just fine. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics as to whether that's a typewriter or a word processor, but certainly a Mac or PC is gross overkill for many situations. Unfortunately, I can't justify having a typewriter in my office for typing envelopes, so every once in a while I just steal a box of those expensive window envelopes our business office uses and format all my letters so the inside address shows out the window. You won't see me fighting with either troff on my Unix machine or MS Word on my Mac to get my LaserWriter to print envelopes. Unfortunately, I still have to trek upstairs to use the postage meter. Anybody have a bit of PostScript to produce a US stamp? :-) Now, where did I stash that old Smith-Corona manual I used to use when I was in high school .... -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/31/90)
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: > I agree that in 1990, the average person does not "need" a computer. In > 1910, the average person did not "need" a car, either. Our homes grow > with our tools. Perhaps what's really true is that in 1990, the average person does not need a general-purpose computer. The average person already owns lots of computers. The one in his microwave oven, or his stereo, or the one with the synthesized voice that tells him his refrigerator door is open. If people really need computers to balance their checkbooks, I predict that the product that will solve that need is something that looks vaguely like a conventional paper-and-plastic checkbook, but with an LED display and a keypad with specialized function keys marked "check", "deposit", "service fee", etc. It won't be a Mac with a money manager program, that's for sure. At least until they come out with a Mac that I can throw into my pack or cram into my back pocket and sit on, or that my wife can shove into her purse or handbag along with whatever else lives in there, and which is simple enough to use that my mother can do it without having to read the directions (which will probably be written in badly translated japanese, so they won't make much sense anyway). Think about that last bit. I defy you to show me a single program that runs on a Macintosh that my mother can use with no more than 30 seconds worth of one-time instruction. For reference, my mother is an intelligent woman with a graduate degree from an Ivy league university, who's only problem is that she grew up before computers were invented. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.192500.29442@phri.nyu.edu>, roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > >***TYPEWRITER??!!!*** > > Let's not over-react. I'm a big fan of not throwing away perfectly > good tools just because something sexier has come along. Me neither. I'm still using manual-focus cameras and riding my bicycles (which, if they aren't Victorian-period engineering, aren't anything). I know full well the advanatges (and disadvantages) of, say, auto- vs manual-focus systems, I've made my living with photography in the past, I know newer isn't always better. But... > For some jobs > (say, typing 1-off envelopes or labels, or filling out pre-printed forms), > you can't touch the ease of use of a typewriter with any word processor > that I know of. The envelopes work fine with a DeskWriter. (I admit that it doesn't rain in California.) For pre-printed forms, a pen or pencil works as well as a typewriter. Probably better. Still, a typewriter is a cantankerous beast, and unforgiving of mistakes. > Perhaps it's a matter of semantics as to whether that's a typewriter or a > word processor, but certainly a Mac or PC is gross overkill for many > situations. Sure, but if you've got one in use for other things, there's no really compelling reason not to use for other tasks you might have. I've got nothing against people buying or using typewriters, you understand. I just don't happen to like 'em. (The typewriters, not the people in question.) ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.194221.29942@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >having to read the directions (which will probably be written in badly >translated japanese, so they won't make much sense anyway). > > Think about that last bit. I did. I resent the Japanese comment. You may have given up, pal, but I haven't. ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED ::::=:::==::===:==== FOR EVERY VISION, Software Design Engineer ::::=:::==::===:==== THERE IS AN Grass Valley Group ::::=:::==::===:==== EQUAL AND OPPOSITE brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ::::=:::==::===:==== REVISION. ==============================================================================
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.194221.29942@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Think about that last bit. I defy you to show me a single program >that runs on a Macintosh that my mother can use with no more than 30 >seconds worth of one-time instruction. For reference, my mother is an >intelligent woman with a graduate degree from an Ivy league university, >who's only problem is that she grew up before computers were invented. The closest is the original MacPaint. It's always what I tell people to try first and most people are drawing ugly pictures very quickly. I say the original MacPaint because it really is easier for a complete mac novice to use. The 2.0 version from claris is more powerful, but introduces concepts like scroll bars, floaters, and multiple documents that just get in the way of a complete novice. [I wish *all* Mac programmers would sit down with a COMPLETE mac novice at least ever six months or so. It's a tremendously eye opening experience (and I mean that ever six months it re-opens my eyes) to see basically smart people struggle with the interface. We'd have a lot fewer of the horrible interfaces that are inflicted on us all the time] Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce -------------+-------------------------------------- | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 | Box 58168 | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 | (408) 987-7319 | AppleLink: peirce1 | Internet: peirce@claris.com | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/31/90)
I wrote: > I defy you to show me a single program that runs on a Macintosh that my > mother can use with no more than 30 seconds worth of one-time instruction. peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) responded: > The closest is the original MacPaint. It's always what I tell people to > try first and most people are drawing ugly pictures very quickly. Close, but no cigar. I remember my first experience with a Mac, just after it was introduced. There was a demo machine sitting out in one of the labs, running MacPaint. I don't remember exactly if I managed to get the drawing tools to work or not, but I do remember being very frustrated that no matter what I typed on the keyboard, nothing came up on the screen. Now, a few years later, it's second nature to click on the icon of the big "A" then to click on an insertion point to type text in a paint/draw program, but back then, it wasn't obvious at all. Maybe, if I had a manual, or even had somebody to give me a 30-second "this is what you do" talk, I would have gotten the hang of it, but left to my own devices, I was totally and completely stumped. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
pfr654@csc.anu.oz (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.194221.29942@phri.nyu.edu>, roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: >> I agree that in 1990, the average person does not "need" a computer. In >> 1910, the average person did not "need" a car, either. Our homes grow >> with our tools. > > Perhaps what's really true is that in 1990, the average person does (stuff deleted) > > Think about that last bit. I defy you to show me a single program > that runs on a Macintosh that my mother can use with no more than 30 > seconds worth of one-time instruction. For reference, my mother is an > intelligent woman with a graduate degree from an Ivy league university, > who's only problem is that she grew up before computers were invented. > -- > Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute *** :-) :-) :-) :-) Hey NETWORK There's this insanely great new way of measuring ease of use of a computer interface, it's called the 'Roy Smith's Mother's Index' or RSMI for short. The year 2020: " Yep, the new Jonathon IIIct computer has been extensively RSMI tested and comes out at 37.3 swootis (the new unit to measure RSMI, of Seconds Worth Of One Time Instructio), which does not quite get to the theoretical minimum of 30, but is more than half as much again as the nearest competitor, the HAL PeeSuh/s/hit! Available now for only $29,995! " Honestly, though, I agree with Ray's point: my father got a mac but his secretaries use it since he didn;t really want to bother learning all the B***S**** that comes with computing. *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
hankin@sauron.osf.org (Scott Hankin) (08/31/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >I wrote: >> I defy you to show me a single program that runs on a Macintosh that my >> mother can use with no more than 30 seconds worth of one-time instruction. >peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) responded: >> The closest is the original MacPaint. It's always what I tell people to >> try first and most people are drawing ugly pictures very quickly. > Close, but no cigar. I remember my first experience with a Mac, >just after it was introduced. There was a demo machine sitting out in one >of the labs, running MacPaint. I don't remember exactly if I managed to get >the drawing tools to work or not, but I do remember being very frustrated >that no matter what I typed on the keyboard, nothing came up on the screen. >Now, a few years later, it's second nature to click on the icon of the big >"A" then to click on an insertion point to type text in a paint/draw >program, but back then, it wasn't obvious at all. > Maybe, if I had a manual, or even had somebody to give me a >30-second "this is what you do" talk, I would have gotten the hang of it, >but left to my own devices, I was totally and completely stumped. >-- >Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute >455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 >roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy >"Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!" Close, but no cigar. If your first response to MacPaint on a Mac was to try to type in commands on the keyboard, you certainly are not a computer novice. You are a computer user with preconceived expectations based on your past computer experience. Certainly understandable, but not withing the bounds of the original statement. Besides, as implied by your .sig, Unix warps one's thinking about computers! ;-} (As woody Allen would say) It just so happens that I had my mother over shortly after getting my Mac. Also a bright lady, with her Master's degree, etc. but not at all a computer person - far from it. I did give her a 30 second (well, maybe two minute) one-time walkthrough of MacPaint. I went away and came back twenty minutes later, and she had captured the essense of Picasso's primative period with work of her own. Granted, this was the limit of her artistic abilities, but she had a ball and even titled it at the bottom (i.e. with the keyboard.) More importantly, the experience with MacPaint shaped her expectations as well. When I showed her MacWrite (the only other program I had at the time) her reaction to the pulldown menus and mouse clicking on interesting graphic thingys that looked like they might want to be clicked on was to comment on how it was a lot like MacPaint, only different. This is the essence of the Mac interface. If you run two randomly chosen applications on the PC, there is very little likelihood that anything you picked up from the first program will be at all applicable to the second. - Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Hankin (hankin@osf.org) | "You're not entirely committed to sanity, Open Software Foundation | are you?"
hermens@groucho (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug31.021020.7897@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > >I wrote: >> I defy you to show me a single program that runs on a Macintosh that my >> mother can use with no more than 30 seconds worth of one-time instruction. > >peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) responded: >> The closest is the original MacPaint. It's always what I tell people to >> try first and most people are drawing ugly pictures very quickly. > > Close, but no cigar. I remember my first experience with a Mac, >just after it was introduced. There was a demo machine sitting out in one >of the labs, running MacPaint. I don't remember exactly if I managed to get >the drawing tools to work or not, but I do remember being very frustrated >that no matter what I typed on the keyboard, nothing came up on the screen. >Now, a few years later, it's second nature to click on the icon of the big >"A" then to click on an insertion point to type text in a paint/draw >program, but back then, it wasn't obvious at all. > > Maybe, if I had a manual, or even had somebody to give me a >30-second "this is what you do" talk, I would have gotten the hang of it, >but left to my own devices, I was totally and completely stumped. >-- >Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute >455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 >roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy >"Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (09/01/90)
In article <1990Aug30.194221.29942@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: > Think about that last bit. I defy you to show me a single program >that runs on a Macintosh that my mother can use with no more than 30 >seconds worth of one-time instruction. For reference, my mother is an How about the Calculator Desk Accessory? (Tee, hee) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/01/90)
d volaric writes in a message on 08/29/90 at 12:23:32 ... DV> BTW, does anyone know wether the "Classic" Mac will be the same DV> shape as the DV> Plus? I doesn't bother me to much though - I've got my Plus DV> and I'm holding on to it. It should be a collectors item soon DV> :-).... That's right, it will be. I know for a _fact_ that it's _your_ Plus which will be in the antique store window which was shown in Back to the Future... :-) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (09/01/90)
In article <hankin.652112272@sauron> hankin@sauron.osf.org (Scott Hankin) writes:
[reccount of statements relating to ease of use of Macs, intelligence of
mother,etc...]
Really, I didn't want to get in on this but I can't believe that presumably
informed people are writing things along the lines that my mother who is
intelligent(after all she has a Master's degree...) is able to pick up a Mac
and draw pictures within 30 minutes, and you know the interface to the other
Mac program is so easy that she can use more programs than PC users.
What is the big deal about using lots of programs? By and large you are all
talking about launching programs, file manipulation, general i/o. Once in the
program, the Mac interface and the lack of a CLI can be a serious drawback.
Moreover, serious users rarely use more than a few programs, as your typical
program of substance takes a while to learn anyway. A good example is S, a
statistical interactive graphics program NOT available for the Mac( but
available for 386's) which is THE tool of use for people doing research in
data analysis. There is no Mac interface, and the advantages gained by having
one are simply outwayed by the fact that the interface is one reason the
program is not available. Mac users therefore have to settle for "canned
programs" which are fine as long as you have a fairly standard problem.
The lack of a CLI and preemptive multitasking( and piping,etc...) are serious
problems for the Mac. Unless you want to see the Mac relegated to the DTP,
spreadsheet and painting worlds( where budding intelligent mothers can show
us that what Picasso really needed was a Mac), you would be better off
encouraging Apple to get on with improving its OS, its A/UX so that the
wonderful hardware platform isn't wasted on MacWrite and MacPaint.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu [or here]
[my opinions]Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/02/90)
Roy Smith writes in a message on 08/30/90 at 19:25:00 ... RS> You won't see me fighting with either troff on my Unix machine RS> or MS Word on my Mac to get my LaserWriter to print envelopes. RS> ... Hmmmm...I have absolutely no problems setting up an envelope template for the LaserWriter, one which I can open, type the address, and print, just for those one-off envelopes. Of course, my LaserWriter is right next to my Mac. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (09/03/90)
In article <14588@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: [stuff deleted] >program is not available. Mac users therefore have to settle for "canned >programs" which are fine as long as you have a fairly standard problem. By definition how ever, most users have "fairly standard problems." >The lack of a CLI and preemptive multitasking( and piping,etc...) are serious ^ Oh, no. Not again. >problems for the Mac. Unless you want to see the Mac relegated to the DTP, >spreadsheet and painting worlds( where budding intelligent mothers can show >us that what Picasso really needed was a Mac), you would be better off >encouraging Apple to get on with improving its OS, its A/UX so that the >wonderful hardware platform isn't wasted on MacWrite and MacPaint. I think it is generally agreed that the Mac hardware isn't all that special. The soul of the Mac is its user interface. Super computer Gods like yourself are amply supplied by other vendors (Digital, Sun, IBM, and others) with Real (TM) computers. What makes the Mac different from most other machines is its accessibility by those who are not and do not care to become experts in the arcane world of command line based interfaces. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
espen@ikaros.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) (09/03/90)
In article <14588@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: > The lack of a CLI and preemptive multitasking( and piping,etc...) are serious > problems for the Mac. Unless you want to see the Mac relegated to the DTP, > spreadsheet and painting worlds( where budding intelligent mothers can show > us that what Picasso really needed was a Mac), you would be better off > encouraging Apple to get on with improving its OS, its A/UX so that the > wonderful hardware platform isn't wasted on MacWrite and MacPaint. Lots of the Mac users I know of, use it for far more "heavy" applications than "DTP, spreadsheet and painting". The Mac is getting increasingly popular among graphics designers, for instance (who do far more than just "painting"). Speaking for myself, the Mac provides the best lisp environment I know of: Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp. Using that program, I am very happy _not_ to have a OS CLI. With MACL's file system interface I actually _have_ a CLI (namely Common Lisp), which I occasionaly use for i.e. file manipulations which the Finder cannot do for me. ----------------------------------------- Espen J. Vestre Department of Mathematics University of Oslo P.o. Box 1053 Blindern N-0316 OSLO 3 NORWAY espen@ikaros.uio.no -----------------------------------------
Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) (09/03/90)
In a message to All dated 08/30/90 at 17:21:42, Brandon Lovested
writes:
BL> As the so-and-so who started this surprisingly dynamic thread, I
BL> agree that in 1990, the average person does not "need" a computer.
BL> In 1910, the average person did not "need" a car, either. Our homes
BL> grow with our tools.
There's a big difference, though. Several homes hdust in the closet. Lots of people bought these things with no clear idea of
what they were going to use them for (can't seem to avoid dangling
prepositions
today).
BL> However, the push is for intruction in general, and education
BL> specifically. Education is under-funded, and thus little money for
BL> computers. If there's little money in a market, there will be few
BL> of the best and brightest in it, relative to business applications,
BL> for example.
*FLAME ON*
Educators and the elementary school educational establishment are, by and
large,
inept around computers. (No doubt there are a few outstanding exceptions.)
It was the educational establishment, after all, that decided that there was
such a thing as "computer literacy." There are even educators that claim to
be able to teach the subject. When I've asked a few why they want to waste
resources when we're having a problem with plain old literacy they give me a
bunch of gobeldygook about how young people of the future will be locked out
of the job market if they aren't "computer literate." So they take kids away
from their real studies and have them bang away for awhile at WordStar and
Lotus
1-2-3. They honestly don't seem to know that this stuff is already a
generation
behind and that it will be in museums by the time these kids are looking for
work. But that's not my real beef. What ever happened to the notion that
schools
were supposed to prpare people to be critical, informed, citizens.
Presumably,
if these kids could read they could RTFM.
*FLAME OFF*
Gee Brandon, you certainly didn't say anything to precipitaite that tirade.
I must'a had something on my chest. :-)
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!56.12!Chris.Gehlker
Internet: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.orgChris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Gehlker) (09/03/90)
In article14775@wpi.wpi.edu macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) quotes me as follows: > >The typical person who asks me about what kind of computer that they should > >buy will use the thing about two hours a week for light word processing and > >ballancing their checkbook. > > The primary advantage of the Mac, the consistent user interface across > >applications, will be totally lost on them because they will only get one or > >two applications. and replys: > That's the difference between people who use Macs and PCs. A PC user WILL > only use one or two programs because it takes too damn long to figure each > program out. The trouble they'll put up with will make them put the PC in > a dark corner of their house only to be used when it HAS to be. > Mac users generally start out with few programs, and expand because it's > SO easy. The Mac is still the only computer that can easily take someone > who is afraid of a computer, and make them into an evangelist. Chris, I realize that that's the conventional wisdom but it ignores the market research that's been published as well as what I cmy wife's company, and the local MUG. The fact that Apple keeps marketing the Mac as a computer for people who are afraid of computers shouldn't blind us to the fact that Mac are entry computer for almost nobody. I'm always amused at the arguements that my coworker, Cliff, gets into. He's still in the first stage of Mac addiction, which seems to last about 4 years, where he feels the need to defend his preference in computers and gets into countless water cooler arguements with the DOS heads. He's also still the foremost DOS jock around and spends a lot of time with the DOS heads helping them get their systems to work. I've sorta recovered from the first phase of Mac fanaticism so when someone starts telling me about the advantages of their PC I just say: "I'm sure you're right that your PC is a better machine but I'm too stupid to use DOS." This does keep me out of arguements but it hasn't saved me at all from being asked to help these same folks with their DOS machines and applications. I suspect that if you'll look around, you'll discover that the same folks who are most adamant about how DOS keeps people from being productive would, if forced to it, be the most productive DOSers. I further suspect that you have the direction of causality reversed. People don't run lots of applications because the consistent UI on the Mac makes it easy so much as people who need lots of applications demand the consistent UI that the Mac provides. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!56.12!Chris.Gehlker Internet: Chris.Gehlker@p12.f56.n114.z1.fidonet.org
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (09/11/90)
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >What is the big deal about using lots of programs? By and large you are all >talking about launching programs, file manipulation, general i/o. Once in the >program, the Mac interface and the lack of a CLI can be a serious drawback. But there's nothing stopping a Mac programmer from coding up a command-line interface as part of an application. The fact that this is so rarely done is because Macintosh programmers and the marketers they work for realize that Macintosh users will not accept this archaic technology. If a CLI is needed anywhere, it is for programming, and Apple has provided one in the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop (MPW), but most programmers prefer to use Think Pascal and C which use the Mac interface! >Moreover, serious users rarely use more than a few programs, as your typical >program of substance takes a while to learn anyway. Which is a real advantage for the CLI, right? It keeps the non-serious users from touching your "program of substance." >A good example is S, a statistical interactive graphics program NOT >available for the Mac( but available for 386's) which is THE tool of >use for people doing research in data analysis. There is no Mac interface, >and the advantages gained by having one are simply outwayed by the fact >that the interface is one reason the program is not available. Well, if the lack of a command-line interface is all that's stopping the programmers from porting this wonder tool to the Mac, why don't they just make it a tool to run under the MPW shell, or code their own CLI? A good example is Mathematica, available on the Mac, which has its own command-line interface. >The lack of a CLI and preemptive multitasking( and piping,etc...) are serious >problems for the Mac. Unless you want to see the Mac relegated to the DTP, >spreadsheet and painting worlds... which are only a thousand times than the market of "people doing research in data analysis" whom Apple should cater to instead... >you would be better off encouraging Apple to get on with improving >its OS, its A/UX so that the wonderful hardware platform isn't wasted >on MacWrite and MacPaint. Instead, the hardware will be so loaded down with baroque operating system "enhancements" that it runs like a dog. Why is it the people who say the Mac needs multitasking, piping, etc. are always peopl who use other machines anyway? They are the same people who tout the advantages of UNIX and proclaim it as an "emerging standard" -- a line I've been hearing for the last five years, and it hasn't emerged yet folks!
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (09/12/90)
In article <ewright.653002910@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[lot's of stuff relating to CLI's and negative comments re Unix users]
I'm not going to get in a battle here. If Apple wants to leave the Mac to the
DTP, painting,spreadsheet,etc...users, that is their decision. Do you really
believe Apple wants to see the Mac locked out of science?
The data analysis program "S" I referred to was an example of how the current
OS of the Mac makes it too difficult to move such a program to the Mac. SAS
is another example.
Your Mathematica reference is amusing. Mathematica needs 8 megs of RAM on the
Mac to run properly, and it is not even a high powered symbolic mathematical
program. It is great for graphics, but its mathematical libraries are limited
in comparison to similar programs on other platforms. Most people I know
simply use the Mac as a front end to Mathematica running on a better OS.
As for your comment about Unix users making demands on the Mac, I might point
out that I have been a Mac user( and still am) for a long time( as well as a
very happy GS user, BTW). Apple makes excellent products. There's no need to
restrict the computer to niche markets. It has, IMHO , an important role to
play in scientific investigation.
One thing should be made clear. Multitasking is not a luxury. Those who think
it is haven't really made proper use of it. The same goes with piping,etc...
What do you think IAC is all about in System 7?
Philip McDunnough
Professor of Statistics
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[my opinions]