From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs cost too much (NOT!)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:21:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.150734.18531@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, smoon@strfleet.gsfc.nasa.gov (Sang J. Moon) writes:
> 
> In article <14996@claris.com>, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> > 
> > In article <1992Aug11.234015.2689@CS.ORST.EDU>, pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne) writes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >   > Now, it's very clear that PC type computers outsell Macs (about
> > > >   > 3 to 1 if you believe the industry statistics).  If technical
> > > >   > superiority isn't the issue (which means we don't even have
> > > >   > to argue over whether the Mac IS technologically superior or not),
> > > >   > then I contend that price is the driving force.  The vast
> > > >   > majority of consumers seem to vote for the PC.  So my conclusion
> > > >   > is that, overall, the PC must be cheaper.
> > > 
> > > >   Initially, some PCs are cheaper.  Most people don't look beyond
> > > >   the initial price and fail to take into account the long-term
> > > >   costs of operation.
> > > 
> > > Out of curiosity, what exactlly are these long-term costs that are so much 
> > > higher on a PC than the Mac?  I use both and can't think of any.
> > 
> > Training and support.  Financial reports from major corporations show that
> > within two or three years, the extra costs in training and supporting people
> > for DOS machines costs far more than the savings realized in the initial
> > purchase.
> 
> 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. 

I didn't say anything about maintenance.  I said training and support; support
of the user.

> 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. 

Your experience is apparently in the minority.  Industry-wide, the reports
that I've cited show what I wrote that they show.

> 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.  The reason I like the Mac better is
> because it had a nicer user interface, but it's not perfect and I can
> live with the CLI that Unix and PC machine have.  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.  Windows NT isn't far behind, and
> if it lives up to its hype, Macs may lose more of their market if prices
> don't go down dramatically.  Many people have pressed the issue that it
> is harder to handle hardware on PCs than on Macs.  This is true, but in
> most cases it is not too much a problem.  Of course, I have supported PCs
> and Macs most of my life, so I can handle most problems that occur on
> either machine.  For the totally new user or someone who has only worked
> with the software aspect of the computer, buying a Macintosh for themselves
> is probably more cost-effective in the short-run.  But in the long run,
> a user learns all about their machine and encounters and overcome problems
> which take up significant time on either a Mac or a PC.  At least, this is
> true from my 10+ years of computing.  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.

You have supported PCs and Mac for the most of your life?  The Mac is about 8.5
years old; so if you have been supporting since it came out that means that
you're not older than 17, and have been supporting the Mac since you were
eight and a half.  For some reason, I have a hard time believing this.  As I
wrote earlier, the industry statistics show that your experience is atypical.

On a related subject, in 1987, the Small Computer Evaluation Lab of the US
Army Informations Systems Command at Fort Huachuca, Arizona received a number
of Mac SE and Mac II computers for evaluation.  The commanding general of the
ISC didn't want them, and the people who ran the lab didn't want them, but
Department of the Army told them that they would conduct the evaluation.  The
computers were tied in to an AppleTalk network with two Laserwriter printers.
Within six months, more than eighty percent of the people who had been using
the computers said that the Macintosh was their computer of choice, and more
than half of them purchased Macs for their personal use.  When the year's
evaluation period was finished, John Scully wrote a letter to the commanding
general, thanking him for the fair and honest evaluation that his staff had
given the Macintosh (BTW, they did raise some valid criticisms, and Apple has
addressed many, if not all, of them.), and asked him to particularly thank
the chief of the lab for his efforts.  The general, upon reading the letter,
stormed into that Major's office and accused him of "selling out to Apple."

BTW, at the time, I lived in the area, and had helped install the initial
system, and was friends with a few people in the lab.  Another friend of
mine was good friends with the chief of the lab.  That's how I know what
happened.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer