Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!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: <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 20 Aug 90 21:57:27 GMT References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Sender: Aaron Wallace Distribution: comp Organization: Academic Information Resources Lines: 100 In article <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >In article <3965@crash.cts.com>, pkovac@pro-truckstop.cts.com (Peter Kovac) writes: > >Looking in the PC Today database of lowest PC prices, I see 4 of about >20 systems that are around $1300 for a 20 Mhz 386. Those include one >disk drive, no hard disk, 1 meg RAM, Hercules mono monitor (which are ^^^^^^^^^^ >terrible), ^^^^^^^^^^^ Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible... VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally agreed to be good. Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't??? I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely readable; I agree). The Herc has enough horizontal resolution to display 80 columns well--and 10 pt is quite readable. As for the quality of said monitor, almost all clones come with Samsung mono monitors. Crack a recent SE or Plus and guess who makes the tube? Samsung... BTW, sounds like the PC Today database is a bit steep. I've seen 386 sx and dx machines with monitor, 66 Mb 23 ms hard disks, 1 meg, and so for for about $1000--in places I'd gladly to business with (and have, too). >and a sticker on it which says something to the effect of >"Made with pride by Joe in Joe's No-name Computer Store". Hope you >know Joe personally. It's not good to write off all smaller clone shops in such a wholesale way. I've dealt with a number of them that are extremely knowledgable and helpful--more so than most salespeople I've found in ComputerLand-type places. Salespeople are just that--they sell things, and may have sold cars or aluminum siding a few weeks before pushing computers. Many of the people selling computers in clone shops also are the technical support, and many have been assembling systems for years. >Basically the issue is you get what you pay for. I'm perfectly willing >to buy a PC clone from someone like Dell, but there's no way I would >buy one from Joe's No-Name Computer Store, especially mail order. I'm >a consultant and don't need much in the way of tech support, but I do >like to think that the company will be around as long as I own the >computer. While this is nice, it is not essential--most parts are under guarantee by their makers (Seagate, Samsung, Teac, whomever)... > The other thing you have to realize about the mega-low cost >PC clone is that they use junk parts. Again, this may be true for a few shops, but in general I've found the same quality of parts in low-end clones and ALR/Dell-type machines. And some things like floppy and hard disks are always from a big-name maker. As can be seen in the PC Mag system comparisons, the name-branders and no-namers frequently use a lot of common parts (hard drives, controllers, monitors, moptherboards/BIOSs, etc.) >THe reason Dell's prices are >higher than Joe's are because Dell uses brand name parts. It also >helps that Dell has excellent technical support. You can carry the >analogy to the Yugo cars. They are incredibly cheap, but you run the >risk of having the engine fall out when you sit down in it. That's why >people still pay more for Hondas and Toyotas. > >So sure, the Mac Classic price might be a tad high, but you are >getting something for that. Apple has consistent quality (occasionally >bad, but consistent and they usually fix the big boo-boos), so you can >be guaranteed of getting a Mac that works and works like all the rest >of them. The fx in the back room here doesn't work like the SE--a lot of our disk recovery stuff crashes on it... Haven't even touched the ci... >This is not true with PCs any more. Just ask the people whose >hard disks were trashed by Windows 3.0 because they used a >non-standard, but popular partioning scheme. FYI, *very* few people had such a problem--Microsoft confirmed only 12 or so cases (not that they're unbiased, but the conditions that create the problem are very unlikely.) >That's not compatibility >in my eyes. But the problems with the ci and fx are??? :) Seriously, having to revise the System for each new machine suggests that they're not too intercompatible, either. (Stuff about comparing apples and oranges deleted) >(And I won't even get into the real-world costs of making a PC clone >into a supposedly graphical machine with Windows 3.0.) I will: $30-50 for a mouse, $75 for a meg upgrade, $100 for Windows 3.0, and for the speed hungry, $125-$350 for a fast 286 or 386sx motherboard upgrade. This is assuming an upgrade from a c.1984 AT-class machine... Aaron Wallace