From: ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:36:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.ajross.714890195

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <714823281.F00001@blkcat.UUCP> Kaz.Karl@f1138.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Kaz Karl) writes:

>>Oh, be real...Perhaps you can buy an si for $2500, but that 
>>clunky machine is the equivilant of the 396SX I just got for 
>>a client for six hundred new...

>Be real yourself.  I use a 20 MHz 386 at work -- A real 386,
>not the crippleware SX version.  (There's no such thing as
>a 396, by the way.)  We paid over $7000 for the hardware and
>software.  After struggling with this machine and its miserable
>performance for over six months, we finally decided that we needed
>to spend even more money to buy accelerated graphics cards. Not to
>to do anything sophisticated like fast 32-bit graphics, mind you,
>just to run Windows.  Each of these cards cost about $600 by itself.
>I have to admit that, compared to previous performance, Windows flies
>with the nkPew card.  At impulse power, at least.  I'd have to rate the
>performance as comparable to a Mac Classic.  The IIsi, by comparison,
>flies at warp speed.

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).  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. 
You'd be better off buying an S3 card for ~$250.  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. 

Also two notes:  The 396 above was a typo, give it a rest.  It happens. 
Also, the 386SX is crippled in precicesly the same way as the 68030 in the
Classic II and LC II.  Both are 32 bit processors forced to deal with the
outside world (memory) through a 16 bit bus.

>>and Mac charges for it's >own< OS software, if you want a legitamate copy...

>What always amazes me about PC bigots is not just their ignorance,
>but how *proud* they are of that ignorance.  If you spent five minutes
>at an Apple dealer, or talked to anyone who owned a Macintosh, you
>could learn that is not true.  You can download a *legitimate* copy
>from any number of places, get a free copy (except for the cost of
>the disks and sometimes a small copying fee) from a dealer, or make
>a *legitimate* copy from a friend.  Congratulations, you have just
>made a complete fool of yourself in front of several thousand Macintosh
>users who are laughing themselves silly at another dumb PC jock.

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. 

>>...and OS/2 is actully cheaper...

>Oh?  IBM is actually *paying you* to take OS/2?  Well, maybe they
>figured they'd charge what it was worth. :-)

>>As for DOS users only having two useful programs... There's nothing 
>>to demonstrate that this isn't actually voluntary and to the user's 
>>advantage...

>Let me get this straight, having only one or two programs at your
>disposal is an advantage?  Yeah, right.  Just like owning only one
>or two books.  Why would anyone want more than that?  Of course it
>may be "voluntary."  Because it's so difficult and expensive to try
>out new software, the typical PC users probably doesn't even realize
>what he's missing.  If you buy a toy computer, like a Commodore 64
>or a "396SX", you may find it hard to even imagine the full potential
>of what a real computer can do. 

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.  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).

>>Nothing bugs me more than this sillyness of trying to believe 
>>one's own machine is the best at everything...You'd better face 
>>the facts: DOS machines have some serious advantages over Macs...

>Agreed.  At least 75% of all computer games, for example, 
>seem to be made for PCs only.  If I wanted to buy a computer
>solely for playing games, I would choose a PC.  But if I want
>a machine that's versatile enough to meet *all* my needs, I
>won't even consider it.

Obviously.  But (and oooh, am I gonna catch flames for this one) unless
your needs include NEEDING more than one screen and/or having a
requirement for nifty movies in the OS, I'd be willing to bet that a PC
will fulfill them.  Multiple screen support and Quicktime are the only
REAL advantages a Mac has (I can feel the heat already).  There are catch
phrases and buzzwords aplenty, (ease of use!  Fast SCSI drives! Consistant
interface! Fully integrated hardware!) but none of them boil down into a
"You can do this on a mac but not on a pc" sentence.  Precious few of them
even boil down to "You can do this on a mac better than on a pc."  This
dumb PC jock thinks that if any of you would actually sit down with a PC
and just USE it instead of stopping every few seconds to think "Hey, my
mac does that better (or even differently)" you would find that, just like
with the mac, there are very few things you CAN'T do.   Now consider that
buying a PC to do that job is considerable cheaper (PLEASE INSERT FLAME OF
YOUR CHOICE HERE) and you have the point most of us dumb PC jocks have
been trying to get across.

>>like the limitations the Mac resources set on application design 
>>allow DOS programs to be more vertical, that is, they can be 
>>designed to be the >best< at what they do, not crippled by being
>>universally recognisable...

>You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  First of
>all, nothing requires a Macintosh programmer to use resources
>if he doesn't need/want to.  Secondly, resources make it *easier* 
>to customize software for specific applications.  Thirdly, this
>has absolutely nothing to do with software being "vertical."  I
>am a bit surprised, though, that you at least knew the Macintosh
>has resources.

I'm not the least bit surprised that you added that last sentence.  PLEASE
realize that this perhaps indicates the poster knows what he is talking
about, and that perhaps he holds opinions worthy of consideration.

>>you can't buy accounting or database software for the
>>Mac that is anything better than middle-of the road on 
>>a DOS machine...

>Bullpuckey.  One of the leading tax packages for PCs is called
>Macintax for Windows.  Can you perhaps guess from the title what
>machine that program was developed for first?

I know nothing of accounting software.  I will add, though, that I have
never heard of Macintax.  I have heard of other packages, such as Quicken
and Microsoft Money.  As an uninformed user, I would therefore have to
conclude that Macintax is not a leading product.  I do know a little about
databases, and am forced to agree with the original poster.

>>And take BBSs...there's absolutely nothing for the GUI 
>>forced on Mac designers to do...

>Uh, yeah.  All those America Online icons are just figments
>of my imagination, right? 

Look at the poster's next sentence...  A BBS server is only an ASCII
character processor.  It's only means of communication with it's clients
is through a 1-bit character-only bus (a serial line).  You do realize
that America Onlines servers are not Mac's, don't you?  I'd even wager
that they don't even have a GUI on the system.

>>it just wastes power that could be used to
>>process the character chains that are all even boards with GUI emulating
>>clientware use...

>Fortunately, the Mac has plenty of power to "waste."  In fact, even
>the "396SX" does.  Even the fastest modems operate so slowly that the
>CPU spends most of its time just sitting around, twiddling its thumbs, 
>waiting for I/O to happen.  It seems that not only don't you know anything
>about Macs, you don't know very much about computers in general.

I think you misunderstood the poster's point.  He was talking about BBS
clients, which may be forced to handle many dozens of simultaneous serial
ports.  This is a MAJOR drain on CPU power.  Having to commit CPU time to
maintaining a superfluous (to this application) GUI is pointless.  Thus,
very few dedicated BBS servers are run on Mac's.  Most are PC's or Unix boxes.

>>And even on the GUI is better end...Amiga has a much better interface than
>>Mac, 

>The Amiga has better high-speed *graphics*.  The interface suffers
>from the same sort of inconsistency as Windows programs.  Every
>program has its own unique look and feel because programmers do
+h>their own thing.  Learning to use one program does not make it
>any easier to learn another.  (I know... who wants to use more
>than one or two programs anyway, right?)  On top of that, most
>Amiga programs I have seen, like many PC programs, display an
>excessive, frivolous, and inappropriate use of color that makes
>screens hard to read.

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.  Or get OS/2 (not that there aren't a lot of
other reasons to).  IBM chose a much less colorful interface default.

OK folks, flame away.  Just keep it light.  There are much better reasons
to bite someone's head off than his advocacy of a computer.


Andy Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu
                                      Just another dumb PC jock.