From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:38:45 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	One thing I deleted in this argument was that PCs can't
read Mac disks.  Untrue, there is a PD program that reads mac disks.

> |> 
> |> Comparing a Q950 w/ a 486DX/50 isn't really good, because a Q950 is set
> |> up to compete against workstations, while the 486 system is set up
> |> to do the stuff slower boxes do but faster (you could by the Q950
> |> for the smaller jobs, but why would you?).  Also, because of the shortage
> |> of Q950s right now, the price is higher because of demand.

	I have used a Quadra 700, not 950 but I don't see how it was
so fast.  I couldn't multitask very well and that is quite important in
the "workstation" market.  No one is going to be very impressed with
a 10 grand machine that can't even copy disks in the background very well.
At least my puny 486-33 can do that a lot better than any Quadra can.


> 
> DS> Sorry, but I've used both the Quadra 950 and the 486-50. For straight number
> DS> crunching, there is a definate edge to the 486, which gives it a distinct
> DS> advantage given the 3:1 cost ratio. GUI performance is about equal, but is the
> DS> Mac OS so much better that it is worth $4000?
> 

	To each their own on this subject.  I don't personally care for
the Mac OS.  It is better than Windows 3.x I guess but not OS/2's work
place shell.



> If you didn't want an interface, then you're right.  You don't need to pay
> for a Mac.  Just get a cheap PC clone and stick it in the corner.  Set it
> up and don't change anything.  You'll do fine.
> 
> |> 
> |> Instead compare:
> |> low price:
> |> LC II w/ color monitor to 386/40 w/ color.  About the same price,
> |> 386 is much faster running Dos, slightly faster running Windows.
> 
> DS> Quite a bit faster running Windows, and if you look at the options that come with
> DS> the 386 (HD, memory, etc), it is cheaper than the LC II by a considerable margin.
> 
> You mean like built in SCSI, networking, SuperDrives, sound support, etc.
> 
> And then there's the fact that you'll have to be stuck with... Windows...
> But you got a great deal... right?

	YOu're not stuck with Windows.  Get OS/2 and Mac2PC and you
can read Mac disks, multitasking, protected OS.  System 7 isn't even
protected (which is why it can crash -- not often thouggh).

> 
> Maybe you can get OS/2?...  Gee, not much software yet...  Drivers still
> being developed...  Well, maybe next year.
> 

	OS/2 runs DOS and Windows so what exactly are you talking about?
OS/2 runs mroe software than any OS on the planet.


> |> 
> |> mid. price:
> |> IIci w/color to 486DX/33.  486 much faster running Dos, about the same
> |> running Windows.  486 system is about $600-$800 cheaper.
> 
> DS> Same as above. Windows on a 486/33 is faster than a IIci, from personal
> DS> experience. The ci is more equivalent to a 386/33 IMHO. The only Macs that can
> DS> compete with the 486s are the Quadras, and those cost too much. When P5 is
> DS> released (early next year), the new high-end PC systems will still cost less than
> DS> the Quadras, but will have a 6:1 performance advantage.
> 
> All of the '386/33s that I ever used seemed slower than IIci machines when 
> performing equivalent tasks.
> 
> DS> Also, the typical 486/33 system runs around $1800. The IIci starts at $2700 and
> DS> goes up. Thats almost $1000 price difference. Price-wise, the LC II competes with
> DS> the 486/33. Anyone feel like advocating the LC II over a 486? :)
> 
> Maybe you should look instead at the IIvx (~$2300).  You'll also need to add a
> few items to match its features, so the price difference isn't that great.  But
> you'll have a real integrated system, not a jumper nightmare.
> 
> See above for the LC II vs 486 advocacy.
> 
> 
> |> 
> |> In the low range, Macs compete well on price.  In the high range, Macs
> 
> DS> The cheapest Mac is the Classic II, costing around $1200. This comes with a 16
> DS> Mhz 030 and 4 Mb of RAM and a 9" b+w screen.  For the same money, you can get a
> DS> 386/25 with SVGA and a 14" color display, a larger HD (Classic has standard 40M),
> DS> and Windows. Which one is the better deal. For eye-strain release alone, I'll
> DS> take the PC.
> 
> Why not get a Performa 400 with a 14" color monitor.  You'll be running about
> $1600, but you'll have all sorts of capabilities that a PC owner doesn't.
> Plus, you'll have a more intuitive interface that will let you get more
> work done with less computer equipment hassle (yes, time IS money).
> 
> |> and PCs don't really compete (aimed at different markets).  In the
> |> mid range, Macs are really hurting (same market, but more expensive).
> |> 
> 
> DS> I agree with your statement that Quadras are aimed at the workstation market.
> DS> They have the price of a low-mid range workstation. Unfortunately, they don't
> DS> really have the performance of a UNIX workstation, so it seems to me that the
> DS> Quadra will remain a small niche market, unable to capture either the desktop PC
> DS> market or the workstation market.
> 
> The Quadras do have a software base that is very impressive.  When you go for
> a UNIX workstation, you'll have to be satisfied with the available offerings.


	But Unix stations have the software that most people who need
a workstation require.  For doing 3D modeling, one is going to want
a Sparc, not a Quadra.  If you have a small brain like the people at
Byte Magazine, then workstations are primarily used for Desk Top Publishing
(yea right) and Cad.  While the Cad is true, most Workstations i have
seen are doing modeling, morphing, and other heavy calculating.  If I
ran a business and was doing desktop publishing then a Mac would be my
first choice without a doubt but Byte weighed DTP and Cad equally which
is absurd.

	Why are you arguing from such a difficult position?  Macs have
a lot of advantages.  They are easy to use and maintain.  That is worth
quite a bit of money.  A lot of places would rather pay $800 mroe on a
computer so that they don't have to fuss with all the problems PCs have
to face (all sorts of different OS's, shells, etc.).  That is the Mac's
strenght.  Having fewer choices makes things easier to maintain.  
	As someone who spends a lot of time maintaining macs, I would
rather have them screwing up the macs then Pcs.  An idiot can do a lot
more damage to a PC than a Mac.

						-Brad


> 
> DS> Daniel Silevitch                                  dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
> DS> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 
> [MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy