From: jan3@po.cwru.edu (James A. Nauer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Subject: Re: Macs vs IBM
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:41:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ul34830.ul.cwru.edu

[Please note the changed follow-up group!]
apologies in advance if you find this to be too much in the flame-counter
flame style...

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.921216120918.288@library.unt.edu>,
AALMQUIS@LIBRARY.UNT.EDU wrote:
> 
> RE: MACS IN USE IN CD-ROM NETWORK SETTINGS
[...]
> 
> Macs have certain advantages over PCs.  However, Macophiles, PCs do
> have a number of advantages over Macs:

[this first point has nothing to do with CD-ROMs] 
> 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".

You *seem* to be getting hung up on user-interface issues here; just
because mac's don't have 80x25 text-only screens doesn't mean they don't do
well with heavy-duty number crunching.  In fact, we've just found out that
most of our '386 PC users here can't run Mathematica 2.x for Windows,
because they don't have the required FPU.  On the Mac side, the vast
majority of Mac II-class machines have FPU's, and crunch numbers *very*
efficiently.

> 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.

That's odd...Our LaserWriter II's are faster than any dot-matrix printer
I've ever seen, and break down less that the HP IIIsi's. (Seriously! Our
4-year-old LW II's are in heavy-abuse lab environments and are almost never
down; the HP IIIsi's may be faster, but the paper-feed mechanisms get out
of whack every few months).  Network printing on the Mac is much easier
than on PC's.

>  Where is
> native-mode (Mac vs. Mac/PC emulation) sharing of CD-ROMs?

Good question.  For the (few) vendors who write native-mode search software
for the Mac, it's a piece of cake.  Networking of CD-ROMs in general needs
a *lot* of work from vendors; those issues have been discussed extensively
on this board in the last couple of weeks.
 
> 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

Something is very wrong here; I have an uptime of 90%+, even though our
preventative maintenance is...ahem...sub-optimal, and I frequently take
several days to get around to calling the problems in to the service
people. 

> 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

Huh?  We've never cleaned a keyboard (PC or Mac).  Doesn't seem to bother
them at all...

> 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.

You've got a point on pricing, but not the compatibility stuff... This is
not a function of how many different Mac or PC models there are, but how
many different ones _your_site_ has. *If* I did all of my own servicing
in-house I would need: one type of power supply (for the SE; the others
have never died); 4 motherboards (SE, IIsi, IIci, IIx); one monitor (13"
RGB); one type of hard disk (maybe a couple different sizes, for diffent
users...); two floppy drives (800k & 1.4 Meg); one type of RAM (1 Meg x 8,
70ns; maybe also a set of 4 Meg x 8).  PC's are a nightmare, mostly in the
power-supply, disk, & RAM area (way too little standardization).
 
> 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.

Odd. I find the opposite to be true. *secure* license management is
difficult in DOS & Windows; copy-protection is hard in DOS, impossible in
Windows. This is especially true if you don't have direct control of the
end-user workstations' configuration (i.e., student machines in the dorms).
 
> 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.

Good point.  Very annoying, but getting better.
 
[...]
> 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.

A regreshingly reasonable outlook.  As long as you don't fall into the trap
of thinking that one machine/OS can do *everything* well, you'll be able to
supply your users with the tools that they need. As a support person, I'm
beginning to think that we'll never see a platform perfect for everything;
fortunately, I enjoy juggling multiple OS's.
 
> 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.

Interesting.  Our campus only has one lab with both PC's & Mac's; both side
are more or less constantly packed with users. There are more PC's,
required by several large freshman-level classes, but the Mac II's have
more of the esoteric packages used in upper-level classes.  The Macs are
also preferred for final reports & presentation-quality stuff (surprise,
surprise).
 
> Arne J. Almquist
> Bitnet: FB23@UNTVAX

James A. Nauer                   | "I shall not yield one whit of maturity,
L.I.T. Facilities Manager        | not grace, not respectibility, to the 
Library Information Technologies | passing of time. I declare that I shall
Case Western Reserve University  | forever be, if not a child, certainly
(216) 368-MACS                   | childish"  --Kennet Shardik
     (368-6227)                  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU