NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/13731

Text File | 1992-07-24 | 6.0 KB | 111 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Sang J. Moon)
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (NOT!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dschonvachler.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA GSFC Code 534.3
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:39:21 GMT
Lines: 98

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Steiner) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sang J. Moon) writes:
>
> > I've been using System 7 with tuneup 1.1.1 for about 6 months now, and I've
> > had to reinstall system 7 and/or rebuild the desktop file an average of
> > twice a month.  With 75MB of stuff on my hard drive, this has been the
> > biggest waste of my time.  If time is money, saying that the mac saves
> > money this way is not totally true.  From my experience with both macs and
> > PCs, it seems that no matter what machine I use, I am able to waste the
> > same amount of time "fiddling" with either machine.  Installing software
> > takes just about the same time.  Deinstalling software is just as agonizing
> > for either machine.  Installing an interface board on a PC takes a little
> > effort, but it's a one time effort usually and in the long run does not
> > take any significant time.  Anyone can see that macs have their share of
> > problems by browsing through the comp.sys.mac hierarchy.  I do like the mac
> > better than the PC because of the little extras it gives, but macs cost
> > 2 to 3 times more than corresponding PC systems regardless of the extra
> > "fiddling" time needed for PCs.  At work I use a mac because I don't pay for
> > it, but at home, I bought a 386-40 because it gives the best computing value
> > for it's price.
>
> There is a big difference between reinstalling the system and rebuilding the
> desktop.  Combining them into one statement that you do either is meaningless.
> Rebuilding the desktop takes a few minutes; reinstalling the system is a much
> more time-consuming job and indicates a serious problem.  Personally, I haven't
> needed to reinstall my system since I started using system 7--on any of the
> five machines (both work and home) on which I use it.  I'd suggest that you
> check the media of your hard disk if you have had to reinstall your system
> as much as you imply.  So, out of dozen times, how many were system reinstalls,
> and how many were rebuilding the desktop?

Maybe I should have made it clear that in the process of trying to fix
problems on my mac, I had to reinstall system 7 and rebuild the desktop.
This means that when I first encountered the sound problem on my IIsi, I
reinstalled system 7 once and rebuilt my desktop once, but the overall
time I spent trying to track down this problem was huge.  And when
some extensions wouldn't work properly, rebuilding the desktop took ten
minutes a shot, but figuring out why an extension didn't work including
checking for conflicts with other extensions and control panels took a
long time.  And when running ethernet applications caused my system to
hang (especially when I run Microsoft Word 5.0 in foreground), trying
to find the cause took a very long time, and reinstalling system 7
took a small percent of it.  The time when a destructive trojan got on
my mac, reinstalling system 7 became an automatic thing to do, but running
Norton Utilities took up most of the time.  But it sounds like your mac
has been pretty much trouble-free, so you wouldn't know the amount of
time that can be wasted on a mac.

> > The system I got was:
> >
> > 386-40Mhz CPU w/64K cache
> > 4 MB RAM
> > 1.2MB & 1.44MB floppies
> > 211MB IDE 15ms hard drive
> > 1Kx768 VGA card with 1MB RAM
> > 2400 baud internal modem
> > 28dp non-interlaced SVGA monitor
> > 101 enhanced keyboard
> > high resolution mouse
> > 2 serial/1 parallel/1 game ports
> > DOS 5.0
> > Windows 3.1
> > printer cable (already had a printer)
> > public domain software
> >
> > for $1678.95 including tax.
> >
> > If you respond to this post, please list the system you bought and
> > how much you paid for it.  It shows what you actually have to back your
> > views.  It may also show that you had much more money than I had to spend.
> > In which case, there should be no need for everybody yelling their heads
> > off because I too would buy a mac if I had that much money to spare.
>
> I find it very interesting that DOS people continue to talk about their
> hardware, whereas Mac people talk about what you can do with it.  Computers
> are a tool--a means to an end; they are not an end in and of themselves.
> Macs are better tools; they let you get your jobs done faster and with less
> effort--and usually allow you to produce a better end result.  You can get
> a Mac that looks less capable on paper than your DOS machine, but with that
> Mac you will be able to do a better job, and do it faster and easier--which,
> in the end final analysis, is the only important thing

The reason I ask people like you to post what they have is to see if you
are espousing that the macs are worth the extra cost when they haven't
actually bought a mac for themselves.  It doesn't sound right to me when
people say how much the mac is worth the extra money when their company
was the one who had to put out the dough.  Also it would show that those
people who have bought mac systems comparable to the 386 systems I have
described have a much bigger wallet than the average person and that
cost may not be a priority to them.  And again I'll restate the
point of my posts is that macs cost too much.  The 2 to 3 times the cost
to a corresponding PC system is not worth the little extras you get on a
mac.  I use a mac at work because I like it better and I don't pay for it,
but at home, I have a PC because it is the best bang for the buck.

Sang J. Moon