From: coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:06:30 GMT
Reply-To: coolidge@apple.com
Organization: Open Systems Development, Porting&I/O Group, Apple Computer, Inc.

spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>Yes, macs are more expensive than PCs, but you get what you pay for.   
>And obviously, NeXT does not compete in the market niche where the  
>Performas are.  But at the high end, NeXT has a significant  
>price/performance advantage over macs:

>Mac IIci (25MHz 68030) 5/80 + 12" mono display: $3111
>NeXTstation (25MHz 68040) 8/105 (incl 17" mono display) $3150.

Might as well throw this one out. The Performa 600 (which should
compete nicely with a IIci, especially if you don't do lots of
floating point or if you install a FPU) should be about $2700 with a
mono display AND a CD-ROM.

>Quadra 700 (25MHz 68040) 4/80 + 12" mono display: $4245
>Quadra 950 (33MHz 68040) 8/230 + 12" mono display: $5107
>NeXtstation turbo (33MHz 68040) 8/250 (incl 17" display) $3851

NeXT wins this one, but barely (I've seen Q700s street for less than
$4245 with display -- edu should be better). Note that, at least at
U. of Illinois, the $3851 price did not include a keyboard or
NeXTStep (at all -- you HAD to buy it separately, or so the computer
store people and their price sheet claimed).

>A.	Real multi-tasking.  Just how many apps can you have
>	running at once on a Mac?  My processes panel currently lists 
>	15.  OK, some are idle - there is little incentive to shut
>	them down, but Mathematica is churning away as i write this.   
>	And a long print job just finished.  And my screen background 
>	is a moving star-field a la Star Trek.

Lesse - I've got 12 apps running on my Q700 right now. I'm not sure
what the processes panel shows on a NeXT -- do you get Unix-daemon
processes there too? If so, then my Q700 counts as 43 (Unix) plus 12
(MacOS) process == 55 total. Enough for you?

>B.	Display PostScript.  What you see on the screen is really
>	what you get, since the screen and printer imaging are the 
>	same (except for resolution differences).  None of the 
>	Quickdraw/PS inconsistencies you see on the mac.  In Adobe 
>	Illustrator, I can edit directly in view mode; I don't have 
>	to switch back and forth to see what I'm going to get.

I see inconsistencies on the Mac? You're right -- there is some
(small) benefit to having the same imaging model on the printer as on
the screen. But very few Mac apps have any actual difference between
screen and output anyway, and most of those are caused by
screen-resolution, not by imaging model. The NeXT has those glitches
too, as you note, and they're the bulk of the problem on both systems.

On the other hand, DPS is a PIG! It's amazing that a Mac IIci visably
outperforms a 25MHz '040 NeXT, especially given that the NeXT is only
doing 2 bits deep while the IIci is doing 8 bits. But DPS is a real
pig, and you pay for that occasional bit of graphics consistency.

--John

	"Character is what you are in the dark."
		-- Dr. Emilio Lizardo, _Buckaroo_Banzai_

+++John L. Coolidge++++++++++++++++coolidge@apple.com+++++++++++++++++++++++
I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer. Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge.
Copying allowed only if attributed, and if all copies may be further copied.