From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:31:13 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <714823281.F00001@blkcat.UUCP> Kaz.Karl@f1138.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Kaz Karl) writes:

>Oh, be real...Perhaps you can buy an si for $2500, but that 
>clunky machine is the equivilant of the 396SX I just got for 
>a client for six hundred new...

Be real yourself.  I use a 20 MHz 386 at work -- A real 386,
not the crippleware SX version.  (There's no such thing as
a 396, by the way.)  We paid over $7000 for the hardware and
software.  After struggling with this machine and its miserable
performance for over six months, we finally decided that we needed
to spend even more money to buy accelerated graphics cards. Not to
to do anything sophisticated like fast 32-bit graphics, mind you,
just to run Windows.  Each of these cards cost about $600 by itself.
I have to admit that, compared to previous performance, Windows flies
with the new card.  At impulse power, at least.  I'd have to rate the
performance as comparable to a Mac Classic.  The IIsi, by comparison,
flies at warp speed.

>and Mac charges for it's >own< OS software, if you want a legitamate copy...

What always amazes me about PC bigots is not just their ignorance,
but how *proud* they are of that ignorance.  If you spent five minutes
at an Apple dealer, or talked to anyone who owned a Macintosh, you
could learn that is not true.  You can download a *legitimate* copy
from any number of places, get a free copy (except for the cost of
the disks and sometimes a small copying fee) from a dealer, or make
a *legitimate* copy from a friend.  Congratulations, you have just
made a complete fool of yourself in front of several thousand Macintosh
users who are laughing themselves silly at another dumb PC jock.


>...and OS/2 is actully cheaper...

Oh?  IBM is actually *paying you* to take OS/2?  Well, maybe they
figured they'd charge what it was worth. :-)

>As for DOS users only having two useful programs... There's nothing 
>to demonstrate that this isn't actually voluntary and to the user's 
>advantage...

Let me get this straight, having only one or two programs at your
disposal is an advantage?  Yeah, right.  Just like owning only one
or two books.  Why would anyone want more than that?  Of course it
may be "voluntary."  Because it's so difficult and expensive to try
out new software, the typical PC users probably doesn't even realize
what he's missing.  If you buy a toy computer, like a Commodore 64
or a "396SX", you may find it hard to even imagine the full potential
of what a real computer can do. 


>Nothing bugs me more than this sillyness of trying to believe 
>one's own machine is the best at everything...You'd better face 
>the facts: DOS machines have some serious advantages over Macs...

Agreed.  At least 75% of all computer games, for example, 
seem to be made for PCs only.  If I wanted to buy a computer
solely for playing games, I would choose a PC.  But if I want
a machine that's versatile enough to meet *all* my needs, I
won't even consider it.


>like the limitations the Mac resources set on application design 
>allow DOS programs to be more vertical, that is, they can be 
>designed to be the >best< at what they do, not crippled by being
>universally recognisable...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  First of
all, nothing requires a Macintosh programmer to use resources
if he doesn't need/want to.  Secondly, resources make it *easier* 
to customize software for specific applications.  Thirdly, this
has absolutely nothing to do with software being "vertical."  I
am a bit surprised, though, that you at least knew the Macintosh
has resources.


>you can't buy accounting or database software for the
>Mac that is anything better than middle-of the road on 
>a DOS machine...

Bullpuckey.  One of the leading tax packages for PCs is called
Macintax for Windows.  Can you perhaps guess from the title what
machine that program was developed for first?


>And take BBSs...there's absolutely nothing for the GUI 
>forced on Mac designers to do...

Uh, yeah.  All those America Online icons are just figments
of my imagination, right? 

>it just wastes power that could be used to
>process the character chains that are all even boards with GUI emulating
>clientware use...

Fortunately, the Mac has plenty of power to "waste."  In fact, even
the "396SX" does.  Even the fastest modems operate so slowly that the
CPU spends most of its time just sitting around, twiddling its thumbs, 
waiting for I/O to happen.  It seems that not only don't you know anything
about Macs, you don't know very much about computers in general.


>And even on the GUI is better end...Amiga has a much better interface than
>Mac, 

The Amiga has better high-speed *graphics*.  The interface suffers
from the same sort of inconsistency as Windows programs.  Every
program has its own unique look and feel because programmers do
their own thing.  Learning to use one program does not make it
any easier to learn another.  (I know... who wants to use more
than one or two programs anyway, right?)  On top of that, most
Amiga programs I have seen, like many PC programs, display an
excessive, frivolous, and inappropriate use of color that makes
screens hard to read.


>and handles Multimedia in a way that makes Quicktime even more of a
>pathetic embarrasement than it already is...

Which, of course, is why Silicon Graphics has chosen to support
Quicktime on its Iris workstations, right?  To "embarass" some
more customers into buying $35,000 graphics boxes.