home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!chaos!random.ccs.northeastern.edu!mharm
- From: mharm@ccs.northeastern.edu (Michael Harm)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
- Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (longish; a proposal)
- Message-ID: <1992Jul24.234223.1776@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
- Date: 24 Jul 92 23:42:23 GMT
- Sender: news@random.ccs.northeastern.edu
- Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
- Lines: 94
- Originator: mharm@sun350j.ccs.northeastern.edu
-
- >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
-
-
- I've been following this thread far longer than any reasonable person
- would, and it seems to me that the solution to this argument/discussion,
- if any such thing can be found, is to acknowledge that we are attempting
- to compare machines that are fundamentally different, and we're not bothering
- to specify our metrics of comparisons. Precisly what is a "mac system
- comparable to a 386"? Let's pull a comparison metric out of the air:
-
- Value = (mips * A + megaflops * B + HD_megabytes * C + ram_megabytes * D +
- monitor_colors * E + monitor_resolution * F) / Price_in_dollars;
-
- Fill in values of A,B,C,D,E and F according to your needs.
-
- Fill in the following form with how much each feature is worth to you, and apply
- each one to a given computer and add the result to the above value.
- This is your total value.
-
- Easy manipulation, addition, deletion of fonts: ________
- Consistent interface across all apps: __________
- Extensible System (allows Quicktime and who knows what else): _________
- Sound: __________
- drag 'n drop file system (no, the program manager in win3.0 don't count): _______
- Annoyance factor, from "abort, retry, ignore" and such: _______
- Cheap 3rd party add-ons: ________
-
- If you put a zero for all of the above except the last one, a dos machine
- is probably the machine for you. If you use the machine for simulations
- and other number crunching, a mac probably isn't the machine for you unless
- users are gonna be using it. A mac wasn't designed to have people launch
- 2 hour simulations and walk away; if this is what you're doing it would
- obviously be cracked to buy an LC. A gui is for personal productivity,
- and if the machine is basically a floating point coffee pot, perking away
- for hours and then spitting out results then it is clear the gui doesn't do
- any good. Us mac fans often make the mistake of not recognizing that not
- all personal computer users use the machines for what we use them for.
- The mistake that a lot of ibm compatible fans make is to simply see
- the value of a computer as being equal to clock speed divided by dollar cost,
- and saying "gosh, the 386 is a great buy!".
-
- One thing I'm curious about: what exactly does one do at home on a computer
- that one needs 386/486 power? Type? Play games? Program? (what kind
- of programs? and for whom? and to do what?) Balance a checkbook? Dial
- up bulletin boards? I'm a Ph.D student in computer science who is quite
- happy with an LC at home for typing, graphs, charts and dialup. For
- school work I use the school's computers (which are much more powerful
- than I could ever afford). And I could have gotten away with a classic II,
- which our campus computer store is now selling for about $1100.
- Unless I'm going to do my neural net research at home (in which case a
- 486 won't cut it either, I'll need a dec 5000), I can't imagine needing
- that much computational horsepower.
-
- I'm always asking friends who have bought a 386 what they are going to do
- with it, and 9 out of 10 can't give an answer other than
- "now I can run windows 3.0". They always end up using it for the
- above mentioned tasks of balancing a checkbook, playing games, etc, none
- of which require more than a tenth of the speed of their machine.
- I'm reminded of the people in my hometown (nowheresville, Connecticut)
- who would put a V-8 engine in their ford mustang, 12" rear tires, install racing
- carburator and exhaust systems, so that they can burn rubber pulling
- out of the 7-11 parking lot. And mac people are guilty of this too; there's
- enough people out there who have quadra 700's and use them to run MS Word,
- although they are generally spending someone else's money.
-
- Please, if you're going to claim that a dos machine is a better buy,
- take the time to state what the thing is going to be for (like the simulation
- person from Germany did). Fill in my above invoice and add other
- things that are important (maybe a parallel port is essential for your
- application) so we know where you're coming from.
-
-
- Cheers,
-
- Mike Harm
- -------------------------------------------------------------
- "I agree that 'two times two makes four' is an excellent thing;
- but if we are dispensing praise, then 'two times two makes five'
- is sometimes a most charming little thing as well."
- -Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Notes From Underground"
-