NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/15534

Text File | 1992-08-27 | 5.8 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!ewright
From: [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:28:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <ajross.714890195@husc10>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 112

In <ajross.714890195@husc10> [e-mail] (Andrew Ross) writes:

>You got swindled.  Since 20 MHz 386's are no longer readily available, you
>probably bought your machine some time ago, which makes comparing prices
>with corrent machines somewhat problematic (Clone prices have dropped by
>about a factor of two over the past year and a half).

*CPU* prices may have dropped by half.  Software, peripheral, disk drive,
and monitor prices?  I sincerely doubt it.  This is one of the favorite
PC salesman tricks.  Compare the price of a stripped-down CPU to a Macintosh
CPU instead of comparing total system prices.


>Also, $600 for a video card is ridiculous.  The ATI Graphics Ultra
>(arguably the fastest Windows accelerator, certainly the most expensive)
>will run you $500.

Gosh, a 20% difference in price!  Boy, do I look silly!  But not
as silly, I guess, as a Microsoft representative trying to explain
why Windows is so slow that it *needs* an accelerated graphics card.


>These days, only ~$2300 will buy you a 33 MHz 486, WITH coprocessed
>graphics.  On my 486 (no graphics accelerator), Interface speed is
>roughly the same as the System 7 ci's I use at the computing center here.

Ahem.  The claim was that you can buy a PC that will give you performance
equivalent to a IIsi for $600, not $2300.  Big difference, dude.


>Please tone down the language, you are impressing no one.  For myself (a
>dumb PC jock), I don't consider an unsupported, undocumented copy of an OS
>legitimate; legal perhaps, but not legitimate.

Again, why should an operating system *require* support and
documentation?


>If having only two programs simplifies training and support costs while
>minimizing productivity losses (yes, it can be done), then YES, it is an
>advantage.

Sigh.  One of the advantages of Macintosh is that going from
one program to another requires very little additional learning,
let alone support and training.  Once you've learned to use one
Macintosh paint program, for example, you've learned 90% of what
you need to know to use any Macintosh paint program and 75% of
what you need to know to use *any* Macintosh program (well, maybe
50% if it's a Microsoft program).  On the PC, even with Windows,
you're basically starting from scratch every time you pikc up a
new program.


>I've seen more toy software bought (but never used) than I'd
>like to remember; for BOTH PC's and Mac's.  In my experience, the ONLY
>people who like trying  out new software are the ones who generally know
>what they are doing (and would have no trouble learning PC software).

The fact that you separate PC users into "people who generally how
what they're doing" and people who don't shows what's wrong with
the PC.  The Mac system is written for everybody, the PC for people
who are willing to devote a large partion of their lives to learning
"what they're doing."


>This dumb PC jock thinks that if any of you would actually sit down
>with a PC and just USE it

Time out.  If anything, I probably use a PC more than you do.  Because
of my job, I use a PC much more than I use the Macintosh.  But the fact
is, I can get more done in just two hours on the Macintosh than I can
in eight on the PC.

>Multiple screen support and Quicktime are the only
>REAL advantages a Mac has.

Oh, really?  Okay, try this.  Sit down at your PC and insert a floppy
disk.  Now, take that floppy disk labelled "C" and rename it "Weekly
Reports, Jan 1992."  Create a file on that disk named "Joe's Document
(c) 1992" where "(c)" is the copyright symbol, not the letter "c" between
two ASCII parentheses.  Create an alias that you can click on to launch
several programs and documents simultaneously.  Record a brief sound and
store it in a format that is compatible with the sound-output hardware
on any PC.  Write an extension to customize the operation and appearance
of Microsoft Windows so that when you click on a control the window rolls
up like a windowshade.  Write a program that send a block of text to a
spelling checker -- using standard events so that your program does not
have to be rewritten to work with a different spelling checker.


>I know nothing of accounting software.  I will add, though, that I have
>never heard of Macintax.

Macintax is the best-selling tax package on both the Macintosh
and the PC.  Again, I ask you, can you maybe guess from the name
what machine it was developed for first?


>Fair enough.  Please realize, though, that this is a judgement of taste.
>While I've never been an Amiga fan, this dumb PC jock rather LIKES
>windows' use of color.  Hell, if that's such a problem, just pick another
>pallette, it's easy to do.

It's easy to do in Windows.  But most PC software still runs under
DOS, not Windows, and most DOS programs do not put colors under
user control.  The fact that you like doing word processing with
lime-green text on a grape background with maroon window frames
and a scarlet red cursor does not mean very much, because human-
factors engineering studies show that well over 95% of all users
don't (and even those who do probably suffer productivity loss as
a result).