Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!carafe!goldstein
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac - Long (was Re: Xerox s
Message-ID: <7075@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 22 Dec 89 15:40:28 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Lines: 32


In article <216100173@trsvax>, slimer@trsvax.UUCP writes...
>I know that you can develop programs on a MAC, just like on a PC. 
>They are equivalent machines in many aspects, yet vastly different in
>perception and usage. I believe that the MAC pricing is unjust and
>unqualified. Take for example a MACII with a 40M drive compared with an IBM
>AT 339 (30M drive) or a Compaq Deskpro 386/16, 40M drive. You want to know
>the price differences? 
> 
>1) MAC II, 40M	      - $3,750
>2) IBM AT 339         - $1,825
>3) Compaq 386/16, 40M - $2,500 
> 
>There's your difference. These figures are published from PC Week, December
>18, 1989, page 13, source The Boston Computer Exchange. 

Just a small amount of truth needs to be piled into this flame war.

BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon users 
willingness to pay.  It's a "free market" in secondhand gear.  The Mac II
commands a higher price because people are willing to pay more.  Had IBM
set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still sell at $1825
today, because that's what people are willing to pay.

That Apple's "new" prices are rather high goes without saying.  This 
posting is simply to point out that "used" prices are based on something else.
(Proof:  Look at the used market price of an "orphan" machine like a DEC
Rainbow, Wangpro, etc.)
---
Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com 
                 or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com
                    voice:  +1 508 486 7388