Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mentat From: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac pricing and the future of the Mac Message-ID: <11376@ut-emx.UUCP> Date: 22 Mar 89 00:53:49 GMT References: <12101@reed.UUCP> <1082@lts.UUCP> <11317@ut-emx.UUCP> <1084@lts.UUCP> <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> <4228fb1e.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> Sender: csdq122@ut-emx.UUCP Reply-To: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Distribution: usa Organization: Flames "R" Us, Inc. Lines: 101 In article <4228fb1e.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >You are truly an idiot. Oh, come on kiddies. Why don't you go into a corner and cool off. Please come back, but only when you're prepared to show at least an iota of maturity. >STUCK with MacWrite and MultiPlan? MultiPlan was and is better than 1-2-3 >version 2.0 and 1-2-3 is much newer. As for MacWrite, is had WYSIWYG and >pictures containted in text in 1984. By comparasion, the IBM family just got >WYSIWIG and pictures in text about a year ago with WordPerfect 5.0 (which >still sucks). And with this, Mr. Bilkatt starts off on a totally irrelevant comparison of the IBM PC to the Macintosh. My comment was merely meant to point out that from a "real user's" viewpoint, the PC did--and does--offer business solutions that work. It is a continuing strong point, particularly when one considers that the underlying platform for that software is usually several thousand dollars cheaper. It is only since 1986 that the Macintosh has started to become a viable business machine. >>No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat- >>form. > >That isn't the point. You can still run the software written before roughly >1987, which was perfectly good software. Only if you want to run new software >do you NEED an upgrade. Listen, child, "obsolete" does not mean "broken." I KNOW that old machines can run software that was written for them--that's stating the obvious. I have a friend with a TI 99/4A that still chirps along running ITS crap. The point is that for a long time,the Macintosh user was compelled to upgrade to match the computer to his initial expectations--which were, to a very large extent, fuelled by Apple marketing ("The computer for the rest of us."). >If anybody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground is to be believed, >then the IBM PC wasn't everything that it could have been in 1983. The PC didn't have the model of the Lisa (or the strong influence from PARC) to contend with, either. Expectations among consumers were very high. >You can't run GS/OS on an Apple ][. Neither can you run AppleWorks. I wouldn't know--I gave up on the II a long time ago. There was a version of AppleWorks floating around in 1982, which was intended for the II Plus. Probably ran on the II, but I can't say. Personally, I couldn't stand Appleworks. >>>The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 >>>if you buy an expansion chassis...). >> >>How about an SE? Uh-huh... > >How about 16-bit ISA "AT-bus" cards or MicroChannel cards in a PC, or >Convertible, or even Compaq SLT/286. You're comparing Apples to IBMs again--why? While you're about it, why not try to plug in a IIX monitor card into a PC? I really don't see your point. >Just what do you mean by clock speed? Processor, Co-processor, bus, >ram-refresh, or monitor scan rate? I would than that you can clarify your >thoughts better than THAT. I will leave that to Amanda. >Apple doesn't get all $2500. Dealers put incredible mark-ups on the machines >becuase they are not available mail-order. I priced it once--at the best, the dealer gets 50%, and usually quite a bit less. Dealers don't make much money on hardware, if a number of salesman- acquaintances are to be believed. >Agreed. Macs don't really break except through abuse anyway. One glaring >exception is the flyback transformers on old 512's. Everybody makes mistakes. Hmm, if that happened on a car, I would suspect we would have seen a major callback. >I don't know anyone who is disgruntled with Apple, except price-wise. And I >think you can blame most of that on dealers. This entire discussion is about prices compared to what one gets, kiddo. Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat