From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (NOT!)
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:23:57 GMT
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.

In <1992Aug13.150734.18531@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> smoon@strfleet.gsfc.nasa.gov (Sang J. Moon) writes:

>At least with the state and federal agencies I've worked with, maintenance
>is handled with companies so that a fee is paid ahead of time.  This fee
>covers all labor and hardware required for any product.  The fee differs
>between different companies, but there seems to be no distiction in cost
>between servicing Mac or PC products.  

Is this surprising, given the contracting practices of Federal agencies?
  

>Training is usually handled in-house by someone whose job is to do 
>training either for the mac or the PC.  From my experience, training 
>and support costs are not significantly different between the PC or the Mac.  

Oh?  Really?  I can train someone to hook a second monitor to a Macintosh
and configure the two screens to appear side by side on the desktop in
(conservatively) five minutes.  How long do you thing it would take you
to train someone to do the same thing on a PC?  Why don't you go out and
try it.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  (Of course, that may mean we'll never hear
from Mr. Moon again. :-)


>I've had to service PCs and Macs and train people on both machines, 
>and I have encountered more than my share of problems on either machine.  

I've driven American automobiles and Japanese imports and I have
encountered more than my share of problems with both.  That doesn't
mean that there's no difference in quality.  A Toyota or Suzuki is
better than a Chevy Vega, just as Macintosh is better than an IBM PC
(or PC knockoff), the fact that all require occassional service work
notwithstanding.


>Windows was inferior to the Mac OS when it came out, but using Windows 3.1 
>on a 386-40 may impress many mac users if they gave it a chance.  

Yeah, sure.  Running on a 32-bit 40-Mhz machine, Windows may impress
many Mac users -- the ones who only own a Classic.  In terms of speed,
at least.  Still, it won't take more than a quick look at the aesthetics
and human engineering of the windows, menus, buttons, etc. to make even
those users think, "what a piece of sh*t."


>Of course, I have supported PCs and Macs most of my life, so I can handle 
>most problems that occur on either machine.  

Hm.  Well, the Mac came out in '84, so it's now 8 years old.  If you've
been supporting Macs for "most of your life," that means you must be
less than 16 years old (and started supporting Macs and PCs before age 8.)  
You seem to be quite a prodigy.


>The initial investment needed for a Mac is definitely much higher than a pc, 
>but in the long run, the cost in time, software, and hardware for corresponding 
>systems is pretty much the same.

Really?  Last week, I saw a computer store selling Adobe Type Manager
for the PC for $45.  Mac users can get it free (well, almost free, $7
shipping) by calling Adobe's 800 number.  Here is yet another example
to show: PCs cost too damn much!