Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!dry!bskendig From: bskendig@dry.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: What the IBM has going for it (was Re: Apple sabotage???) Message-ID: <6079@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 8 Feb 91 09:02:00 GMT References: <.?bGu2dh@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb7.233305.28984@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <816@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU Organization: Starfleet Academy: Princeton University Lines: 75 In article <816@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: >In article <1991Feb7.233305.28984@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@atropa (Dire Wolf) writes: >>I do too. But I think it's especially funny to see the Mac fans knock >>the machine that has all the "features" that prompted owners of the >>"toaster" macs to buy their machines in the first place. It's >>complete, self-contained, non-expandable, and designed for people >>who don't know which way to turn the light bulb when they change it. >>In other words, it's aimed at the Macintosh market. Except that it >>doesn't have a 9" screen. > > There is a small difference betwixt the PS/1 and any Mac, and we all >know what it is. The Mac GUI. > IBM PCs of any kind might have a GUI with Win3, but we all know that >the Mac GUI is far ahead of the Win GUI in terms of standardization and all >that other stuff that makes a Mac GUI a Mac GUI. You forgot two other `small' differences, too: (1) The IBM PS/1, with its color VGA display, is in the same price range as the Mac Classic, with its much smaller monochrome display. In general, for any given set of features, a suitable IBM will still be quite a bit less expensive than a comparable Macintosh. I know you can get a 386 machine (and I believe you can now get a 486 machine) with a decent set of options for under $2000; isn't the base price of a Mac LC (68020, no coprocessor) a bit over $2000? (2) The business world is still predominantly IBM no matter which way you slice it. If a company already has a lot of IBM's but needs more machines, buying more IBM's will probably be more cost-efficient than buying Macs and SoftPC for each of them. With a PS/1, it's now possible for an executive to bring work home with him (oh boy) and use an inexpensive machine that runs the software he uses at work. And besides, the IBM has held its own against the Mac for several years, now, even with the crude IBM command-line interface versus the smoothly-integrated Macintosh GUI. Now that using the IBM has actually become bearable, too, I think it can't help but be giving Apple even more competition. Say you walk into a store and see a $2500 Mac running HyperCard, and a $1700 IBM running Windows and Toolbook, both quite identical to the untrained eye -- but the former requires a $200 program to run the software you use at work, while the latter is made to run it already. Do you splurge on the Macintosh with the smiley-face you get when you boot it up, or do you buy the IBM clone and use the money you've saved to treat your spouse and kids to dinner? I'm ardently anti-IBM, but lately I've been taking a good hard look at the situation. Brand loyalty only goes so far. I feel that the Macintosh interface is pure poetry while the IBM interface is a bad hack that is based on decade-old technology, but there comes a time when you have to decide if you really want to shell out the extra money just for aesthetic pleasure. Would you rather have a nice standard Edit menu, or be able to run OfficeWriter and R:Base to deal with all your company's files? The IBM PC with MS-DOS is an idea whose time has come and gone. OS/2 is an operating system whose time never quite came. The Macintosh is a machine whose time is drawing to a close, because the NeXTs are close on its heels. I think that next year will be a crucial one: Will Mac System 7 be good enough to turn the heads of DOS hackers and steal the thunder from NeXTstep? Or will it be greeted with an enthusiastic ho-hum, leaving NeXT to try to convert the DOS masses to the glories of Unix? And the Mac still doesn't have protected memory. Ugh. One application crashes, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Even Windows/386 can cope with that better! << Brian >> | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | "It's not that I don't have the work to *do* -- I don't do the work I *have*."