Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!art100
From: ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Mac Lc vs IIgs A+
Message-ID: <91031.114750ART100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 91 16:47:50 GMT
References: <0XRkw1w162w@ruth.UUCP>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 23

One thing that annoys me about comparing computers that are
"similarly equipped" is that this similar equipment refers
only to the physical hardware, not usefulness of the machine.
For example, memory and an old comparison.

Soon after the mac came out, it had outgrown its memory and
512k was pretty much necessary to run anything. Now a 512k mac
is virtually worthless - not because people actually have
that much more data, but because software has grown into 1 meg,
2 megs, etc. On the other hand, I don't know of any // (non-gs)
software that *requires* more than 128k (55k is a decent-sized
desktop, but sometimes you want more than that). So if we were
comparing a mac with 2 megs to a //e with 2 megs, of course the //e's
extra 1800-some-K would bring the cost up. But in terms of usefulness,
that extra memory is an extra cost and shouldn't really be included
as a cost to make the machines comparable.

Did this make sense?

i.e. if we were comparing a mac 512k to a //e, I personally wouldn't
add the cost of the (512k-128k) extra memory into the cost of
the //e, because it's pretty much a necessity on the mac
but would just be a luxury on the //e.