From: carter@cae.wisc.edu (Carter Gregory)
Subject: Re: Mac's Doomsday
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:42:47 CDT

In article <DRAND.92Oct5102411@spinner.osf.org> drand@spinner.osf.org (Douglas S. Rand) writes:
>In article <Nazedgi-031092150743@stiles-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> Nazedgi@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu writes:
>
>   Being a former PC user and now a Mac convert I've come to the following
>   conclusion:  The majority of Mac users just don't get it.  If Apple really
>   wants to lure a significant amount of PC users it will have to do something
>   more than proclaim the superiority of the Mac hardware and software. 
>   They'll have to enter a cut-throat competition:  Dell is doing it, Compaq
>   is doing it,  Big Blue is doing it.  And I'm not talking about
>   middle-of-the-road solutions like the Performa line,  I'm talking about
>   really powerful computer at cheap prices.  Right now, you can get Windows
>   workstations for less than $2000 (including a monitor) that would blow away
>   all but the fastest macs, the Quadra line. Now, I'm not saying that Windows
>   is even close to the MacOS (heck, it's not even an operating system), but
>   it will certainly give you a good run for your money.  For the average PC
>   user, Macs look pretty,  but incredibly overpriced. 
>
>If your PC user runs Windows 3.x then he will probably notice that to
>get performance equivalent to a IIsi he'll need at least a slow
>486 box.  Windows/NT and OS/2 both make this still worse.  System 7
>is (believe it or not) more sparing of RAM then Windows 3.x and has
>most of the same functionality (lacking DLLs).  
>
>Secondly,  many people just look at the price of entry.  The Performas
>are not a bad attempt at lowering this and making it easy.  Almost
>none of the home users care about performance,  they only care if
>it can get their job done.  Most business users (real PC users) 
>are in the same boat.  They want price,  ease of use and
>performance,  IMO in that order.  Windows still doesn't equal MacOS
>in ease of use,  and the real price of a reasonable PC with a sharp
>screen (not the 200 VGA with the 1" spot size) is at least that of
>an equivalent Mac.  
>
>One persons opinions.
>
>  
>
>
>--
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Douglas S. Rand <drand@osf.org>		OSF/Motif Dev.
>Snail:         11 Cambridge Center,  Cambridge,  MA  02142
>Disclaimer:    I don't know if OSF agrees with me... let's vote on it.
>Amateur Radio: KC1KJ
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to make a comment about bus backplanes.  The MACS
NuBUS backplane is far, if not light years ahead of ISA Machines with
fairly heavy duty processors sitting on it.  New computing technologies
are poised on the horizon.  One, multiprocessor architectures, are going
to be the key in differentiating computers of the 21st century from those
of the 20th century on our desktops.  NO WAY does ISA have this bandwidth
to be even considered to be a contender in this arena.

32bit processors sitting in little bottles that can only see 16 bits at
a time at on a 12Mhz bus aren't going to be able to cut the butter.

Thats what intrigues me so about Apple's obvious implied use upgrade
of the NuBUS on the Quadra 950's.  With the added speed, and functionality
with a theoretical 350MBytes per second you could do some serious parallel
computing.

Maybe thats why I already have 2 grand saved to buy a 950 sometime in
August next year...I hear prices will have dropped by then...:).

I also of course, appreciate the fact that I don't have to run Norton
to figure out what IPL's are used everytime I want to add a bus card! 

I just feel that although Mac hardware costs a bit more, the benefits
are numerous and sometimes taken advantage for, without remember poor
486 processors stuck on 16bit busses.

-Greggy POO