Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Aug 90 16:38:40 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: Aaron Wallace
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Lines: 17

In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <3965@crash.cts.com> pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes:
>
>> (Clone vs. fabled "low-cost" Mac comparison deleted)
>
>You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear
>that that is not a valid comparison.  If you want to compare, you have to do
>Apple to IBM.

It's not clear to me why IBM has to be singled out.  Apple completely controls
the hardware and OS of the Mac; IBM does neither.  As for support, etc., many
2nd tier clone makers (ALR, Everex, AST, Dell, not to mention Compaq) offer
similar if not better service and support than IBM.  As for Apple and IBM,
they both charge a lot of $$$ for the machines; I'd say the similarities end
somewhere around there...

Aaron Wallace