NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/misc/15589

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-29 | 7.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!orstcs!orstcs!usenetusenet
From: [e-mail] (price carl wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:36:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Aug28.073628.290
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 138
Nntp-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

>Oh?  What government agency spent thousands of dollars on a toilet
>seat?  I know the press *reported* that the US Air Force spent
>thousands of dollars on a toilet seat, but that was dead wrong
>-- the bill was actually for a toilet *cover*, an injection-
>molded plastic part covering the entire toilet and weighing
>600 lbs.  So, do you know of an example where a government
>agency actually did spend that much on a toilet seat.  I'm
>just trying to see how careful you are with your facts here.
>Establishing your credibility, so to speak.

Back about 5-7 years the pentagon was laid into by congress for spending
Thousands of dollars on toilet seats, along with a number of other fiscal
fiascos.  I have personally seen the waste in goverment, so I tend to
believe this when congress jumped on them and the press reported it, your
beliefs may differ of both the government and the press.

>>Everyone working for your purchasing department should be fired.
>>The only exception would be if the computer cost you very little
>>and your using packages like autocad that can run into the thousands.

>The decision was not made by the purchasing department and was not
>made on the basis of cost.  If it was, we would have gotten Macs.
>The cost was so high primarily because we needed two-page monitors
>for word processing.  Unfortunately, all the two-page monochrome
>monitors for the PC are nonstandard and could not be guaranteed
>to work with our software.  So we had to get color monitors instead,
>and, because we were going to be using them for word processing and
>needed the best possible display quality, rather expensive color
>monitors at that.  This made the PCs (surprise!) more expensive
>than the Macs, which could have done the job with much-less-expensive
>monochrome monitors.

If your decision was not made on cost, I wonder if the "need" for buying
color and the "undependibilty" of monochrome monitors was made up so that
your people could have the whiz-bang color monitors.  And yes, If you buy
top of the line monitors you'll pay. I know, I bought a new monitor for
both my PC and Mac this year, and compared prices.  All and all prices are
about the same.  I've seen high quality monochrome for both, and for the
PC you were pretty much using monochrome for a long time because of
business mentality.

>>If so, your argument is invalid, because serious software costs
>>the same on either side of the fence.

>Oh?  Let's see, Hypercard is... free.  Toolbook costs... $400,
>is it?  That seems like a pretty significant price difference
>to me.

I have never used hypercard or Toolbox, so I can't say.  I do use Pagemaker,
which is priced identically on both platforms.  Word processors run about
the same (unless you just need a basic WP to write a letter or something
and then it came with my OS, along with a mini-spreadsheet, database,
charting program, comm program, etc.).  All apps that I have looked at
buying are competitive on both platforms, the little nick-nacks that come
with an OS not included.


>>Give OS/2 a shot, you'll realize what a good GUI and OS is.  Much nicer
>>than System 7 IMHO.

>Well, your opinion is obviously not the opinion of the company
>that developed OS/2.  In case you haven't heard, they gave Apple
>the right to use the hottest RISC processor around in exchange
>for the right to use the Macintosh interface in their future
>operating systems.  IBM has seen the future, and it is Pink.

I believe I said something about this in an earlier post, and since you
posted before (or at least someone who sounds like you) I won't go into it
again.

I did forget to mention before that the IBM RISC chip they are going to
use in the PowerPC is not the "hottest RISC processor around".  Check
out either the HP PA-RISC chip or DEC's ALPHA RISC chip and you'll see
what I mean.  IBM and Apple hope that Motorola and IBM can improve this
chipset, maybe by massive paralell set in a sugercube design, but right
now the RS/6000 is not the hottest.

>>This was believed when the mac was developed too, but try a real OS that
>>can do pre-emptive multitasking, allowing you to run a number of programs
>>at once, using more and more of your CPU, and you won't have many CPU
>>cycles wasted.

>No.  Instead, the OS will come along while my paint program is "wasting"
>time in tight loop, tracking the mouse and updating my drawing.  It will
>hit the program over the head with a hammer so that it can give time to
>some more "important" process.  Eventually, it will decide to give time
>back to me -- by which time my hand and the mouse have moved, leaving a
>big ugly gap that ruins my drawing.  Yes, sir, I can't wait to get
>preemptive multitasking on my PC!

No.  This will not happen, in the multi-tasking scheme that Apple uses
now (cooperative) it happens, but with pre-emptive, this problem doesn't
occur.  I can (and have) run 4 ray-tracing boxes in the background on my
system and could still do forground tasks without a problem, even download
and not lose characters.  Try it, you may find a new way to work.

>>And if you had this OS on a mac, you would run into a big
>>problem,

>Oh, really?  Obviously, then, you don't believe that UNIX
>is a preemptive operating system, you've never heard of A/UX,
>or you think it's a figment of someone's imagination.

No. I know UNIX is pre-emptive.  If you hadn't cut the statement you would
see that I was refering to the regular System (i.e System 7) and Apple
insiting that it run on all Macs including the Plus.  This leads to
limitations of the new OS.

>>I have a Mac IIci, PC clone 486/33, and a unix box HP 9000/350.  The Mac
>>is a poor comparison even to the HP9000/350 running X-windows.  The sad
>>part about this is that the HP only has a 68020-16 in it.  The PC blows
>>them both away.

>Your arrogance is incredible.  I run X-Windows on a PC 8 hours a day.
>Your saying that the Mac is a poor comparison to X-Windows shows that
>you are not only willing to lie to make a point but that you have so
>much contempt for the Mac users you are speaking to that you think
>none of them will see through that lie.  When I drag a window on the
>Mac, it moves.  Period.  When I drag a window under X, it can take
>anywhere from several seconds to several *minutes* for it to move.
>The Mac is a poor comparison?  Kid, there ain't no comparison!

I'm sorry to hear that you have such a shity system.  When I move a
window under X it moves without delay.  In case your wondering the
HP9000/350 is not a PC, it is a 68020 UNIX Box built using X and motif
as the interface to HP-UX.  I personally like the X-Win w/Motif better
than I like the Mac-OS interface.  This does NOT make me arrogant or a
liar.  If you would like to know what I would really like to put on
my desktop, It would be a HP9000/700 series workstation.  The 710 is
based at $5000 and a workable machine with color and an adaquate amount
of ram and Disk space would be around $10,000.  This low end system would
blow either a Mac or PC away, but alas, the money is not around.

--
Carl W. Price             *      * Work keeps us from three evils:     *
Computer Engineering Student    *      * boredom, vice, and need.            *
Oregon State University        *      *                                     *
[e-mail]    *      *       ---Voltaire                   *