From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:57:00 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 <ajross.715279978@husc10> ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross) writes:

>Granted, I've never used Ventura Publisher for Windows (although I have
>used the older GEM version, which DOES need memory management hacks like
>LIM 4.0).  I have a little trouble believing this statement though.  

That's the problem.  You are unable to believe that someone using
PCs for real-world applications might run into problems that a college
student, running the student version of Pagemaker or Turbo Pascal or
whatever, might never see.

>Under windows, unless you specifically code otherwise, all applications 
>see a flat 32 bit addressing space, 

Or unless Windows has bugs in it.  Which it does.  What your textbooks
tell you not withstanding.


>Tell that to the millions of office assistants and others out there who
>use PC's every day to do productive work.  I can see logic in claiming
>that the Mac is more efficient/easier, but claiming that no one can even
>use a PC without internals knowlege?  Come on.

Well, I can't see any logic at all in your arguments.  

First you claimed that Apple's method of distributing its 
operating system free of charge, without documents, was 
inadequate because no one could use an OS for serious work
without documentation of its internals.

Then you said that the only reason I have problems with
my PC that I never have with my Macintosh was because I
didn't understand PC internals.

Then, when I said, "yes, that's the trouble with PCs, you
can't use them without becoming an expert on internals,"
you say that "millions of office assistants... use PCs
without internals knowledge."

And you ask *me* where's the logic.

Furthermore, there's one thing you forgot to mention:
those millions of office assistants you talk about are
backed up by hundreds of thousands of support specialists
who handle the internals for them.  (You should also include
some fraction of their salaries in the cost of your PC.) The
real question is, can an individual user who does not have a
support organization behind him set up a PC, install software,
and customize his setup without knowledge of PC internals? The
answer is left as an exercise for the student. 


>Touche.  You did, however, argue that the cost was justified in order to
>get "good quality", something I and many others disputed.  Our point was
>that the $7000 you spent was essentially wasted on buying a 386-20. 

No, I never said the price was justified to get "good quality."  
we could have gotten good quality for a lower price than that --
but it wouldn't have been a PC.  I said that the price was necessary
to get *acceptable* quality from a PC.

>Anyone familiar with the PC world should have known this, IMHO.  I am
>writing this on a 486-33 I paid $2300 for a year ago and have had ZERO
>problems with.

Did that $2300 bargain PC include a two-page color display, NFS
networking hardware and software, Xvision, and applications software,
or are you still playing the same game of comparing prices on
machines with radically different specifications?  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc