From: AALMQUIS@LIBRARY.UNT.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Subject: RE: Macs vs IBM
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:42:06 GMT
              <CDROMLAN@IDBSU.BITNET>
Organization: University of North Texas
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).

RE: MACS IN USE IN CD-ROM NETWORK SETTINGS

There have been several questions concerning the use of Macs and PCs
in CD-ROM network settings over the past few days.  Let me throw in
my 2 cents:

Macs have certain advantages over PCs.  However, Macophiles, PCs do
have a number of advantages over Macs:

1.  Apple has never seriously addressed many of the concerns common
both to large-scale business users and, interestingly, large academic
computer labs.  What solutions they did offer have since been
removed.  What do I mean?  Apple has had a particular usage model in
mind since the beginning: the creative, touchy-feely type of
application where 'operator and machine flow together to create a
smoothe continuum of creative, artistic work'.  The grungy, data-
crunching type of work, still VERY predominant in the micro world has
been abandoned by Apple.  Sorry guys, but numbers still need to be
crunched, and reams of data still have to be printed "quick and
dirty".

What types of things indicate this abandonment?  Apple does not offer
(or make it easy to offer) high-speed, heavy duty printing solutions.
The equipment is not built to withstand heavy use/abuse.  Where is
native-mode (Mac vs. Mac/PC emulation) sharing of CD-ROMs?

2.  Apple, although making networking 'easy' with its built-in
networking, does not address the needs of large-scale
network/microcomputer management.  How?

a.  I have a computer lab with 40 machines.  The lab is used heavily,
24 hours a day, 7 days per week (our whole operation here operates
around the clock).  My 20 PCs have an uptime of approximately 98%+.
We have chronic downtime problems with our Macs, with an average
uptime running from 60-70%.  I have an inhouse Mac technician who
cares for the machines, and we have FINALLY found an outside service
provider who does a decent job at providing more serious service for
these machines.  As a further example, we occasionally blow out our
PC keyboards with compressed air (Keytronics KB 101s).  Aside from an
occasional stuck or malfunctioning key, the boards go on and on.  Our
Mac keyboards have to be disassembled and cleaned very frequently in
order to assure trouble-free operation.  We recently switched to the
Keytronics Mac keyboard and have had better operation, although the
Mac version costs us 2-4 times the price of our PC Keytronics.

b.  Parts compatibility:  There are oodles of Mac models out there,
most of which do not share parts.  Keeping an adequate inventory of
parts is a nightmare.  Buying parts is really hairy since Apple
doesn't really like users fooling around inside their machines and
since third party suppliers do exist, but are not really supported by
Apple.  Parts pricing is ridiculous.

c.  Networking of software:  We do not find our network installations
of Mac software to be as easy to install or maintain as those of our
PCs (even Windows).  They also do not appear to be as secure.

d.  Apple Tech Support has not (the last time I called) realized that
third party products exist and refuses to support their use with
their machines (I'm thinking specifically of an instance where we
wanted to attach an NEC MacSync monitor to a Mac II/ci and could not
get an answer from Apple as to compatibility.  They simply refused to
tell us.  NEC did help us.

In short, once again, Macs are neat.  They have their uses.  However,
when a company remains as purposely proprietary as Apple has, I have
grave concerns about basing a large-scale operation on their
products.  I don't have as many options with Apple as I do with my
PCs.  I have more management headaches.  Contrary to their ads, they
cost more to buy and cost more to repair and maintain.  They also are
not aiming their products into traditional microcomputing
applications.  Hence, we have them for their strengths, but if I were
setting up and operation today and trying to decide exclusively
between one or the other platform, given realities of personnel and
resources, I would go with PCs first, and then add Macs for their
special capabilities later.

The above is borne out by the fact that our lab users overwhelmingly
make use of the PCs well above those who use Macs.  This is despite
Apple's overwhelming advantage in the public education market
(meaning that our freshmen should, theoretically, have a greater
chance at pre-college Mac exposure than IBM exposure) and the fact
that we strive to keep our Mac installation up to date and
operating at the best level possible.

Arne J. Almquist
Assistant to the Director of Libraries for
Networking and Microcomputer Resources
University of N. Texas--Libraries
P.O. Box 5188
Denton, TX  76203-0188

ph. 817/565-3278
Bitnet: FB23@UNTVAX
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU