From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:46:16 GMT

In article <Bxs22G.1EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
|> dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
|> 
[stuff on apps. deleted]
|> 
|> >Let me insert some hard numbers. Two systems, a Quadra 950 and a 486DX-50.
|> >Systems both have 8 Megs RAM, ~220 Meg HD. 16" color monitor on Mac, 14" SVGA
|> >non-interlaced on PC with 1024x768x256 display. Number-crunching power almost
|> >equal, advantage PC. Cost: Quadra $7200 (edu), PC $2350 (Mail Order). Is the Mac
|> >so much better to support a 3:1 price differential? (These are actual prices paid)
|> 
|> To the PC add:
|> high speed SCSI card	($150 min.)
|> high speed network card	($150 min.)
|> 32 bit local bus high speed video card able to handle page and
|> 2 page monitors (doesn't exist yet).
|> disk drive able to read more than one drive format ($?)

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).

|> Ability to add extra processors (only extremely specialized ones availiable).
|> 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.

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

EISA. Enough said.

|> (The last 3 are vital to graphic professionals).
|> 
|> 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?

|> 
|> 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.

|> 
|> 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.

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? :)

|> 
|> 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.

|> 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.

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