From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! .NOT.
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:04:01 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <_y!p9df.marquis@netcom.com>, marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
> In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>In article <1657@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
>>> Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
>>
>>Name *ONE*.
> 
> How about network servers?  Dial-in servers?  Database platforms?  

Good answer.

Actually, Macs do an OK job as network and dial-in servers for other
Macs. The Mac OS really isn't designed for this, and that is why performance
is often non-impressive in these applications. (For example, the fastest
AppleTalk server you can find is to run a Novell Netware 3.0 server with
the AppleTalk package -- their OS is designed for high-performance servers)

For Database, the Mac makes an excellent workstation. After all, DAL, and
SQL-like query languge is built into System 7. 

> Inexpensive and non-proprietary terminal servers?  

In these days of information sharing between computers, terminals are passe.
(There. I said it.)

> Anything that requires system programming (batch files).  

I have get to see a "system programming" application. This is a bad answer.
That's unfortunate. You're other answers were quite good.

>>RE: PC Applications. If you develop for Windows, it ain't any easier. If you
>>develop for DOS, your applications are easier because they do less. Hence, you
>>aren't comparing equivalent things.
>>
> It depends on what you mean by applications.  It would be difficult to
> argue that anything, on any platform, is easier to write a simple
> application under than Visual Basic.

How about writing the same application with Hypercard?

>>And that was a few years ago, before the introduction of lower cost Macs.
>>While PC hardware has gotten even cheaper, those maintainence and training
>>costs haven't!
> 
> Are you serious Bill?  Mac's cheaper than PCs?  Wasn't it less than 2
> years ago that the cheapest Ethernet option on a Mac cost nearly
> $1000 vs. $100 on a PC?  

You must be thinking of another era. Perhaps an alternate universe. I remember
when some Macintosh ethernet solutions were expensive, but never $1000.

Of course, today several Mac models have built-in Ethernet -- something many
PCs (even high-end) lack. 

> I don't expect proprietary hardware
> platforms will ever approach open systems in cost, not to mention
> development time, number of available applications, and hardware options, 
> especially with 8 expansion slots.  

Roger, there are several problems with this statement. 

First, the Mac *IS* an open system. Has been since at least 1987. If you want
you can develop cards for it. You can develop peripherals that attach to the
ADB or SCSI interfaces. This "no-slot" argument should have died in 87. 

Second, you are only addressing HARDWRE costs. There's more to a computer than
a collection of hardware. If you're computer is just going to sit on your
desk and look nice, I suggest you get some of those cheap cardboard "computers"
they use to demonstrate computer furniture. It will look about as nice, and
they cost pennies.

Last, my original post considered ALL the costs of a computer. That includes
hardware, software, training and maintainence. Maintainence includes not
only supplimental peripherals, but the experience and time it takes to set
this equipment up and make it work.

An example? My wife has got an IBM Ultimedia machine. She set it up herself,
because she couldn't wait the 4 months it is going to take for her lab to
be ready and the hired people to set it up herself. She still can't get the
touch screen to work, not to mention the video capture card to operate
properly.

Also where she works, they got a Video Toaster. The Amiga has done a slightly
better job, but there are still a few ghosting effects they haven't worked
out of the system.

They also bought a sound editing system. This system is interesting that it
is based on a IIci. It is set up and working perfectly.

I'm 100% sure that if her employers had bought Macs instead of IBM equipment,
my wife would have her machine up and running 100% capability right now. And
it wouldn't have taken several weekends worth of effort, like with this IBM
machine. (which doesn't work yet)

So, if you are going to compare costs, you must consider all the costs, not
just the cost of the hardware.

> Heck, if it wasn't for Apple's fleet of lawyers I would even be able to 
> chose MacOS as one of my software options instead of just DOS, Windows and 
> UNIX.

By what twist of logic do you come to that conclusion?


--
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy