From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (NOT!)
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:12:19 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

I have seen this argument so many times it makes my head spin.

And unless I am mistaken, people are constantly making the same point:
that this or that machine is "cheaper" and simultaneously "just as
good as" a Mac.

Well, hey, that would be great if it's true.

But it's a fundamentally flawed argument, because I don't want
anything but a Mac. I don't want to spend a lot of time hassling my
system setup whenever a new version of a program comes up. I don't
want to decode a poorly-translated disk driver card instruction
manual, and have no guarantee that it works in my box.

I know I paid for extra features on my Macs. I paid for built-in
networking, for a uniform interface on all programs, for a fast window
manager built-in, for a high degree of compatibility across machines
and operating systems.

I will freely admit that I paid extra just because I like the user
interface better. It's intuitive, consistent. It makes sense. It lets
me try things with an option to back out of dangerous territory. It
gives me help when I need it. I thought that that was a feature that
was worth money. Considering that I now know almost everything there
is to know about all my programs, I think I use more of the program
features, and get more work done faster.

I don't want a cheaper hard drive that I have to hassle with. I'd
rather pay the $50 extra for a SCSI drive that's fast and guaranteed
compatible. Even if I buy a different computer later and decide to
keep the HD. My time is worth more than that hassle.

You might not agree with me. Your requirement for a computer might be,
"I like to play arcade games," in which case any computer from
Nintendo to a Quadra would fit the bill. Considering you can buy over
a hundred Nintendos for the price of a Quadra, it would be foolish to
buy a Mac.

Your requirement for a computer might be, "I want a really cheap UNIX
box." Hey, great, buy a Sun. Macs do have UNIX, but it's hard to beat
the bang/buck of a Sun SPARC station -- if all you want is UNIX. If
you add in even one spreadsheet or page layout program, you might end
up spending at least as much as a Mac.

Your requirement for a computer might be, "I need to run Your Basic
Spreadsheet, and I want the minimum cost computer that can hadle the
job." Great. Buy a PC. Hell, maybe even an Apple II would fit the bill.

Your requirement for a computer might be, "I want to calculate
fractals in real time." Well, you might have to build a custom
computer with all kinds of special chips. If you did, you'd have a
great machine, for very little money by comparison to a
general-purpose computer, like a Cray or a Comnnection Machine.

My requirements for a computer might be different than yours. I have
to have a machine that's very reliable, stable, robust. I cannot
afford a machine that crashes often, self-destructs its operating
system, or burns up due to a faulty power supply. I'd lose money on my
consulting business.

I have to have a machine that's easy to setup and configure. I keep
putting in new programs and taking them out. Ditto for hardware. I
change hard drives all the time. If I have to edit a file by hand
every time I add or subtract something, it costs me money. 

I have to have advanced file sharing abilities. I have to be able to
share disk folders (directories, what have you) with other people,
with no extra work. 

I have to have more than one screen. I have to have an oversized
screen (b/w) and a color screen too. I guess I could possibly live
with them not being fully connected, but I like the fact that I can
put up a window half-on-each.

One thing I definitely do not need is UNIX. It would be nice if Macs
had the complex scheduling system that UNIX does, but I haven't missed
it. Sometimes, I get annoyed when After Dark runs slower because Word
is also running. And indeed, Word has no right to be slowing things
down when it doesn't even have any documents open. But hey, I can live
with that. I tend to close programs when I'm done with them. So they
don't take up any memory or processor unless I need them.

The list goes on and on.

For my requirements, I found that I like Macs better. Maybe I could
change my requirements and get a cheaper computer. But I don't see any
economy in wasting my time setting up a computer. I hate setting up
computers. I hate running the Installer on my Mac, but at least I know
it will do the right thing with a minimum of my futzing around.

If your requirements are different than mine, buy whichever damn
computer you want. Buy that NeXT. Buy that SGI Indigo. They're great
machines. But they're not what *I* need. I needed a Mac, so I bought
it.

My suggestion has always been, and will continue to be: Buy whichever
machine meets your reqirements best. You'd be stupid not to.

But I tell ya one thing, I didn't pay extra for my Mac. As I figure
it, I got a bargain.

Of course, other people figure differently.

bill coderre

====================================================================
DANGER: Apple Computer, Inc, maintains no official presence on the
Usenet. Postings by persons from "apple.com" are not monitored or
verified by Apple Computer, Inc. These persons are not entitled to
speak for Apple Computer, Inc, or its subsidiaries and affiliates in
any official capacity unless specifically indicated otherwise.
Therefore Apple Computer, Inc makes no warrantee of the technical
content of these postings, which are given "AS IS", and not subject to
any implied warrantees in any province. Any opinions expressed in
these postings is that of the poster, and might not represent those of
Apple Computer, Inc, or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
====================================================================