From: mharm@ccs.northeastern.edu (Michael Harm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (longish; a proposal)
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:42:23 GMT
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
Originator: mharm@sun350j.ccs.northeastern.edu

>The reason I ask people like you to post what they have is to see if you
>are espousing that the macs are worth the extra cost when they haven't
>actually bought a mac for themselves.  It doesn't sound right to me when
>people say how much the mac is worth the extra money when their company
>was the one who had to put out the dough.  Also it would show that those
>people who have bought mac systems comparable to the 386 systems I have
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>described have a much bigger wallet than the average person and that
>cost may not be a priority to them.  And again I'll restate the
>point of my posts is that macs cost too much.  The 2 to 3 times the cost
>to a corresponding PC system is not worth the little extras you get on a
>mac.  I use a mac at work because I like it better and I don't pay for it,
>but at home, I have a PC because it is the best bang for the buck.
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sang J. Moon


I've been following this thread far longer than any reasonable person
would, and it seems to me that the solution to this argument/discussion,
if any such thing can be found, is to acknowledge that we are attempting
to compare machines that are fundamentally different, and we're not bothering
to specify our metrics of comparisons.  Precisly what is a "mac system
comparable to a 386"?  Let's pull a comparison metric out of the air:

Value =  (mips * A + megaflops * B + HD_megabytes * C + ram_megabytes * D +
            monitor_colors * E + monitor_resolution * F) / Price_in_dollars;

Fill in values of A,B,C,D,E and F according to your needs.

Fill in the following form with how much each feature is worth to you, and apply
each one to a given computer and add the result to the above value.
This is your total value.

Easy manipulation, addition, deletion of fonts: ________
Consistent interface across all apps: __________
Extensible System (allows Quicktime and who knows what else): _________           
Sound: __________
drag 'n drop file system (no, the program manager in win3.0 don't count): _______
Annoyance factor, from "abort, retry, ignore" and such: _______
Cheap 3rd party add-ons: ________

If you put a zero for all of the above except the last one, a dos machine
is probably the machine for you.  If you use the machine for simulations
and other number crunching, a mac probably isn't the machine for you unless
users are gonna be using it.  A mac wasn't designed to have people launch
2 hour simulations and walk away; if this is what you're doing it would
obviously be cracked to buy an LC.  A gui is for personal productivity,
and if the machine is basically a floating point coffee pot, perking away
for hours and then spitting out results then it is clear the gui doesn't do
any good.  Us mac fans often make the mistake of not recognizing that not
all personal computer users use the machines for what we use them for.
The mistake that a lot of ibm compatible fans make is to simply see
the value of a computer as being equal to clock speed divided by dollar cost,
and saying "gosh, the 386 is a great buy!".  

One thing I'm curious about: what exactly does one do at home on a computer
that one needs 386/486 power?  Type?  Play games?  Program? (what kind
of programs? and for whom? and to do what?) Balance a checkbook?  Dial
up bulletin boards?  I'm a Ph.D student in computer science who is quite
happy with an LC at home for typing, graphs, charts and dialup.  For 
school work I use the school's computers (which are much more powerful 
than I could ever afford).  And I could have gotten away with a classic II, 
which our campus computer store is now selling for about $1100.
Unless I'm going to do my neural net research at home (in which case a
486 won't cut it either, I'll need a dec 5000), I can't imagine needing
that much computational horsepower. 

I'm always asking friends who have bought a 386 what they are going to do 
with it, and 9 out of 10 can't give an answer other than 
"now I can run windows 3.0".  They always end up using it for the
above mentioned tasks of balancing a checkbook, playing games, etc, none
of which require more than a tenth of the speed of their machine. 
I'm reminded of the people in my hometown (nowheresville, Connecticut)
who would put a V-8 engine in their ford mustang, 12" rear tires, install racing
carburator and exhaust systems, so that they can burn rubber pulling
out of the 7-11 parking lot.  And mac people are guilty of this too; there's
enough people out there who have quadra 700's and use them to run MS Word,
although they are generally spending someone else's money.

Please, if you're going to claim that a dos machine is a better buy,
take the time to state what the thing is going to be for (like the simulation
person from Germany did).  Fill in my above invoice and add other
things that are important (maybe a parallel port is essential for your
application) so we know where you're coming from.  


Cheers, 

Mike Harm
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree that 'two times two makes four' is an excellent thing;
but if we are dispensing praise, then 'two times two makes five'
is sometimes a most charming little thing as well."
                 -Fyodor Dostoevsky,   "Notes From Underground"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc