From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:02:16 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 <1992Aug27.205714.13960@CS.ORST.EDU> pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne) writes:

>If your company paid over $7000 for a 386, your company is not going to 
>make it very long.  It sounds like a goverment agency spending thousands
>on toilet seats, 

Oh?  What government agency spent thousands of dollars on a toilet
seat?  I know the press *reported* that the US Air Force spent
thousands of dollars on a toilet seat, but that was dead wrong
-- the bill was actually for a toilet *cover*, an injection-
molded plastic part covering the entire toilet and weighing
600 lbs.  So, do you know of an example where a government
agency actually did spend that much on a toilet seat.  I'm
just trying to see how careful you are with your facts here.
Establishing your credibility, so to speak.

>Everyone working for your purchasing department should be fired.  
>The only exception would be if the computer cost you very little 
>and your using packages like autocad that can run into the thousands.  

The decision was not made by the purchasing department and was not
made on the basis of cost.  If it was, we would have gotten Macs.
The cost was so high primarily because we needed two-page monitors
for word processing.  Unfortunately, all the two-page monochrome 
monitors for the PC are nonstandard and could not be guaranteed
to work with our software.  So we had to get color monitors instead,
and, because we were going to be using them for word processing and
needed the best possible display quality, rather expensive color
monitors at that.  This made the PCs (surprise!) more expensive
than the Macs, which could have done the job with much-less-expensive
monochrome monitors.
 
>If so, your argument is invalid, because serious software costs 
>the same on either side of the fence.

Oh?  Let's see, Hypercard is... free.  Toolbook costs... $400, 
is it?  That seems like a pretty significant price difference
to me.


>Give OS/2 a shot, you'll realize what a good GUI and OS is.  Much nicer
>than System 7 IMHO.

Well, your opinion is obviously not the opinion of the company
that developed OS/2.  In case you haven't heard, they gave Apple
the right to use the hottest RISC processor around in exchange
for the right to use the Macintosh interface in their future
operating systems.  IBM has seen the future, and it is Pink.


>This was believed when the mac was developed too, but try a real OS that
>can do pre-emptive multitasking, allowing you to run a number of programs
>at once, using more and more of your CPU, and you won't have many CPU 
>cycles wasted.  

No.  Instead, the OS will come along while my paint program is "wasting"
time in tight loop, tracking the mouse and updating my drawing.  It will
hit the program over the head with a hammer so that it can give time to
some more "important" process.  Eventually, it will decide to give time
back to me -- by which time my hand and the mouse have moved, leaving a
big ugly gap that ruins my drawing.  Yes, sir, I can't wait to get
preemptive multitasking on my PC!


>And if you had this OS on a mac, you would run into a big
>problem, 

Oh, really?  Obviously, then, you don't believe that UNIX
is a preemptive operating system, you've never heard of A/UX,
or you think it's a figment of someone's imagination.

>I have a Mac IIci, PC clone 486/33, and a unix box HP 9000/350.  The Mac
>is a poor comparison even to the HP9000/350 running X-windows.  The sad
>part about this is that the HP only has a 68020-16 in it.  The PC blows
>them both away.  

Your arrogance is incredible.  I run X-Windows on a PC 8 hours a day. 
Your saying that the Mac is a poor comparison to X-Windows shows that
you are not only willing to lie to make a point but that you have so
much contempt for the Mac users you are speaking to that you think
none of them will see through that lie.  When I drag a window on the
Mac, it moves.  Period.  When I drag a window under X, it can take
anywhere from several seconds to several *minutes* for it to move.
The Mac is a poor comparison?  Kid, there ain't no comparison!