From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:48:02 GMT
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 

dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>Note that the total cost of your improvements (most of which are not needed for
>your average PC) is ~$1000. The 486 machine still costs half of what the Quadra
>costs. IMHO Macs are way overpriced, even the peripherals. How much does Apple
>charge for the Extended Keyboard, $160? $200? At least twice what an
>IBM-compatible extended keyboard costs (~$79), and it isn't a very good keyboard
>anyway (feels like mush, no tactile feedback).

The PC still can't handle page or 2 page monitors very well, which is one 
big reason that artist still prefer the Mac.  For keyboards, you can
get 3rd party ones for $80-$100 that are better than Apples' (when was
the last time you bought a keyboard from IBM?).  Really, by the time
you soup up a PC to the area that a Q950 is, the price difference is
less than $1000-$2000, and for the job you would use the Q950 for, 
$1000-$2000 per machine isn't too significant.

>|> Ability to use more than 32 megs. (most PCs max out a 32 meg.).

>Not true: limit for newer machines is usually 64Meg, and the P5 will be able to
>access 128 Meg.

Your typical clone has a 32MB board limit.  A few rare manufactuers make
64MB boards, and I think that there is one board out that will hold
128MB.  The 64MB and 128MB boards are significantly more expensive.

What do you mean that the P5 will be able to access 128MB?  The 386/486
can aready access up to 4GB.  It's the BOARD that limits memory.

>|> System card bus that can access more than 16 meg. (ISA limit).

>EISA. Enough said.

And EISA boards are even more expensive than Nubus cards.

>|> 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.

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

As I said before, for a system to do what the Q950 can, the price diff.
isn't even near $4000.  As for a price/speed ratio (not     
price/performace), PCs beat practically everything (Workstations
typically have TERRIBLE speed/price ratios).  

>|> 
>|> 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.

>Quite a bit faster running Windows, and if you look at the options that come with
>the 386 (HD, memory, etc), it is cheaper than the LC II by a considerable margin.

You can get a LC II w/color for about $1250.

>|> 
>|> 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.

>Same as above. Windows on a 486/33 is faster than a IIci, from personal
>experience. The ci is more equivalent to a 386/33 IMHO. The only Macs that can
>compete with the 486s are the Quadras, and those cost too much. When P5 is
>released (early next year), the new high-end PC systems will still cost less than
>the Quadras, but will have a 6:1 performance advantage.

The IIci is a '030/25 will a cache card (128K? can't remember right now).
It is MUCH faster than a 386/33 running windows.

>Also, the typical 486/33 system runs around $1800. The IIci starts at $2700 and
>goes up. Thats almost $1000 price difference. Price-wise, the LC II competes with
>the 486/33. Anyone feel like advocating the LC II over a 486? :)

The IIci is currently about $2200-$2300.  You can get a pretty good 486/33
system for about $1500-$1600.  Total of a $600-$800 price diff., just
like I said.

>|> 
>|> In the low range, Macs compete well on price.  In the high range, Macs

>The cheapest Mac is the Classic II, costing around $1200. This comes with a 16
>Mhz 030 and 4 Mb of RAM and a 9" b+w screen.  For the same money, you can get a
>386/25 with SVGA and a 14" color display, a larger HD (Classic has standard 40M),
>and Windows. Which one is the better deal. For eye-strain release alone, I'll
>take the PC.

The Classic II is now around $925-$950.
I've used a Classic (not II) for over two years and have never had
any eye strain (but sometimes problems about being able to visuallize
everything that the small screen couldn't display at once).

>|> and PCs don't really compete (aimed at different markets).  In the
>|> mid range, Macs are really hurting (same market, but more expensive).
>|> 

>I agree with your statement that Quadras are aimed at the workstation market.
>They have the price of a low-mid range workstation. Unfortunately, they don't
>really have the performance of a UNIX workstation, so it seems to me that the
>Quadra will remain a small niche market, unable to capture either the desktop PC
>market or the workstation market.

The Q950 is really only selling good with graphic professionals who
can afford an Indigo.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu