Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!oscar.ccm.udel.edu!johnston
From: johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: User Hostile
Message-ID: <42271@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 91 01:19:10 GMT
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 65
Nntp-Posting-Host: oscar.ccm.udel.edu

In article <1991Jan20.173736.23505@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes...
>akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes:
>>Unlike other computers, IBM doesn't come with standard memory, disk
>>drives, or even video cards. This means no two will very likely to be the
>>same. This creates a problem when writing software. Which in short, one
>>must try to cover all the bases.
>> 
>This is a problem not because IBM computers are introducing 
>incompatible new standards but because the new standards have
>to be *backward* compatible.  I've been told that the Mac is 
>a nightmare for incompatible bus standards, so I suppose IBM
>users have an advantage in this area.  

I may be wrong, but I would imagine that more users would prefer
to see their SOFTWARE work when they buy a new computer, rather than
expecting that, for example, the graphics card from an XT will work
in a PS/2.  Doesn't the user generally sell an old machine the along 
with the installed cards, and get new equipment?

>People spend $100 on an article of clothing they don't need, or
>they take their car into the *dealer* for a $200 checkup,
>or they buy $500 dollars of sporting equipment, etc., but
>they scream if they have to spend an extra $150 on their
>computer.  Sheesh.

I'm not sure that the "extra $150" is the problem here.  The real
problem is that the extra investment ends up being incompatible
with the next hardware or software upgrade.  I find PC users with
two incompatible memory upgrades installed in the same computer
because they have software that doesn't support extra RAM in the 
same way.  They upgrade the software in order to upgrade the hardware
in order to upgrade the software .... ad infinitum.

I've owned Mac's and a PC ... and there certainly is no comparison
when it comes to the aftermarket dollars required to keep them running.
My XT clone cost $1500 in 1984 ... by all accounts a great buy.  Running
Lotus with graphics then required $250 for a graphics board in 1985.
Modeming required $140 for a serial port.  Memory chips were cheap enough;
the upgrade from 128K to the now staggering 256K cost only $75.  Each
of the hardware modifications involved an hour or more of disassembly
and soldering (for the ram upgrade).  I ended up buying new versions of 
some software packages to run with the new hardware, without really 
getting any new features.

The Mac's I've owned cost a bit more than PC's with similar processor
capabilities and disk drive capacity.  I assume that the differential
was largely due to the fact that I was "forced" to buy two serial ports,
a SCSI port and built-in 72dpi graphics.  Eventually this paid off;
all the peripherals I've purchased have been "plug-and-play".  Memory
upgrades snapped right in and the system software automatically 
recognized it.  Virtually all of the software I bought in 1986 still
works today, despite rather drastic changes/improvements to the OS.

"User hostility" doesn't really make a difference to me; I can use DOS
about as easily as I can use a Mac, and both operating systems have 
"pain in the ass" features.  But on a $$$ basis, I have to give the 
edge to the Mac.  The bottom line was that it cost more money to make 
the PC do what I wanted it to do, and I was forced to make decisions 
with the hardware upgrades that precluded options that came later on 
down the road.

Compatible bus "standards" are nice, but it would be nicer if the stuff
that plugged into the slots were compatible with each other.

-- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)