NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/14789

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-13 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!hayes!bcoleman
From: [e-mail] (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (NOT!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:45:14 EDT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Adam Frix) writes:
> [e-mail] (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
> BC> My point is that the overwhelming majority of personal computer
> BC> users don't need speed. They think they want it. It is like
> BC> the 600 HP engine in a car. It is relatively easy to measure
> BC> speed, so people want more, thinking it will make them able
> BC> to do more. Actually, speed has little relevance to the utility
> BC> of a personal computer.
>
> Tell that to my Plus when it tries to run System 7.
>
> Speed has _some_ relevance to the utility of a personal computer.  Otherwise,
> why would Apple spend the money to use the 16MHz 030 as the lowest level chip
> in its line (save for the Classic's classic 8MHz 68000--are they still making
> the Classic?).

<Sigh> Read the quoted posting again. Too much emphasis is placed on speed.
Speed just isn't that big a factor. That isn't to say that speed doesn't
matter. Obviously, in some cases it does.

My contention is that because speed is relatively easy to measure, too much
emphasis is placed on it. Other factors, such as ease of use, learning
curve and consistancy of function are much harder to measure, but may prove
to be much more important than speed.

After all, what's the use of having a superfast computer if you spend much
of your time trying to figure out how to make it go?

> I see your argument as this:  Apple can do with a 16MHz 030 what Windoze
> requires a 50MHz 486 to do (or something like that; this is purely
> hypothetical).

That isn't exactly what I was saying. It is something to consider, because it
is partially true. Consider further that the Mac OS and Windoze (or OS/2)
aren't the same. In many of the "hard to measure" categories, they could
size up very differently. The assumption in your paraphrase is that the
two (three) are essentially the same, therefore the Mac doesn't require as
much speed.

> Well, as long as the specific thing gets done, and as long as
> we all agree that it's a Good Thing for a computer to do, then who cares that
> Apple can do it at 16MHz?  Is that something to brag about?

Again, going back to the supposition that the two OS's are equal, it would
show that the Mac OS is much more efficient in using the CPU power that it
has. Yes, that would be something to brag about.

> What if that
> 16MHz 030 costs twice as much as a 50MHz 486?  Is it still something to brag
> about?

That isn't the case. Indeed, much of the "Macs cost too much" argument stems
from the insistance of PC advocates that anything less than a Quadra or IIci
is obviously too slow.

> As long as the Good Thing gets _done_, it doesn't matter whose chip is doing
> it, or at what speed, as long as the costs are not dissimilar.  Now, as for
> whether Windoze does Good Things or not, is another discussion, one I'm not
> _about_ to open.

And that's EXACTLY the "hard to measure" factors about a computer that I
wish we would discuss, rather than discussing speed all the time.

> _Some_ speed is always necessary.

I never suggested speed isn't a factor. Just that the discussions on the
net tend to discuss it to the exclusion of other other (IMHO more important)
factors.

--
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.