Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!nems!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug17.200222.9800@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:02:22 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 25

In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
>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...

Apple and IBM were both FIRST.  (Apple is FIRST and ONLY)

And last time I checked, those prices you gave were way out of line for a
Compaq Deskpro 386.

--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?