MAC vs. PC prices (again)
Jacob Fuller
OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
400Mhz P-II
(100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
8.4 GB UDMA HD
17" 1000LS Moniter
Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
32x MAX CD-ROM
Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
Altec ACS-90 speakers
MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
-- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
Dell Keyboard
MS Intellimouse
3-year warranty
1-year onsite
$2499.00 !!!!!!!
WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
--
-= Jacob Fuller =-
-= rebe...@worldnet.att.net =-
-= Jacob's Tech Page =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com =-
-= Quake Benchmark Project =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com/quakebm =-
-= My RC5-64 Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/emsearch.idc?ST=rebe...@worldnet.att.net
-= My RC5-64 Team Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/tmsummary.idc?TM=3403
Jacob Fuller
BTW thats a Dell, which is a very high quality brand that makes fast
systems.
-= Jacob Fuller =-
-= rebe...@worldnet.att.net =-
-= Jacob's Tech Page =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com =-
-= Quake Benchmark Project =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com/quakebm =-
-= My RC5-64 Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/emsearch.idc?ST=rebe...@worldnet.att.net
-= My RC5-64 Team Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/tmsummary.idc?TM=3403
Jacob Fuller wrote in message <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Joe Ragosta
In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
You're right. No Mac sucks as bad as that. Even Microsoft admits that a
Wintel PC will cost $1,500 more per year than a Wintel PC. So let's talk
_total_ cost.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Jacob Fuller wrote in message <6hse29$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>BTW thats a Dell, which is a very high quality brand that makes fast
>systems.
If it's a Dell I trust the quality.... at least until they release something
of less quality. (we'll see what the future holds)
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio
> OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
> the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>
> 400Mhz P-II
> (100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
> 64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
> 8.4 GB UDMA HD
> 17" 1000LS Moniter
> Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
> 32x MAX CD-ROM
> Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
> Altec ACS-90 speakers
> MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
> WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
> -- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
> Dell Keyboard
> MS Intellimouse
> 3-year warranty
> 1-year onsite
>
> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
This number is slightly higher on Dell's online store, though
that's for 128 MB SDRAM.
Playing similar games with the Apple Store, you could buy
a barebones G3/300 and configure it comparably with 3rd party
cards etc for a cost of $3300-$3500. [Don't even think of
buying Apple's monitor if you want to play the price game,
as I guarantee it's in a different league than the "1000LS"]
Base G3/300/64 MB, 6 GB HD, Sound Card, 2 MB VRAM, ATI Rage Pro,
10BT ethernet, 24x CD-ROM, MacOS 8.1 = $2879
Speakers, $50
17" cheezy monitor to match $300
ATI or other graphics card (street $200
------
$3429 = 1.37 * PC cost
Note this also gives you 10bT ethernet, a PlainTalk
microphone (not included with PC), and onboard VRAM/acceleration
for a second monitor.
Note this does not give you the extra 2.4 GB hard drive space,
8x in CD-ROM speed (a marginal improvement) and the Micro$oft
Office bundle (though if you're paying a latest-greatest-CPU-premium
to run Office you're dimmer than I would think).
I'll estimate the ethernet, nice mike, and second graphics card
are roughly equal in price to street value Office 97, so let's call
the extras or lack thereof a wash, pricewise.
By SPEC or Bytemark, the two systems are either comparable in
price/performance (SPEC) or Apple wins (Byte).
By SPEC, the machines should have roughly equivalent performance,
by Byte, the G3 should still outperform the PII. (By Photoshop
tests as well, although that appears to be debatable for this
system configuration).
So, the upshot is: comparabale or better price/performance.
Comparable or significantly better performance, depending on
benchmark. $900 price difference. Ignoring TCO, more
screen real estate in that 17" monitor on MacOS because of
better UI design, vastly superior minitower design (ever open up
a G3???), etc etc.
Now, consider the likely market for the best-of-the-best in
desktop computing. If I need the fastest machine with the
lowest TCO out there, that $900 initial outlay difference
is pretty small, _even_ if the systems have comparable
performance, and a small price to pay for an additional 25-75%
performance, depending on the metric.
The bottom line: the systems are definitely equivalent in price/perf.
So how much more do you want to shell out for the potential performance
gains, lower TCO and better UI and hardware engineering of the G3?
It boils down to a personal preference choice on quality.
DJB
Jacob Fuller
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>>
>> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
>
>You're right. No Mac sucks as bad as that.
Whats your problem man? Why do you think that system sucks? It will destroy
ANY Mac at the same price and it is a very reliable DELL system ya moron.
>Even Microsoft admits that a
>Wintel PC will cost $1,500 more per year than a Wintel PC
So Wintel's cost more than Wintel's, very interesting Joe.
>So let's talk
>_total_ cost.
I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up, you
would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do that!
MAYBE a huge buisiness who needs to train people to use them, but I dont
believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a year
for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
upgrades(depends on what I get).
Paul Lucente
"Jacob Fuller" <rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>>So let's talk
>>_total_ cost.
>
>I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up, you
>would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do that!
>MAYBE a huge buisiness who needs to train people to use them, but I dont
>believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
>because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a year
>for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
>upgrades(depends on what I get).
Jacob-
The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
than Wintel. I think MS itself estimates that TCO for ONE networked
NT box is in the 10K range. I think Joe's web site has some
documented studies linked.
Paul
p l @ b e t
u c t e l a . n
e n s t
Kevin Stone
In article <6ht43o$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
(snip)
> I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up, you
> would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do that!
> MAYBE a huge buisiness who needs to train people to use them, but I dont
> believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
> because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a year
> for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
> upgrades(depends on what I get).
>
The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
CLAIM that it cost you nothing... but then claiming so means that the time
that you spent is also worth nothing. I doubt either of us believe that.
I think it is reasonable to assume that...
1. PC users upgrade more often
2. PC systems require more maintance
3. The more upgrades and maintanance, the more time is spent.
Upgrades cost money, repairs cost money, and TIME costs money. And I do
believe that any reputable test would take that into account. To the
question of whether or not Joe's reference was to a "reputable" test... is
another debate entirely. :)
-Kevin Stone
Stone Entertainment
www.StoneEntertainment.com
(no email please)
Thomas Womack
Kevin Stone wrote in message ...
>In article <6ht43o$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
>> I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up,
you
>> would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do
that!
I think I spend something close to that figure annually keeping my computer
reasonably up-to-date - since September 1995, I've bought memory, a better
graphics card, bigger hard disc, new motherboard when the old one decided to
do its Famous Brick Imitation, 3dfx, faster Pentium, sell old system for
£1150 and buy new one for £2100, CDRW drive ...
>The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
>(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
>CLAIM that it cost you nothing... but then claiming so means that the time
>that you spent is also worth nothing. I doubt either of us believe that.
I don't claim that my time is worth nothing - but you'd be insane to count
the time I spend installing hardware at the £60-per-hour rate that the
Professional Hardware Installer costs. £10 an hour, absolute max. I reckon
that fixing and upgrading computers (at least at the board-swapping level)
is sufficiently straightforward not to be worth much more than minimum wage;
I'm most annoyed that professional computer fixers think differently.
You can get quite a large figure by computing budget-of-IT-department
divided by number of computers belonging to the IT department, essentially
because you've got multiple staff on >£5 an hour - that's where I've always
assumed the large numbers come from.
Tom
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Kevin Stone wrote in message ...
>I think it is reasonable to assume that...
> 1. PC users upgrade more often
> 2. PC systems require more maintance
> 3. The more upgrades and maintanance, the more time is spent.
Possibly... but not NEARLY as much as you think!!! In fact... not much
difference at all. Most of the difference is in the extra hardware and
software support on the PC (including OS's, and all types of things you
can't even think of :-)
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Paul Lucente wrote in message <354819ad...@news2.new-york.net>...
>The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
>and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
>than Wintel.
Funny... but I can't think of any cases that "require" a extra cost, on a
quality Mac or PC after a few years.
Jacob Fuller
>> I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up,
you
>> would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do
that!
>> believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
>> because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a
year
>> for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
>> upgrades(depends on what I get).
>>
>> -= Jacob Fuller =-
>
>(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
>CLAIM that it cost you nothing...
I get some of my upgrades installed but I put most in myself.
>but then claiming so means that the time
>that you spent is also worth nothing. I doubt either of us believe that.
Not the time i was using. I had nothing important to do and putting new
stuff in hardly takes much time.
>I think it is reasonable to assume that...
> 1. PC users upgrade more often
Yup, there is ALSO more selection and new stuff coming out for PC's
> 2. PC systems require more maintance
Not really, things dont break (hardware) any more than on a Mac. Some people
may need to maintain WIndows.
> 3. The more upgrades and maintanance, the more time is spent.
>
>Upgrades cost money, repairs cost money, and TIME costs money. And I do
>believe that any reputable test would take that into account. To the
>question of whether or not Joe's reference was to a "reputable" test... is
>another debate entirely. :)
-= Jacob Fuller =-
Jacob Fuller
Paul Lucente wrote in message <354819ad...@news2.new-york.net>...
>"Jacob Fuller" <rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>
>>>So let's talk
>>>_total_ cost.
>>
>>I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up,
you
>>would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do
that!
>>MAYBE a huge buisiness who needs to train people to use them, but I dont
>>believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
>>because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a
year
>>for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
>>upgrades(depends on what I get).
>
>Jacob-
>
>The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
>and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
>than Wintel. I think MS itself estimates that TCO for ONE networked
>NT box is in the 10K range. I think Joe's web site has some
>documented studies linked.
$10,000 a year? Are you serious? Where does this money go to, I would really
like to know. Do they throw bricks at them and break em'?
Bich Hoang
Kevin Stone (st...@stoneentertainment.com) wrote:
: In article <6ht43o$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
: (snip)
: > I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up, you
: > would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do that!
: > MAYBE a huge buisiness who needs to train people to use them, but I dont
: > believe $1500.00 a year. BTW are you saying that I pay that much a year
: > because you said Wintel, I pay nothing to fix it, and from $400-1000 a year
: > for software(lots), Internet($240 yearly), Web Site($120 yearly),
: > upgrades(depends on what I get).
: > -= Jacob Fuller =-
: The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
: (personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
: CLAIM that it cost you nothing... but then claiming so means that the time
: that you spent is also worth nothing. I doubt either of us believe that.
: I think it is reasonable to assume that...
: 1. PC users upgrade more often
That's probably true. I have got a new HD (7.0gig), 64MB extra Ram, 20" Sony
Monitor!But you can't call this extra cost, I could still live with a 15" monitor
a 1.7 GIG HD, 32 MB of Ram.
: 2. PC systems require more maintance
How? My Pentium 150 has warranty on it. And the Dell system mentioned
has probably a better warrranty than Apple.
Most PC vendor has a 1yrs Part - 3yrs Labour.
And repair usually is a lot quicker.
: 3. The more upgrades and maintanance, the more time is spent.
Yeah. But it takes 10 minutes to installed a new HD and 2 minutes to install
a new monitor and 3 minutes for the RAM! Hmm about 15 minutes, so should I
charge $1,500 for that?
: Upgrades cost money
Yeah, but your getting extra things and your arguement doesn't hold water.
: repairs cost money
Yeah, it cost me nothing! Just send it back to the dealer and get a new part.
:and TIME costs money.
Yes, but if your Mac broke down, it cost you to drive to a dealer and get it
repair. Well that goes too for the PC.
:And I do
: believe that any reputable test would take that into account.
Of course, but for whom, Business or Home User?
:To the
: question of whether or not Joe's reference was to a "reputable" test... is
: another debate entirely. :)
Agreed.
: -Kevin Stone
: Stone Entertainment
: www.StoneEntertainment.com
: (no email please)
--
Winston Churchill's six words on how to succeed - "Never, never, never,
never, give up."
___..---'---`---..___
NCC-1701D .-=========================- Live Long And Prosper
_______________/ :.::..-~--..___..---~~~http://www.ucalgary.ca/~bhoang
(___________(_||_)____/ Bich(Bic) N. Hoang - The Bichster,
/____/___:..::.:::. / C.E.O,
\_________/ Dictator of the World (Philosopher King).
"Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools." -
Napoleon Bonaparte (:>
Joe Ragosta
> Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
> >In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
> ><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
> >>
> >> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
> >
> >You're right. No Mac sucks as bad as that.
>
> Whats your problem man? Why do you think that system sucks? It will destroy
> ANY Mac at the same price and it is a very reliable DELL system ya moron.
Because it's running Windows.
>
> >Even Microsoft admits that a
> >Wintel PC will cost $1,500 more per year than a Wintel PC
>
> So Wintel's cost more than Wintel's, very interesting Joe.
OK. It's a typo. It should say "Even Microsoft admits that a Wintel PC
will cost you $1,500 per year more than a Mac".
Jacob Fuller
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <6ht43o$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>> >In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
>> ><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
>> >
>> >You're right. No Mac sucks as bad as that.
>>
>> Whats your problem man? Why do you think that system sucks? It will
destroy
>> ANY Mac at the same price and it is a very reliable DELL system ya moron.
>
>Because it's running Windows.
Oh WOW big reason to say it sucks. You Mac has a *gasp* fruit on it, I
cannot buy one :-P. Windows is not that bad Joe, I use it all the time and
it works fine, but there is better OS's, and if you dont like the Windows on
the Dell put Linux, FreeBSD, or UNIX or something else on it.
>
>>
>> >Even Microsoft admits that a
>> >Wintel PC will cost $1,500 more per year than a Wintel PC
>>
>> So Wintel's cost more than Wintel's, very interesting Joe.
>
>OK. It's a typo. It should say "Even Microsoft admits that a Wintel PC
>will cost you $1,500 per year more than a Mac".
So how much do they each cost per year?
Brian Webster
>OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
>the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>
>400Mhz P-II
>(100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
>64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
>8.4 GB UDMA HD
>17" 1000LS Moniter
>Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
>32x MAX CD-ROM
>Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
>Altec ACS-90 speakers
>MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
>WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
>-- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
>Dell Keyboard
>MS Intellimouse
>3-year warranty
>1-year onsite
>
>$2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
>WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
You can't; no Mac comes bundled with any OS as horrible as Windows 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Innovation is the ability to integrate a vast array of seemingly
unrelated capabilities." - Microsoft, in a quarter-page NY Times ad
"And over here, Swiss cheese, spliced with chalk and a beard" - The
crazy South Park geneticist
Brian Webster
bewe...@mtu.edu
George Graves
> OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
> the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>
> 400Mhz P-II
> (100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
> 64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
> 8.4 GB UDMA HD
> 17" 1000LS Moniter
> Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
> 32x MAX CD-ROM
> Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
> Altec ACS-90 speakers
> MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
> WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
> -- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
> Dell Keyboard
> MS Intellimouse
> 3-year warranty
> 1-year onsite
>
> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
You can't. But what you do not seem to understand is that
the price is irrelevant. Sure, I can BEAT the hardware for
the price, but not the software bundle, and my hardware
doesn't include a cheap speaker set. Its still irrelevant.
There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
Only the former would ever compare Mac and PC prices.
Sure, the PC is cheaper, but when you have bought it,
you have a PC, and THAT'S the point! Telling me that a
Chevy Metro is cheaper than a BMW Z3 means nothing to
me to when what I WANT is a BMW Z3. Don't you think
that we Mac users are aware that the cost of belonging
to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
we want a MAC NOT a PC.
If one purchases a Chevy Metro, and is the type of buyer who
always buys the cheapest rather than the best, then one can
never tell whether he actually wanted that car, or simply
bought it because it was the lowest priced car he could find.
He might say that he chose it, but most people will think that
his pocketbook chose it for him.
Of course, as crude as PCs and Windows are, they should be
cheaper. The hours the owner will spend, during his term of
ownership, in a state of utter frustration, is certainly worth
something. The tragedy would be if Wintel equipment and
software, being as poor as it is, were still priced where a
Mac is priced. If Apple were to ever come out with machines
that truly competed with PCs dollar for dollar, and if there
were still people who bought PCs anyway, then one has to look
at certain people's sanity.
George Graves
>
> --
Paul Hsieh
rebe...@worldnet.att.net said:
> OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
> the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>
> 400Mhz P-II
> (100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
> 64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
> 8.4 GB UDMA HD
> 17" 1000LS Moniter
> Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
> 32x MAX CD-ROM
> Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
> Altec ACS-90 speakers
> MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
> WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
> -- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
> Dell Keyboard
> MS Intellimouse
> 3-year warranty
> 1-year onsite
>
> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
Well, if you throw out the monitor, subtract 133 MHZ off the processor,
switch to a much slower graphics card, and change to Windows 3.11, then
Apple can sell you a comparable system at the same price based on the G3
processor!
(Of course, Power Computing could have beat that price above with a top of
the line PPC based system, i.e., on a 350Mhz 604e, but Apple decided that
milking whatever is left of the Mac market was better than letting it thrive
through other companies.)
--
Paul Hsieh
URL: http://www.pobox.com/~qed/apple.html
Nathan Hughes
On or about Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:55:03 -0700, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) exclaimed :
<s>
>There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
>always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
Then there are those who weigh the relative benefit of a $1000 oxygen
card over a $200 matrox and buy the Matrox.
<s>
>to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
>the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
>we want a MAC NOT a PC.
If you want to belong to the "mac club", goody for you. Most people
don't think in terms of clubs. Instead they think in terms of tools
to accomplish their task; those are the 90% that buy PCs.
>
>If one purchases a Chevy Metro, and is the type of buyer who
>always buys the cheapest rather than the best, then one can
<s>
Your attempt to associate PCs with Geo Metros is lame. Get real,
apple quality isn't that great. Maybe someone should start mirroring
mac-fix-it and some of the other mac-problem sites in this group.
Nathan A. Hughes
MFA Candidate
The University Theatre KU
http://scenedesign.ml.org
Paul Lucente
"Jacob Fuller" <rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Paul Lucente wrote in message <354819ad...@news2.new-york.net>...
>>"Jacob Fuller" <rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
>>and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
>>than Wintel. I think MS itself estimates that TCO for ONE networked
>>NT box is in the 10K range. I think Joe's web site has some
>>documented studies linked.
>
>
>$10,000 a year? Are you serious? Where does this money go to, I would really
>like to know. Do they throw bricks at them and break em'?
Jacob-
Look here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/platform/info/tco.htm
Click the link on the left hand side titled "Gartner Group Projects
Managed Windows Environment Offers Lowest TCO"
This will take you to the Gartner Group's web site, where some
estimates are graphed out, a networked NT box weighs in at $9,869.
So, to correct my earlier post, the numbers were not MS,' the studies
were done by Gartner, but it looks like MS believes the numbers.
cross...@starlink.net
Nathan Hughes wrote:
>
>Most people don't think in terms of clubs. Instead they think
>in terms of tools to accomplish their task; those are the 90%
>that buy PCs.
Most Mac users don't think in terms of clubs, either, and
simply want the best tool to accomplish *their* tasks.
Fancy that, we have a common goal.
Surprised?
Carey
-----------------------------------------------------
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
(Gerry Rafferty/Joe Egan)
(replace "starlink" with "earthlink" for
proper return email address)
Kevin Stone
In article <6htb3p$5lq$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, "Thomas Womack"
<mert...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Kevin Stone wrote in message ...
> >In article <6ht43o$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
>
> >> I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up,
> you
> >> would need to constantly throw large objects at it and break it to do
> that!
>
> I think I spend something close to that figure annually keeping my computer
> reasonably up-to-date - since September 1995, I've bought memory, a better
> graphics card, bigger hard disc, new motherboard when the old one decided to
> do its Famous Brick Imitation, 3dfx, faster Pentium, sell old system for
> £1150 and buy new one for £2100, CDRW drive ...
Couting up all the things I've bought for my Mac over the past 3 years...
$ 70 - 16Megs RAM
$120 - 64Megs RAM
$300 - IMS TwinTurbo128 graphics card
$120 - 1.0Gig SCSI drive
$180 - 2.1Gig SCSI drive
$100 - 33.6 modem
$100 - 56k Modem (kick ass!)
$150 - 135 SyQuest
$ 90 - MacOS 7.6
$ 90 - MacOS 8
$300 - 40Gig tape backup
$200 - Astra 1200s Scanner
$150 - a few joysticks
$150 - maintance (had a RAM problem and Hard Drive failure fixed by local
mac shops)
About $1730 not including the time it took to install some of these items.
If I assume it took me 10 hours to install these items (a gross
overestimate but oh well), then at $20 per hour it would be $200. So
overall I spent roughly $1930 over three years to upgrade and maintain my
Mac. Though I'm sure my prices are a bit off (+/-), I may be forgeting
some stuff, and it would be virtualy impossible to figure out how much time
I spent with the thousands of dollars in software that I bought over that
period of time. So you see... this is the perfect example of why we rely
on tests like the one performed by the Gartner Group to demonstrate just
how much effort, time, and money we spend on our respective platforms. :)
> >The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
> >(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
> >CLAIM that it cost you nothing... but then claiming so means that the time
> >that you spent is also worth nothing. I doubt either of us believe that.
>
> I don't claim that my time is worth nothing - but you'd be insane to count
> the time I spend installing hardware at the £60-per-hour rate that the
> Professional Hardware Installer costs. £10 an hour, absolute max. I reckon
> that fixing and upgrading computers (at least at the board-swapping level)
> is sufficiently straightforward not to be worth much more than minimum wage;
> I'm most annoyed that professional computer fixers think differently.
I see what you're saying, but the reason we have to use an average WAGE
rather than a given amount is that not everyone will be installing upgrades
or maintinaing their PC's like by them selves. I suppose, if we assumed
that all users who fixed their own computers were set at minimum wage, then
it would be fair to use the average between their wage and professional's
wages. Though I have no idea what that would come out to be.
> You can get quite a large figure by computing budget-of-IT-department
> divided by number of computers belonging to the IT department, essentially
> because you've got multiple staff on >£5 an hour - that's where I've always
> assumed the large numbers come from.
> Tom
Ussualy those budgets include money for hardware and software upgrades as
well as employee wages.
Kevin Stone
In article <6htfbj$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
> >(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
> >CLAIM that it cost you nothing...
>
Actualy I install everything in my Mac my self... but that dosn't negate
that fact that a value must be placed on that time in order for anykind of
maintenance study to be considered valid.
> >I think it is reasonable to assume that...
> > 1. PC users upgrade more often
>
> Yup, there is ALSO more selection and new stuff coming out for PC's
Sigh... thanks Jacob that wasn't the point. :/
> > 2. PC systems require more maintance
>
> Not really, things dont break (hardware) any more than on a Mac. Some people
> may need to maintain WIndows.
Think so? The fellow who posted below you basicaly said his PC motherboard
died on him. I've never seen a Mac motherboard go kaputz. I had a PC
friend in college who had an entire collection of dead IDE drives. By
contrast I've had exactly ONE (1) SCSI hard drive failure in over 15 years
of computing. Notabely both IDE and SCSI exist on both platforms, but it
is the standard to which I refer. If you need more proof, a September '97
Comsumer Reports study showed that Apple's PowerMac systems have the lowest
repair ratio of any of the top name computer manufacturers (6.5% vs. the
next lowest at 9% and the highest at 13%). Sorry to say it, but it seems
to me that PC hardware is infact requireing of more maintenance.
Joe Ragosta
Actually, MS released their own numbers.
They claimed that MacOS costs $5,000 per year per user and Win95 and WinNT
are roughly tied at $6,500 per year per user.
There's always going to be some scatter in the numbers, depending on how
they measure TCO, but MacOS consistently comes out way ahead.
Joe Ragosta
In article <6htfen$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Paul Lucente wrote in message <354819ad...@news2.new-york.net>...
> >
> >The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
> >and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
> >than Wintel. I think MS itself estimates that TCO for ONE networked
> >NT box is in the 10K range. I think Joe's web site has some
> >documented studies linked.
>
>
> $10,000 a year? Are you serious? Where does this money go to, I would really
> like to know. Do they throw bricks at them and break em'?
Why don't you read the original studies to get the facts? You'd rather
just dismiss something you don't understand.
The largest items (IIRC) were "Support costs", "Downtime" and "User
costs". You'll have to go to the study to find out exactly what's included
there.
Jacob Fuller
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <6htfen$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul Lucente wrote in message <354819ad...@news2.new-york.net>...
>
>> >
>> >The TCO of ownership is generally applied to business, not home use,
>> >and there have been numerous studies that show the Mac has a lower TCO
>> >than Wintel. I think MS itself estimates that TCO for ONE networked
>> >NT box is in the 10K range. I think Joe's web site has some
>> >documented studies linked.
>>
>>
>> $10,000 a year? Are you serious? Where does this money go to, I would
really
>> like to know. Do they throw bricks at them and break em'?
>
>Why don't you read the original studies to get the facts? You'd rather
>just dismiss something you don't understand.
>
>The largest items (IIRC) were "Support costs", "Downtime" and "User
>costs". You'll have to go to the study to find out exactly what's included
>there.
Oh, user training is included. And is this support for people who dont
understand, or broken hardware or software. I dont see how any computer
could cost more than it was bought for yearly. The Mac numbers seem a little
high too ($5000.00). Downtime, what exact kind of down time? Crashes in
software, or hardware failure? Probably software, correct? Hmmm, I think
that those numbers are very high I think I will look at the link provided by
Paul Lucente.
Jacob Fuller
I upgrade a little more than what you say you do. My video card is my most
often replaced piece, I like to have fast graphics especially for my games,
but my Mystique will do me for another 6-12 months, its still pretty dang
fast. I never have replaced my moniter (7 year old .42 640x480 piece o'
crap) I will soon buy a 17" 1280x1024 .28 moniter. I am replacing my CPU and
MB soon, NOT because they are too slow, BUT because my current MB and CPU
are incompatible with BeOS. I also want more RAM (64 MB is what I want, I
have 40MB). My HD's will last me a couple more years UNLESS I want another
HD for Linux (will probably happen soon). I have a 5.0 GB and a 4.32 GB
(4.32 is for BeOS, 5.0 for Win98). And I need new speakers because mine are
little cheap ones. But if it were not for games and BeOS I would still be
running my AMD 5x86 P-75+ w\16MB RAM, and 2.5 GB HD (you can buy this for
about $500.00 now with moniter).
-= Jacob Fuller =-
-= rebe...@worldnet.att.net =-
-= Jacob's Tech Page =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com =-
-= Quake Benchmark Project =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com/quakebm =-
-= My RC5-64 Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/emsearch.idc?ST=rebe...@worldnet.att.net
-= My RC5-64 Team Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/tmsummary.idc?TM=3403
Kevin Stone wrote in message ...
>> >The time taken on the maintanance of a computer must be calculated. You
>> >(personaly) may make repairs and install upgrades yourself in order to
Jacob Fuller
The Dell is NOT a low Quality system George. And I was amazed by the price
because it was such a good PC for the price. The speakers are not BAD, just
not the best, most people cant tell that much difference until the volume is
cranked up. It not a Chevy Metro, its a Geo BTW (at least in the USA). I CAN
get a better system but it costs more, I dont need that much power, I would
like to have it, but I dont need it. My system works fine exept I cant run
BeOS so I am upgrading.
-= Jacob Fuller =-
-= rebe...@worldnet.att.net =-
-= Jacob's Tech Page =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com =-
-= Quake Benchmark Project =-
-= http://jf.simplenet.com/quakebm =-
-= My RC5-64 Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/emsearch.idc?ST=rebe...@worldnet.att.net
-= My RC5-64 Team Stats =-
http://rc5stats.distributed.net/tmsummary.idc?TM=3403
George Graves wrote in message ...
>In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed
at
>> the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>>
>> 400Mhz P-II
>> (100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
>> 64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
>> 8.4 GB UDMA HD
>> 17" 1000LS Moniter
>> Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
>> 32x MAX CD-ROM
>> Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
>> Altec ACS-90 speakers
>> MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
>> WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
>> -- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
>> Dell Keyboard
>> MS Intellimouse
>> 3-year warranty
>> 1-year onsite
>>
>> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>>
>> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
>
>You can't. But what you do not seem to understand is that
>the price is irrelevant. Sure, I can BEAT the hardware for
>the price, but not the software bundle, and my hardware
>doesn't include a cheap speaker set. Its still irrelevant.
>
>There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
>always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
>Only the former would ever compare Mac and PC prices.
>Sure, the PC is cheaper, but when you have bought it,
>you have a PC, and THAT'S the point! Telling me that a
>Chevy Metro is cheaper than a BMW Z3 means nothing to
>me to when what I WANT is a BMW Z3. Don't you think
>that we Mac users are aware that the cost of belonging
>to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
>the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
>we want a MAC NOT a PC.
>
>If one purchases a Chevy Metro, and is the type of buyer who
>always buys the cheapest rather than the best, then one can
Jacob Fuller
Brian Webster wrote in message ...
>In article <6hse0d$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed
at
>>the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>>
>>400Mhz P-II
>>(100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
>>64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
>>8.4 GB UDMA HD
>>17" 1000LS Moniter
>>Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
>>32x MAX CD-ROM
>>Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
>>Altec ACS-90 speakers
>>MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
>>WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
>>-- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
>>Dell Keyboard
>>MS Intellimouse
>>3-year warranty
>>1-year onsite
>>
>>$2499.00 !!!!!!!
>>
>>WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
>
>You can't; no Mac comes bundled with any OS as horrible as Windows 95.
What a nice argument there. Windows95 is not a BAD OS, just because there
ARE better OS's does NOT mean win95 sucks. And on a nicely made system it
hardly ever crashes. And besides that the only other thing that makes MacOS
"better" is some people prefer the interface.
Jacob Fuller
Paul Hsieh wrote in message ...
>rebe...@worldnet.att.net said:
>> OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed
at
>> the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>>
>> 400Mhz P-II
>> (100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
>> 64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
>> 8.4 GB UDMA HD
>> 17" 1000LS Moniter
>> Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
>> 32x MAX CD-ROM
>> Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
>> Altec ACS-90 speakers
>> MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
>> WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
>> -- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
>> Dell Keyboard
>> MS Intellimouse
>> 3-year warranty
>> 1-year onsite
>>
>> $2499.00 !!!!!!!
>>
>> WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
>
>switch to a much slower graphics card, and change to Windows 3.11, then
>Apple can sell you a comparable system at the same price based on the G3
>processor!
:-P good one, who want win 3.11 though?
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
It's been no secret that most PC users enjoy upgrading their computers more
then Mac users. Especially because of the gaming...
I never really see anyone replace their hardware because it's "broken"...
more like because want to.
More Mac users have the attitude that they don't "need" to upgrade. Or that
they are scared to open the box (just take a look around at the Mac and PC
users you know)
This is just in general of course... but the point is, the money is being
spent because the user enjoys buying more toys :-)
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Bich Hoang wrote in message <6htgp1$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>: > I am. A home PC user wont pay $1500.00 a year to keep their computer up
No one spends that much to keep a workstation running. Most home users don't
pay *anything* to keep their system running.
The money is being spent on new toys. Like 3Dfx cards, more RAM, faster
video cards, etc., etc., etc...
How many PC users do you know that practically drool when they enter a
computer hardware store? Probably yourself included... I'm I right? I know I
do :-)
Ken Schuller
dusd...@KNOWSPAAM.amsn.com wrote in message
<35436...@news8.kcdata.com>...
It's gotten to the point where I bring a mop along. :) If you have the
bux, there's no shortage of cool toys.
Ken
Edward P Scholl
Jacob Fuller (rebe...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: not the best, most people cant tell that much difference until the volume is
: cranked up. It not a Chevy Metro, its a Geo BTW (at least in the USA). I CAN
geo's gone bye-bye. it's branded chevy now.
-ed
George Graves
> On or about Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:55:03 -0700, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) exclaimed :
>
> <s>
>
> >There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
> >always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
>
> Then there are those who weigh the relative benefit of a $1000 oxygen
> card over a $200 matrox and buy the Matrox.
>
> <s>
>
> >to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
> >the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
> >we want a MAC NOT a PC.
>
> If you want to belong to the "mac club", goody for you. Most people
> don't think in terms of clubs. Instead they think in terms of tools
> to accomplish their task; those are the 90% that buy PCs.
Nate, the word club was in quotes. You're a college man, you know
what that means. I'm using the word to mean tha cost of becoming
a Mac owner. Of course computers are tools. PCs are the "Harbour
Freight" of computers, Macs are the "Porter-Cable".
>
> >
> >If one purchases a Chevy Metro, and is the type of buyer who
> >always buys the cheapest rather than the best, then one can
>
> <s>
>
> Your attempt to associate PCs with Geo Metros is lame. Get real,
> apple quality isn't that great. Maybe someone should start mirroring
> mac-fix-it and some of the other mac-problem sites in this group.
I'm talking about the quality of the computer experience. Something
PCers don't know about because of your lousy hardware and HORRIBLE
OS.
BTW, There is no more GEO Metro. Its a Chevy Metro now.
George Graves
George Graves
In article <6hvmlr$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The Dell is NOT a low Quality system George. And I was amazed by the price
> because it was such a good PC for the price. The speakers are not BAD, just
> not the best, most people cant tell that much difference until the volume is
> cranked up. It not a Chevy Metro, its a Geo BTW (at least in the USA). I CAN
> get a better system but it costs more, I dont need that much power, I would
> like to have it, but I dont need it. My system works fine exept I cant run
> BeOS so I am upgrading.
BUUUZZZZZZZZ - Thanks for playing! There is NO GEO BRAND ANYMORE. The Metro
is being sold by Chevrolet now as a Chevy!
I realize that Dell is highly regarded among PC buyers, and I am not referring
to the quality of the machine, but rather to the quality of the computing
experience. With ALL PCs it is the same because all PCs have the same
hardware inconsistancies and the same HORRIBLE OS. In other words, I'm not
singling out Dell, as all PCs are the same to me......JUNK!
George Graves
George Graves
In article <6hvmp1$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >You can't; no Mac comes bundled with any OS as horrible as Windows 95.
>
>
> What a nice argument there. Windows95 is not a BAD OS, just because there
> ARE better OS's does NOT mean win95 sucks. And on a nicely made system it
> hardly ever crashes. And besides that the only other thing that makes MacOS
> "better" is some people prefer the interface.
You dismiss that as if it weren't important. That interface you dismiss so
lightly
is the reason why Macs are more productive and have a better ROI than do
PCs. Its
the reason for this advocacy. Windows has nice core features (although I
have yet
be impressed by MS' implementation of either PMT, MP, or MPS), but its interface
is so bad its laughable! "My Computer" sounds like a Japanese home market name
for something. They do a lot of "My Radio", "My Rice Cooker", etc. The
"Start" menu
sounds like some "training wheel"-like crutch that one throws away after
learning
how to use the system. And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
George Graves
Jacob Fuller
George Graves wrote in message ...
>In article <6hvmlr$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> The Dell is NOT a low Quality system George. And I was amazed by the
price
>> because it was such a good PC for the price. The speakers are not BAD,
just
>> not the best, most people cant tell that much difference until the volume
is
>> cranked up. It not a Chevy Metro, its a Geo BTW (at least in the USA). I
CAN
>> get a better system but it costs more, I dont need that much power, I
would
>> like to have it, but I dont need it. My system works fine exept I cant
run
>> BeOS so I am upgrading.
>
>BUUUZZZZZZZZ - Thanks for playing! There is NO GEO BRAND ANYMORE. The Metro
>is being sold by Chevrolet now as a Chevy!
Oh, last time I checked it was Geo :-P
>
>I realize that Dell is highly regarded among PC buyers, and I am not
referring
>to the quality of the machine, but rather to the quality of the computing
>experience. With ALL PCs it is the same because all PCs have the same
>hardware inconsistancies and the same HORRIBLE OS. In other words, I'm not
>singling out Dell, as all PCs are the same to me......JUNK!
They are not Junk. They work fine. You just think they are junk because youn
like Macs better. WIn95/98 is not a horrible OS, it is just pretty bloated
and some dont like the interface, and for some it crashes a lot (not for
me). I would RATHER be running BeOS or Linux, but I cant run Linux because
it just wont boot and I need to wait for my new MB and CPU for BeOS, and I
need to keep Win98 because it has all of my existing software.
Robert Barrimond
___The Real Price Tag___
Anybody think about Total Cost of Ownership? That's the real cost of an
asset. Guess who comes out on top? If you don't believe me, there are
plenty of impartial, unbiased studies to prove it. (You can email me if you
want to discuss sources, etc.)
I support Macs and PCs (Gateway). Can I tell you how many times I've had to
reconfigure the IRQs to get the modem and the ZIP drive to work at the same
time. My finace' and her father own the Gateways and have to depend on me
to keep from being on GW2K support line on average once a week.
I own a Mac (my 5th) and am proud of it because the only problem I've had
with my machine is the fact that pesky Internet Explorer crashes so blasted
often! (Wonder who wrote that piece of software.) ;-)
___It's the Ad, Stoopid!___
Marketing is what has brought success to Microsoft and bad management has
hurt Apple. That's the reality of business. The best product can't succeed
unless it is marketed properly. Until recently, marketing has been nil.
We're seeing a change: Bunny toast commercial, Pentium snail commercial.
That bodes well for the future provided mgmt keeps the stock price and
profits doubling.
___Getting It Done____
Bottom line, PC's are cheap and good for certain things. PCs make great
word processors and web surfers (provided you can keep the modem and ZIP
up!), and for software analysis packages (MATLAB and its ilk). But if I had
to have a machine to do multimedia where you have plenty of peripherals,
give ma a Mac everytime. I don't have time to waste getting my machine to
work, I want to work on my machine.
RB
----------
In article <35414827...@198.0.0.100>, nhu...@sunflower.com (Nathan
Hughes) wrote:
>On or about Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:55:03 -0700, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) exclaimed :
>
><s>
>
>>There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
>>always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
>
>Then there are those who weigh the relative benefit of a $1000 oxygen
>card over a $200 matrox and buy the Matrox.
>
><s>
>
>>to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
>>the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
>>we want a MAC NOT a PC.
>
>If you want to belong to the "mac club", goody for you. Most people
>don't think in terms of clubs. Instead they think in terms of tools
>to accomplish their task; those are the 90% that buy PCs.
>
>>
>>If one purchases a Chevy Metro, and is the type of buyer who
>>always buys the cheapest rather than the best, then one can
>
><s>
>
>Your attempt to associate PCs with Geo Metros is lame. Get real,
>apple quality isn't that great. Maybe someone should start mirroring
>mac-fix-it and some of the other mac-problem sites in this group.
>
>
>
George Graves
In article <6i04it$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Buddy, I OWN BOTH. I know that Macs are better because I have to deal
with both on a daily basis. I have just spent the better part of a week
installing OpenLinux on my PC. This has nothing to do with Windows, I
know, but it does have to do with PC hardware. I spent an hour installing
Linux, and have spent the ENTIRE WEEKEND trying to get the thing to
recognize the @#$%^ mouse, and to display the GUI correctly. Several
months ago, when I first started mucking with Linux, I installed MKLinux
for the PowerPC on my Mac. Now, MKLinux is still in development release
(and therefore not real usable), but when I did boot it up, the mouse worked
first time, and so did the X windowing system. The difference here is
HARDWARE. Mac hardware is so good, that even Linux is pretty much of a
no-brainer to install. On a PC, on the other hand, the very best (according
to what I've read) distribution of Linux is a nightmare. Like I said, JUNK!
WIn95/98 is not a horrible OS, it is just pretty bloated
> and some dont like the interface, and for some it crashes a lot (not for
> me). I would RATHER be running BeOS or Linux, but I cant run Linux because
> it just wont boot and I need to wait for my new MB and CPU for BeOS, and I
> need to keep Win98 because it has all of my existing software.
It won't boot. You just confirmed that PC hardware is junk!
George Graves
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
George Graves wrote in message ...
>have yet
>be impressed by MS' implementation of either PMT, MP, or MPS),
The PMT is quite good! Not so good in Win95... but DAMN good in NT!!!
As for MP... it sucks in Win95... but the MP in NT is very good. Never
crashed NT yet :-)
What is "MPS" again?
>but its interface
>is so bad its laughable!
Hardly...
Other OS's might have advantages in the way they install, and other things.
But the Win95/NT4 UI is the best I've ever seen... so shoot me.
>And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
You use MacOS, correct?
So what are you calling Windows ugly for? The only other GUI I ever saw that
looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which was
hardly a GUI).
MacOS 8.x looks better now... but it sure took a long enough time to get
away from that god awful bland, black and white look... with so much white
it, "quite frankly," hurt my eyes.
Jacob Fuller
George Graves wrote in message ...
><rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
I put TurboLinux 1.0 on my system, took a long time because i used the full
550 MB install. I erased it because I did'nt really like it. BUT this
version autodetected my hardware, the only hard part (not really) was
figuring out what the serial # on my secondary HD was, but I re-booted and
looked at the Install boot sequenceand saw that. Have you ever thought that
it is your particular system that is acting up withLinux
>
>
> WIn95/98 is not a horrible OS, it is just pretty bloated
>> and some dont like the interface, and for some it crashes a lot (not for
>> me). I would RATHER be running BeOS or Linux, but I cant run Linux
because
>> it just wont boot and I need to wait for my new MB and CPU for BeOS, and
I
>> need to keep Win98 because it has all of my existing software.
>
>It won't boot. You just confirmed that PC hardware is junk!
Actually I knew there was a 99% chance BeOS would not boot. Because Be inc.
DID NOT list my hardware (MB and CPU) on their list I was just going to try
it anyway.
George Graves
In article <6i1pm3$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jacob Fuller"
<rebe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I put TurboLinux 1.0 on my system, took a long time because i used the full
> 550 MB install. I erased it because I did'nt really like it. BUT this
> version autodetected my hardware, the only hard part (not really) was
> figuring out what the serial # on my secondary HD was, but I re-booted and
> looked at the Install boot sequenceand saw that. Have you ever thought that
> it is your particular system that is acting up withLinux
Of course I have. Except for the mouse problem (which makes no sense), I
know that the GUI problem is due to my video card being non-supported. On
the Mac, video is video, doesn't matter what card is in it. Just another
example of Mac hardware superiority. I've wasted a lot of time and money
on this setup, and so far, have nothing to show for it, and am about to
spend more (a new video board).
George Graves
George Graves
> George Graves wrote in message ...
> >Windows has nice core features (although I
> >have yet
> >be impressed by MS' implementation of either PMT, MP, or MPS),
>
> The PMT is quite good! Not so good in Win95... but DAMN good in NT!!!
>
> As for MP... it sucks in Win95... but the MP in NT is very good. Never
> crashed NT yet :-)
>
> What is "MPS" again?
\
Multi-processor support. NT scales terribly, I suspect '95 is just as
bad, probably worse.
>
> >but its interface
> >is so bad its laughable!
>
> Hardly...
>
> Other OS's might have advantages in the way they install, and other things.
> But the Win95/NT4 UI is the best I've ever seen... so shoot me.
Some people like sweet wine too. There is no accounting for taste......
>
> >And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>
> You use MacOS, correct?
>
> So what are you calling Windows ugly for?
Because it is. You can't find a st of colors that makes Windows look anythinhg
other than nauseating!
The only other GUI I ever saw that
> looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which was
> hardly a GUI).
Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
composer!
>
> MacOS 8.x looks better now... but it sure took a long enough time to get
> away from that god awful bland, black and white look... with so much white
> it, "quite frankly," hurt my eyes.
It was still more elegant than ANY Win'95 color scheme. At least it didn't
make one sick just to look at it. WHERE DID MS GET THAT NAUSEATING
CYAN?
George Graves
MR_boxster
>It was still more elegant than ANY Win'95 color scheme. At least it didn't
>make one sick just to look at it. WHERE DID MS GET THAT NAUSEATING
>CYAN?
>
>George Graves
Due to usability and eye strain.. They did some research into that. One thing
MS is good as is useability.
For example.... MS Hardware. I have their joystick, keyboard, and intellimouse
trackball. All excellent products (just imagine MS in hardware, that would be
scary).. Since using their natural keyboard and trackball, I no longer suffer
from RSI/carpal pains... For that, I owe that a debt of gratitude. They really
looked into and tried to innovate in those areas (now, thats a first..
innovate?)
Heck, I even use their hardware on my mac (my powerbase allows you to use
wintel keyboard and mouses).
back to the Cyan... I've been in offices and notice how people react to that
color. its butt ugly but real easy on the eyes.
-porschmeister
Petri Holopainen
George Graves wrote:
>
> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>
Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can
do that too:
Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons
before I'd even touch the rounded, cheesy-looking toy
buttons of MacOS.
And now when we are talking ugly, look at the horrible
system font in MacOS. It must be the only font created
where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any
other letter.
Then I could mention the braindead single program menu
at the top of the screen, and...
Well, you get my point...
That felt good. Grown-up time again.
-- Petri
Ronald Shin
George Graves wrote:
> You can't. But what you do not seem to understand is that
> the price is irrelevant. Sure, I can BEAT the hardware for
> the price, but not the software bundle, and my hardware
> doesn't include a cheap speaker set. Its still irrelevant.
Check again. The Altec Lansings are excellent computer speakers.
The fact remains, is that the system comes with good quality stuff.
That turtle beach card is superior to the sound chip that comes with
your Macintosh.
>
> There are two types of buyers in this world. Those who
> always buy on price, and those who always buy quality.
> Only the former would ever compare Mac and PC prices.
> Sure, the PC is cheaper, but when you have bought it,
> you have a PC, and THAT'S the point! Telling me that a
> Chevy Metro is cheaper than a BMW Z3 means nothing to
> me to when what I WANT is a BMW Z3. Don't you think
> that we Mac users are aware that the cost of belonging
> to the Mac "Club" is higher than the cost of belonging to
> the PC club? Of course we do, and doesn't matter, because
> we want a MAC NOT a PC.
>
I must disagree with your logic here. Your point of view is more like
those who are unwilling to learn how to drive a manual transmission,
simply because they are afraid. As you know, a manual transmission is
cheaper than an automatic. To take advantage of today's latest
offerings, you need to learn. Your situation is more akin to those who
would rather stick with the automatic transmission (which cripples a
performance car) because they don't know (or refuse to believe?) that a
manual transmission is really not that difficult to use at all.
>
> Of course, as crude as PCs and Windows are, they should be
> cheaper. The hours the owner will spend, during his term of
> ownership, in a state of utter frustration, is certainly worth
> something.
Oh come on, now. Sometimes, if a problem occurs with a PC, the BIOS
can, at times, pinpoint the problem. Much more encouraging than seeing
a frowning faced computer on the screen.
The tragedy would be if Wintel equipment and
> software, being as poor as it is, were still priced where a
> Mac is priced. If Apple were to ever come out with machines
> that truly competed with PCs dollar for dollar, and if there
> were still people who bought PCs anyway, then one has to look
> at certain people's sanity.
No offense intended, but...
It's that kind of mentality that has driven Apple to retain a mere 4.5%
of the market share.
>
> George Graves
--
"The First Amendment is crucial. Of course it is. So are all
the others. And the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees
that people can bear arms to protect themselves."
Charlton Heston, VP of the NRA
Anders Ohlsson
Ronald Shin wrote:
> Oh come on, now. Sometimes, if a problem occurs with a PC, the BIOS
> can, at times, pinpoint the problem. Much more encouraging than
> seeing
> a frowning faced computer on the screen.
There are not only error codes but also a free low-level debugger from
Apple if you want more. The two advantages of this is that 1) *you*
choose the amount of information presented, and 2) if you don't know how
to change it, you don't need to.
/A
K. Sebring
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:58:53 -0400, Petri Holopainen wrote
(in message <3544B94D...@algonet.se>):
>
> George Graves wrote:
>>
>> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>>
>
> Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can do that too:
>
> Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons before I'd even touch
> the rounded, cheesy-looking toy buttons of MacOS. And now when we are
> talking ugly, look at the horrible system font in MacOS. It must be the only
> font created where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any other
> letter. Then I could mention the braindead single program menu at the top of
> the screen, and...
The buttons look 'cheesy'? That's just sooo stupid.
The font... are you talking Charcoal, or Chicago? Hell, I could change to
_any_ font I want in less than 15 seconds _right now_ if I wanted to.
The Applications Menu? I use GoMac (for the 'switch' buttons, I tried the
'Start' Menu but it SUCKS compared to the Apple Menu), but I still use the
Applications menu to hide and show programs. Sometimes I still use it to
switch applications. Usually, I just 'click in' to my apps.
While I'm here...
does anyone with the MacOS notice the cool things you can do with modifier keys
(especially option)? Real cool stuff... hey, I just hid my clock... now it's
back! :)
>
> Well, you get my point...
Didn't see any point, only trying to cover yourself on an issue you can't
compete against.
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
MR_boxster wrote in message <6i2e25$j0c$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
>back to the Cyan... I've been in offices and notice how people react to
that
>color. its butt ugly but real easy on the eyes.
Of course anyone can change it if they wanted to.
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
K. Sebring wrote in message
<01HW.B16A93530...@news.sprynet.com>...
>I tried the
>'Start' Menu but it SUCKS compared to the Apple Menu), but I still use the
>Applications menu to hide and show programs.
The Start Menu on Win95/NT4 can be much easier on the Dyslexic (often the
creative, as ironic as that seems :-).
This is because many people with Dyslexia (including myself) have a syndrome
that make words, letters, and other characters on the page move, disappear,
etc., etc., etc.
The "icons" next to each program and group in the start menu eliminate this
problem, and eliminate some of the frustration some dyslexic users could get
with MacOS.
MS has done allot of research into helping the disabled, and has innovated
many ways to make things easier for them. So artists like myself can be much
more comfortable then they would be using MacOS.
>While I'm here...
>
>does anyone with the MacOS notice the cool things you can do with modifier
keys
>(especially option)? Real cool stuff... hey, I just hid my clock... now
it's
>back! :)
Gee... that is cool. Wish I could do that with Win95/NT4...
Well... you can. Just right click on the task bar, choose properties, and
choose "don't show clock"
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Petri Holopainen wrote in message <3544B94D...@algonet.se>...
>George Graves wrote:
>>
>> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>
>Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can
>do that too:
>
>Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons
>before I'd even touch the rounded, cheesy-looking toy
>buttons of MacOS.
>And now when we are talking ugly, look at the horrible
>system font in MacOS. It must be the only font created
>where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any
>other letter.
>Then I could mention the braindead single program menu
>at the top of the screen, and...
>
>
I pretty much agree with your "personal" "opinions" here. But I also agree
that they are childish. And even my last post about MacOS looking almost as
bad as the Atari OS was also pointless and dumb.
If you like the Mac because the Apple logo has all the colors in the rainbow
in it, that's fine. But it doesn't make much of a intelligent debate now
does it...
Christopher Smith
>>
>> What is "MPS" again?
>\
>Multi-processor support. NT scales terribly, I suspect '95 is just as
>bad, probably worse.
George, if you want to show your ignorance then there are slightly more
subtle ways to do it (something like "PCs can't change the colour depth w/o
rebooting would be an example"). This entire sentence smacks of 4th-hand
data about which you have no idea.
1. NT scales ok to at least 4 processors, in some cases exceptionally well
(3DS Max)
2. Win95 doesn't scale at all considering it has absolutely >0< support for
SMP (just slightly less than MacOS)
>
> The only other GUI I ever saw that
>> looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which was
>> hardly a GUI).
>
>Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
>Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
>composer!
And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in grey ?
David Field
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:56:03 -0400, "K. Sebring"
<pow...@REMOVEsprynet.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:58:53 -0400, Petri Holopainen wrote
>(in message <3544B94D...@algonet.se>):
>>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can do that too:
>>
>> Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons before I'd even touch
>> the rounded, cheesy-looking toy buttons of MacOS. And now when we are
>> talking ugly, look at the horrible system font in MacOS. It must be the only
>> font created where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any other
>> letter. Then I could mention the braindead single program menu at the top of
>> the screen, and...
>
>The buttons look 'cheesy'? That's just sooo stupid.
>
>The font... are you talking Charcoal, or Chicago? Hell, I could change to
>_any_ font I want in less than 15 seconds _right now_ if I wanted to.
>
>The Applications Menu? I use GoMac (for the 'switch' buttons, I tried the
>'Start' Menu but it SUCKS compared to the Apple Menu), but I still use the
>Applications menu to hide and show programs. Sometimes I still use it to
>switch applications. Usually, I just 'click in' to my apps.
>
>While I'm here...
>
>does anyone with the MacOS notice the cool things you can do with modifier keys
>(especially option)? Real cool stuff... hey, I just hid my clock... now it's
>back! :)
And all of it undocumented. I tried today to click on the desktop
using no modifier keys and then all combinations. Nothing.
>
>>
>> Well, you get my point...
>
>Didn't see any point, only trying to cover yourself on an issue you can't
>compete against.
>
>>
>> That felt good. Grown-up time again.
>>
>> -- Petri
>
David Field
>OK I picked up a Windows Magazine and saw this on the back and was amazed at
>the low cost for this awesome PC system, heres the specs:
>
>400Mhz P-II
>(100Mhz BUS, BX Chipset)
>64 MB 100Mhz SDRAM
>8.4 GB UDMA HD
>17" 1000LS Moniter
>Diamond Permedia 2 AGP video w\ 8 MB
>32x MAX CD-ROM
>Turle Beach Montego A3D 64-voce PCI sound card
>Altec ACS-90 speakers
>MS Office 97, Bookshelf 98, McAfee Viruscan
>WIn95 with IE4 pre-installed
>-- FREE Upgrade to win98 when it comes out
>Dell Keyboard
>MS Intellimouse
>3-year warranty
>1-year onsite
>
>$2499.00 !!!!!!!
>
>WHERE can I get a comparable Mac for that price?
I went to www.apple.com today to price a G3/300.
The cheapest this could be done (choosing the minimum price on every
item and not including a single optional item) was around $2,600.
This was with 32 MB RAM and no monitor.
Upgrading the system to compete with the cheapest Dell 400MHz put the
price up to around $3,300 without monitor.
The Dell is $2,399 including monitor and MS Office small business
edition.
David.
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio
In article <35454b1e...@news.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David Field)
wrote:
Only if you do your upgrading through the Apple Store. Pricewise,
the following system can be had from the Apple Store:
G3/300 32 MB 6.0 GB IDE drive 24xCD floppy
2 MB VRAM+RagePro, Audio Card, 10bT ethernet, 56k internal modem,
no monitor = $2879
Buying your add-ons 3rd party:
+32 MB SDRAM, $50 (TheChipMerchant)
+graphics card, ATI variant ~$250 (various mail order catalogs)
+ACS-90 speakers $50 (Best Buy)
+low-end 17" 0.28 monitor, $300 (online price watch)
= $2879+$650 = $3529 (not this is without Office)
Note this gives you 10bT ethernet and an extra onboard RagePro chip
for driving/accelerating a second monitor. I'll assume $100 for
a ethernet card for the Dell and $150 for a second, low-end
graphics card to match the RagePro, so the Dell price = $2399+$250 =
$2649, if we want to keep the systems _comparable_. As for the
necessity of the extras, from Apple's standpoint these are
high-end targeted machines, and the 10bT at least is not unreasonable.
(I'll bow to you on Office, as there's no way Apple can compete with that
bundle right now... perhaps you might consider various OS components
such as speech recognition, speech synthesis, scripting, ColorSync,
HFS+, superior QuickTime MIDI instruments, Sorenson codecs, scheduled
startup/shutdown, EasyOpen, x-platform file handling, etc etc
as comparable in value, perhaps you wouldn't...)
Anyway, for the _comparable_ systems, the price ratio is $3529/$2649 =
1.33 .. that's the performance boost you'd need from a G3/300 over a
PII/400 if your only metric was price/performance. Depending on
the benchmark the G3 either does (Bytemark, Photoshop, Mathematica under
Windows) or doesn't (SPEC, Mathematica under Linux) beat the PII/400
by that extra 33%.
(BTW, I'll grant you that buying all-at-once from Dell online is nicer
than piecing together a G3 with 3rd party components. However, given
the wicked cool chassis design, opening up your G3 minitor is actually
_fun_ ... of course in the eye of the beholder...)
Dennis
George Graves
In article <6i2bem$qcv$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> What is "MPS" again?
> >\
> >Multi-processor support. NT scales terribly, I suspect '95 is just as
> >bad, probably worse.
>
> George, if you want to show your ignorance then there are slightly more
> subtle ways to do it (something like "PCs can't change the colour depth w/o
> rebooting would be an example"). This entire sentence smacks of 4th-hand
> data about which you have no idea.
>
> 1. NT scales ok to at least 4 processors, in some cases exceptionally well
> (3DS Max)
Yeah, at least 4 processors. 1 = 100%, the second = 60% (40% overhead), the
third = 35% (70% overhead), the fourth = <20% (>80% overhead) great scaling.
>
> 2. Win95 doesn't scale at all considering it has absolutely >0< support for
> SMP (just slightly less than MacOS)
>
> >
> > The only other GUI I ever saw that
> >> looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which was
> >> hardly a GUI).
> >
> >Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
> >Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
> >composer!
>
> And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in grey ?
No, I'd prefer it if they hired someone at MS with some taste to do the
interface. I realize that they have to restrict their palatte due to the
number of users still stuck with 4-bit color, but better grey than what
they chose!
George Graves
George Graves
In article <3544B94D...@algonet.se>, Petri Holopainen
<pet...@algonet.se> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> >
> > And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
> >
>
> Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can
> do that too:
>
> Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons
> before I'd even touch the rounded, cheesy-looking toy
> buttons of MacOS.
> And now when we are talking ugly, look at the horrible
> system font in MacOS. It must be the only font created
> where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any
> other letter.
> Then I could mention the braindead single program menu
> at the top of the screen, and...
>
> Well, you get my point...
>
> That felt good. Grown-up time again.
When I said ugly I meant the color schemes. They have a
limited pallate from which to choose in order to keep
compatibility with people using windows with 16-color
support only. But that blue is neauseating (but then so is
the brown, the green, yecchhhhh)!
George Graves
George Graves
In article <6i2e25$j0c$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, mr_boxster@nospam_yahoo.com
(MR_boxster) wrote:
> In article <gmgraves-270...@sj-pm3-3-131.dialup.slip.net>,
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
> >It was still more elegant than ANY Win'95 color scheme. At least it didn't
> >make one sick just to look at it. WHERE DID MS GET THAT NAUSEATING
> >CYAN?
> >
> >George Graves
>
>
> Due to usability and eye strain.. They did some research into that. One thing
> MS is good as is useability.
So we trade eyestrain for "pixel-sickness" -does Dramamine work for that?
George Graves
George Graves
That's right! They can change it to an equally sickening brown, or
a nauseating green, or any of maybe a dozen sickeningly pastel
colors.
George Graves
George Graves
> Petri Holopainen wrote in message <3544B94D...@algonet.se>...
> >George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
> >
> >Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can
> >do that too:
> >
> >Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons
> >before I'd even touch the rounded, cheesy-looking toy
> >buttons of MacOS.
> >And now when we are talking ugly, look at the horrible
> >system font in MacOS. It must be the only font created
> >where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide as any
> >other letter.
> >Then I could mention the braindead single program menu
> >at the top of the screen, and...
> >
> >Well, you get my point...
> >
> >That felt good. Grown-up time again.
>
>
> I pretty much agree with your "personal" "opinions" here. But I also agree
> that they are childish. And even my last post about MacOS looking almost as
> bad as the Atari OS was also pointless and dumb.
>
> If you like the Mac because the Apple logo has all the colors in the rainbow
> in it, that's fine. But it doesn't make much of a intelligent debate now
> does it...
I prefer the Mac interface because its elegant and not dirivative of every
GUI ever made like Microsofts is. Windows is sort of like an American car
of the late fifties: overblown, overstyled, inelegant, and has fins!
George Graves
George Graves
Oh yeah? Have you priced 5-speeds against automatics lately? buying a
car with a manual tranny doesn't save you a cent!
To take advantage of today's latest
> offerings, you need to learn. Your situation is more akin to those who
> would rather stick with the automatic transmission (which cripples a
> performance car) because they don't know (or refuse to believe?) that a
> manual transmission is really not that difficult to use at all.
Your analogy is the one that's all wet. First of all, my point was not
to equate a Metro with a PC in ANY WAY except price. BMWs cost
more than Metros, likewise Macs cost more than PCs. People buying
on perceived values will buy a PC every time. But there are people
out there who are willing to pay more to get a better experience,
whether that experience be driving a car or a computer.
On the other hand, asserting that the level of difficulty and "trial
by fire" that one has to go through to 'learn the PC' somehow makes
for a more powerful and better computer , is just so much nonesense.
Its like saying a great car has to be tempermental. Elitist balderdash
chaemoflaging poor design. that's what it is!
BTW, I've "learned" the PC. I don't feel any more powerful or any the
wiser for having done so. It just reinforces my knowledge that the
Mac is superior in almost every way.
George Graves
>
>
> >
> > Of course, as crude as PCs and Windows are, they should be
> > cheaper. The hours the owner will spend, during his term of
> > ownership, in a state of utter frustration, is certainly worth
> > something.
>
> Oh come on, now. Sometimes, if a problem occurs with a PC, the BIOS
> can, at times, pinpoint the problem. Much more encouraging than seeing
> a frowning faced computer on the screen.
>
Thomas Womack
George Graves wrote in message ...
>In article <35457...@news8.kcdata.com>, <dusd...@KNOWSPAAM.amsn.com>
wrote:
>
>> MR_boxster wrote in message <6i2e25$j0c$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
>>
>> >back to the Cyan... I've been in offices and notice how people react to
>> that
>> >color. its butt ugly but real easy on the eyes.
>>
>> Of course anyone can change it if they wanted to.
>
>That's right! They can change it to an equally sickening brown, or
>a nauseating green, or any of maybe a dozen sickeningly pastel
>colors.
Or an arbitrarily-chosen one of the 16.7 million colours, by clicking on
'Other' and selecting from the selector, or an arbitrarily-chosen picture
using the wallpaper option. Mine's a CCD picture of the Hercules galaxy
cluster.
Tom
K. Sebring
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:29:03 -0400, dusd...@KNOWSPAAM.amsn.com wrote
(in message <35457...@news8.kcdata.com>):
>
> K. Sebring wrote in message
> <01HW.B16A93530...@news.sprynet.com>...
>
>> I tried the 'Start' Menu but it SUCKS compared to the Apple Menu), but I
>> still use the Applications menu to hide and show programs.
>
> The Start Menu on Win95/NT4 can be much easier on the Dyslexic (often the
> creative, as ironic as that seems :-).
Screw the dyslexic!!!
bwuaahahahaha!
<joking>]
But really...
>
> This is because many people with Dyslexia (including myself) have a
> syndrome that make words, letters, and other characters on the page move,
> disappear, etc., etc., etc.
>
> The "icons" next to each program and group in the start menu eliminate this
> problem, and eliminate some of the frustration some dyslexic users could
> get with MacOS.
>
> MS has done allot of research into helping the disabled, and has innovated
> many ways to make things easier for them. So artists like myself can be
> much more comfortable then they would be using MacOS.
Research?
You can think that.
>
>> While I'm here...
>>
>> does anyone with the MacOS notice the cool things you can do with
>> modifier
> keys
>> (especially option)? Real cool stuff... hey, I just hid my clock... now
> it's
>> back! :)
>
> Gee... that is cool. Wish I could do that with Win95/NT4...
>
> Well... you can. Just right click on the task bar, choose properties, and
> choose "don't show clock"
>
Geez, that sounds painful!
I'd _much_ rather click something once... and then again for it to return.
;0
K. Sebring
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:20:51 -0400, David Field wrote
(in message <35454ac1...@news.tiac.net>):
>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:56:03 -0400, "K. Sebring" <pow...@REMOVEsprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:58:53 -0400, Petri Holopainen wrote (in message
>> <3544B94D...@algonet.se>):
>>>
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And UGLY! God is Windows ugly! You can have it!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, ok, this seems a BIT childish, but hey, I can do that too:
>>>
>>> Well, I'd rather have ANY GUI with rectangular buttons before I'd even
>>> touch the rounded, cheesy-looking toy buttons of MacOS. And now when we
>>> are talking ugly, look at the horrible system font in MacOS. It must be
>>> the only font created where a capital M looks as if it's twice as wide
>>> as any other letter. Then I could mention the braindead single program
>>> menu at the top of the screen, and...
>>
>> The buttons look 'cheesy'? That's just sooo stupid.
>>
>> The font... are you talking Charcoal, or Chicago? Hell, I could change
>> to _any_ font I want in less than 15 seconds _right now_ if I wanted to.
>>
>> The Applications Menu? I use GoMac (for the 'switch' buttons, I tried
>> the 'Start' Menu but it SUCKS compared to the Apple Menu), but I still
>> use the Applications menu to hide and show programs. Sometimes I still
>> use it to switch applications. Usually, I just 'click in' to my apps.
>>
>> While I'm here...
>>
>> does anyone with the MacOS notice the cool things you can do with
>> modifier keys (especially option)? Real cool stuff... hey, I just hid my
>> clock... now it's back! :)
>
> And all of it undocumented. I tried today to click on the desktop using no
> modifier keys and then all combinations. Nothing.
I have one question for you: are you using MacOS 8? It's been out for almost
a year now.
Besides, I wasn't referring to anything on the desktop. I was referring to the
clock. The little buncha symbols that move every once and a while on your menu
bar? Ya know?
Again, while I'm here...
Here's an easy way to automatically hide a program when switching.
Hold down the option key. No matter how you switch, ('click in', Applications
Menu, whatever) the app you are switching from will hide itself.
Another by the way...
I bet everyone misses the Ghost Disk that you got pre-8 when choosing Eject
Disk. Well, it's back, baby! Simply hold down the option key and go to the
Special menu. 'Eject Disk' turns to 'Eject and Leave Behind'!
>>
>>>
>>> Well, you get my point...
>>
>> Didn't see any point, only trying to cover yourself on an issue you can't
>> compete against.
>>
>>>
>>> That felt good. Grown-up time again.
>>>
>>> -- Petri
>>
>
Petri Holopainen
George Graves wrote:
>
> When I said ugly I meant the color schemes. They have a
> limited pallate from which to choose in order to keep
> compatibility with people using windows with 16-color
> support only. But that blue is neauseating (but then so is
> the brown, the green, yecchhhhh)!
>
Nobody has 16 colors anymore. Not since 1990 or something...
If you choose display properties and change the colors, you
can choose from a palette of.. umm... many colors...
You see, you don't HAVE TO choose one of the 20 Windows standard
colors, just press the little button and voilá! There you are...
I myself have 16.7 million to choose from, but I never use
a single color as a background. It's more fun with cool sci-fi
wallpapers...:)
-- Petri.
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
George Graves wrote in message ...
>> >back to the Cyan... I've been in offices and notice how people react to
>> that
>> >color. its butt ugly but real easy on the eyes.
>>
>> Of course anyone can change it if they wanted to.
>
>That's right! They can change it to an equally sickening brown, or
>a nauseating green, or any of maybe a dozen sickeningly pastel
>colors.
That's 2 down... 15,999,998 more colors to go...
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
George Graves wrote in message ...
>> > The only other GUI I ever saw that
>> >> looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which
was
>> >> hardly a GUI).
>> >
>> >Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
>> >Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
>> >composer!
>>
>> And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in
grey ?
>
>No, I'd prefer it if they hired someone at MS with some taste to do the
>interface. I realize that they have to restrict their palatte due to the
>number of users still stuck with 4-bit color, but better grey than what
>they chose!
Of course, up until OS8, MacOS stayed mostly with BLACK AND WHITE... even
the grays were small patterns of black and white pixels. How unique, how
interesting, how artistic... give me a break!
And I suppose the BLOCKY fonts look really appealing to you as well :-P
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
>> Well... you can. Just right click on the task bar, choose properties, and
>> choose "don't show clock"
>>
>
>Geez, that sounds painful!
>
>I'd _much_ rather click something once... and then again for it to return.
Actually... if you hover over the clock you get the date. If you double
click you get even more detailed info, including the time zone info. If you
right click on it you get at least a dozen other options. etc., etc., etc...
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio
In article <3546a513...@news.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David Field)
wrote:
> >Buying your add-ons 3rd party:
> > +32 MB SDRAM, $50 (TheChipMerchant)
> > +graphics card, ATI variant ~$250 (various mail order catalogs)
> > +ACS-90 speakers $50 (Best Buy)
> > +low-end 17" 0.28 monitor, $300 (online price watch)
> >
> > = $2879+$650 = $3529 (not this is without Office)
> >
> >Note this gives you 10bT ethernet and an extra onboard RagePro chip
> > for driving/accelerating a second monitor. I'll assume $100 for
> > a ethernet card for the Dell
>
> Go to Dell.com where it's $79 for 10/100, fitted.
>
> >and $150 for a second, low-end
> > graphics card to match the RagePro,
>
> Try Price Watch. All the good ones are around $100.
Good lord. OK, I'll spot you the $80. The price/performance ratio
then goes from 1.33 to 1.37, which hardly impacts the bottom
line of my post. Some benchmarks clearly yield the extra 37%
for G3/300 over PII/400, others find the systems roughly comparable.
If we take PII pricing as the baseline, the G3s are thus either
slightly overpriced or appropriately priced, depending on the benchmark.
Truth likely lies somewhere in between, with the G3s being modestly
overpriced - but hardly the "smoking gun" argument spouted by those
who compare the $4500+ "stickered" G3s to the $2400 "stickered" PII/400s.
Dennis
Christopher Smith
>> George, if you want to show your ignorance then there are slightly more
>> subtle ways to do it (something like "PCs can't change the colour depth
w/o
>> rebooting would be an example"). This entire sentence smacks of 4th-hand
>> data about which you have no idea.
>>
>> 1. NT scales ok to at least 4 processors, in some cases exceptionally
well
>> (3DS Max)
>
>Yeah, at least 4 processors. 1 = 100%, the second = 60% (40% overhead), the
>third = 35% (70% overhead), the fourth = <20% (>80% overhead) great
scaling.
Hmm, last I looked 3DS Max scaled almost linearly with SMP - 1 CPU = 100%, 2
CPUs = 190% and so on. WHere exactly do you get the above figures ?
>> >Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
>> >Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
>> >composer!
>>
>> And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in
grey ?
>
>No, I'd prefer it if they hired someone at MS with some taste to do the
>interface. I realize that they have to restrict their palatte due to the
>number of users still stuck with 4-bit color, but better grey than what
>they chose!
I'm sure you can also name all the video cards sold in the last 5 years that
only supported 16 colours as well.
Earl Malmrose
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio <djbo...@hiwaay.net> wrote in article
<djboccip-280...@tnt1-230.hiwaay.net>...
> (BTW, I'll grant you that buying all-at-once from Dell online is nicer
> than piecing together a G3 with 3rd party components. However, given
> the wicked cool chassis design, opening up your G3 minitor is actually
> _fun_ ... of course in the eye of the beholder...)
If you're going to piece together a Mac, then to be fair you should piece
together a PC. That would cost much less than a Dell.
David Field
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:30:08 -0400, "K. Sebring"
<pow...@REMOVEsprynet.com> wrote:
>I have one question for you: are you using MacOS 8? It's been out for almost
>a year now.
I have one answer for you: yes, when it's not crashing.
>
>Besides, I wasn't referring to anything on the desktop. I was referring to the
>clock. The little buncha symbols that move every once and a while on your menu
>bar? Ya know?
That's *so* useful.
>
>Again, while I'm here...
>
>Here's an easy way to automatically hide a program when switching.
>
>Hold down the option key. No matter how you switch, ('click in', Applications
>Menu, whatever) the app you are switching from will hide itself.
Now this really *is* useful, which is why it isn't documented AFAIK.
David.
David Field
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:05:05 -0500, djbo...@hiwaay.net (Dr. Dennis J.
Boccippio) wrote:
>In article <35454b1e...@news.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David Field)
>wrote:
>
>Buying your add-ons 3rd party:
> +32 MB SDRAM, $50 (TheChipMerchant)
> +graphics card, ATI variant ~$250 (various mail order catalogs)
> +ACS-90 speakers $50 (Best Buy)
> +low-end 17" 0.28 monitor, $300 (online price watch)
>
> = $2879+$650 = $3529 (not this is without Office)
>
>Note this gives you 10bT ethernet and an extra onboard RagePro chip
> for driving/accelerating a second monitor. I'll assume $100 for
> a ethernet card for the Dell
Go to Dell.com where it's $79 for 10/100, fitted.
>and $150 for a second, low-end
> graphics card to match the RagePro,
Try Price Watch. All the good ones are around $100.
>so the Dell price = $2399+$250 =
> $2649, if we want to keep the systems _comparable_. As for the
> necessity of the extras, from Apple's standpoint these are
> high-end targeted machines, and the 10bT at least is not unreasonable.
>
>(I'll bow to you on Office, as there's no way Apple can compete with that
> bundle right now... perhaps you might consider various OS components
> such as speech recognition, speech synthesis, scripting, ColorSync,
> HFS+, superior QuickTime MIDI instruments, Sorenson codecs, scheduled
> startup/shutdown, EasyOpen, x-platform file handling, etc etc
> as comparable in value, perhaps you wouldn't...)
>
>Anyway, for the _comparable_ systems, the price ratio is $3529/$2649 =
> 1.33 .. that's the performance boost you'd need from a G3/300 over a
> PII/400 if your only metric was price/performance. Depending on
> the benchmark the G3 either does (Bytemark, Photoshop, Mathematica under
> Windows) or doesn't (SPEC, Mathematica under Linux) beat the PII/400
> by that extra 33%.
>
>(BTW, I'll grant you that buying all-at-once from Dell online is nicer
> than piecing together a G3 with 3rd party components. However, given
> the wicked cool chassis design, opening up your G3 minitor is actually
> _fun_ ... of course in the eye of the beholder...)
>
>Dennis
_X_
you morons insist on making analogies to cars and say that Macs are the
higher end model. no they are not. Macs are simply Citroens and no one
cares. your market share tells the story. idiotic comments about color
schemes and the like show just how frivolous the 'rest of us' really are.
the Mac had its time. that time has passed. the apple board was greedy or it
would be a Mac world. third parties do the Mac better than apple does
anyway. but we just don't care.
the PC is the market leader. third parties provide the innovation. Merced
will be the death knell of the Mac. and you still wont accept reality.
_X_
PC hardware is not junk but you are an ignorant person. there is no standard
PC configuration because there are so many different brands of peripherals.
maybe if apple wasn't as ignorant as you with their 'not invented here'
syndrome then maybe you would have more flexibility in your hardware. if you
purchased a PC and you have hardware problems that proves how ignorant you
are. most PC users don't have hardware problems. the cheapskates are the
ones with the biggest mouths and also the ones with the biggest problems.
I'll compare my hardware with anyone and I have never had a hardware
problem. but my stuff is not e; cheapo crap either.
you get what you pay for and if you don't know what you're doing you get
fucked.
such is life
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
_X_ wrote in message <6i6iq1$h8h$1...@as1000.javanet.com>...
I couldn't agree with you more.
Just because the PC market is so huge, and has allot of "crap" does not mean
that the PC architecture is "crap." Just that their are products for the PC
(software & hardware) that are better and worse then available for the Mac.
Simply, "a wide variety."
...so if you know what to buy, you can get something that kicks ass... but
if you don't, your running a 5% (more or less) chance of buying problematic
hardware/software (depending on where you buy).
(that percentage is not "fact," just a example to how the platforms
differ... whether that number is .02% or 8% does not make a difference)
But I have to disagree (a little :-) that "good" hardware/software is not
always the most expensive... nor is it always the "name brand" product. (but
it "often" is)
Thomas Womack
Earl Malmrose wrote in message <01bd7320$1e3b6a80$0b0ba8c0@woohoo>...
>Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio <djbo...@hiwaay.net> wrote in article
><djboccip-280...@tnt1-230.hiwaay.net>...
>> (BTW, I'll grant you that buying all-at-once from Dell online is nicer
>> than piecing together a G3 with 3rd party components. However, given
>> the wicked cool chassis design, opening up your G3 minitor is actually
>> _fun_ ... of course in the eye of the beholder...)
>
>If you're going to piece together a Mac, then to be fair you should piece
>together a PC. That would cost much less than a Dell.
I'm not sure that's true any more, particularly if you want Windows and
Office - certainly I couldn't have assembled my current system (P2/233,
bought September 1997) for less than I paid for it from Gateway. Remember,
Dell gets Windows and Office for essentially no cost.
Tom
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio
> ...so if you know what to buy, you can get something that kicks ass... but
> if you don't, your running a 5% (more or less) chance of buying problematic
> hardware/software (depending on where you buy).
> (that percentage is not "fact," just a example to how the platforms
> differ... whether that number is .02% or 8% does not make a difference)
>
Unless you're the poor average, computer-illiterate first-time buyer who
happens to be smooth-talked into buying one of those double-digit DOA
rate Packard Bells, huh?
Even if we run with a 5% estimate, that's way too high for me.
If the auto industry had that rate of lemons, all hell would break loose...
DJB
George Graves
In article <6i56gn$nas$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Yeah, at least 4 processors. 1 = 100%, the second = 60% (40% overhead), the
> >third = 35% (70% overhead), the fourth = <20% (>80% overhead) great
> scaling.
>
> Hmm, last I looked 3DS Max scaled almost linearly with SMP - 1 CPU = 100%, 2
> CPUs = 190% and so on. WHere exactly do you get the above figures ?
An article on multiprocessor support in (I believe) New Media Magazine. They
tested a number of MP workstations and those were the figures thay came up
with.
>
> >> >Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
> >> >Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
> >> >composer!
> >>
> >> And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in
> grey ?
> >
> >No, I'd prefer it if they hired someone at MS with some taste to do the
> >interface. I realize that they have to restrict their palatte due to the
> >number of users still stuck with 4-bit color, but better grey than what
> >they chose!
>
>
> I'm sure you can also name all the video cards sold in the last 5 years that
> only supported 16 colours as well.
Then if they didn't pick those awful colors from a 16 color palette for backward
compatibility purposes, then why did they pick 'em?
George Graves
George Graves
In article <6i6icr$jdk$1...@as1000.javanet.com>, "_X_"
<j_...@mail.geocities.com> wrote:
> you morons insist on making analogies to cars and say that Macs are the
> higher end model. no they are not. Macs are simply Citroens and no one
> cares. your market share tells the story. idiotic comments about color
> schemes and the like show just how frivolous the 'rest of us' really are.
>
> the Mac had its time. that time has passed. the apple board was greedy or it
> would be a Mac world. third parties do the Mac better than apple does
> anyway. but we just don't care.
>
> the PC is the market leader.
That in no way precludes it from being junk, though. Just because
Apple, in their short-sighted greed made all the wrong decisions,
and MS/PC makers made all the right ones, doesn't mean that the
MS or PC products are superior, or even equal to the Mac. It just
means thay made better business descisions. PERIOD.
third parties provide the innovation. Merced
> will be the death knell of the Mac. and you still wont accept reality.
There is no death knell until I can no longer get my Mac to work or
find any still-working Mac to replace it. That's decades in the future.
And If I do finally have to change, it won't be to Windows, it'll be
to Linux. There is NO MS in this boy's future!
George Graves
George Graves
In article <6i6iq1$h8h$1...@as1000.javanet.com>, "_X_"
<j_...@mail.geocities.com> wrote:
> PC hardware is not junk but you are an ignorant person. there is no standard
> PC configuration because there are so many different brands of peripherals.
Those different brands of peripherals have wasted almost a week of my life
trying to get them all to work together. You say this is better, and I'M an
ignorant person?
> maybe if apple wasn't as ignorant as you with their 'not invented here'
> syndrome then maybe you would have more flexibility in your hardware.
If the above is your interpretation of "flexibility", you can have it, I
have better
things to do with a computer than to spend days of frustration trying to
get this
shit configured,
if you purchased a PC and you have hardware problems that proves how
ignorant you
> are.
I have purchased a PC, I have had hardware problems. Ignorant? I don't think
so. I bought a box full of parts; motherboard, floppy, HD, CD-ROM, case, PS
etc. Put them together with NO instructions, and the whole mess worked
the first time I turned it on. On the other hand, I could not get the mouse to
work because the @#%^&*& P-N-P Bios kept turning Comm 2 OFF until I changed
all the IRQs from P-N-P to EISA! The X-windowing system I was using didn't
support the EXACT video chipset that was on my MB, so I had to purchase
another video board.
most PC users don't have hardware problems. the cheapskates are the
> ones with the biggest mouths and also the ones with the biggest problems.
> I'll compare my hardware with anyone and I have never had a hardware
> problem. but my stuff is not e; cheapo crap either.
Bullshit! All PC users have hardware problems almost anytime they try
to add something new. PCs are a mess. They don't have to be, Gates has the
power to change it. That he doesn't do so speaks volumes about the whole
mess!
>
> you get what you pay for and if you don't know what you're doing you get
> fucked.
So get a Mac and leave both of those problems behind you!
George Graves
Ronald Shin
George Graves wrote:
>
> Oh yeah? Have you priced 5-speeds against automatics lately? buying a
> car with a manual tranny doesn't save you a cent!
I don't know what part of the communist world you live in, but here, in
the USA, I purchased a 1997 Ford Probe SE, in May 1997. With a 5-speed
manual, the price was 13100, while the automatic model was 14100. You
are right, in that it didn't save A cent, rather many, many cents.
> Your analogy is the one that's all wet. First of all, my point was not
> to equate a Metro with a PC in ANY WAY except price. BMWs cost
> more than Metros, likewise Macs cost more than PCs. People buying
> on perceived values will buy a PC every time. But there are people
> out there who are willing to pay more to get a better experience,
> whether that experience be driving a car or a computer.
The only way you are going to relate a PC to a Geo is by taking the
bottom end slough of the PC makers, such as Packard Bell. I could do
the same, by calling those Power Computing Mac clones the Yugos of car
manufacturers. Crash! I would not venture to place the better
manufacturers, such as Dell, Micron, Gateway, or IBM, in that level.
Apple, from my view, is more of the manufacturer that refused to adapt
to today's needs, and thus has chased away so many of those who formerly
followed them. Check their market share. You know I am right.
>
> On the other hand, asserting that the level of difficulty and "trial
> by fire" that one has to go through to 'learn the PC' somehow makes
> for a more powerful and better computer , is just so much nonesense.
> Its like saying a great car has to be tempermental. Elitist balderdash
> chaemoflaging poor design. that's what it is!
In the days of DOS/Win3X, you were certainly correct. However...
For today's computers with a standard GUI, the "trial by fire" argument
is moot. With Solaris x86, Win 9X, Win NT, etc. having their own
on-line help available, and quite a bit more complete than the MacOS,
the ease of use statement applies to either platform.
Your view of the Macintosh's supposed advantages is akin to an
individual who goes out and pays 24000 bucks for a Honda Prelude, only
to see it being beaten out by a 21000 Ford Mustang GT.
Enough of this car talk...
K. Sebring
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:56:02 -0400, David Field wrote
(in message <3546a44e...@news.tiac.net>):
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:30:08 -0400, "K. Sebring" <pow...@REMOVEsprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I have one question for you: are you using MacOS 8? It's been out for
>> almost a year now.
>
> I have one answer for you: yes, when it's not crashing.
Oh, really? Why don't you give me a little information about this computer
that crashes so much?
>>
>> Besides, I wasn't referring to anything on the desktop. I was referring
>> to the clock. The little buncha symbols that move every once and a while
>> on your menu bar? Ya know?
>
> That's *so* useful.
The clock is useful. Don't you like to know what time it is?
What is _really_ sad is you had to attack... I was merely conveying a tip to
anyone using a Mac. See, we can do this. I have never heard PC users
discussing 'the cool little things'.
>>
>> Again, while I'm here...
>>
>> Here's an easy way to automatically hide a program when switching.
>>
>> Hold down the option key. No matter how you switch, ('click in',
>> Applications Menu, whatever) the app you are switching from will hide
>> itself.
>
> Now this really *is* useful, which is why it isn't documented AFAIK.
>
I guarantee you it is documented somewhere. Want to you want it to do, flash
it in your every time you switch a program? That's probably what would happen
if Microsoft developed the MacOS. I can just see it... every time you switch a
program, I dialog box comes up: 'Did you know... you can hide programs
automatically by holding down option!'
And then it crashes.
> David.
K. Sebring
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 2:38:20 -0400, X_ wrote
(in message <6i6icr$jdk$1...@as1000.javanet.com>):
>
> you morons insist on making analogies to cars and say that Macs are the
> higher end model. no they are not. Macs are simply Citroens and no one
> cares. your market share tells the story. idiotic comments about color
> schemes and the like show just how frivolous the 'rest of us' really are.
>
> the Mac had its time. that time has passed. the apple board was greedy or
> it would be a Mac world. third parties do the Mac better than apple does
> anyway. but we just don't care.
>
> the PC is the market leader. third parties provide the innovation. Merced
> will be the death knell of the Mac. and you still wont accept reality.
>
>
I'm not going to respond to this lemming (Name 'X', at Geocities, using
Microsoft Outlook Express).
K. Sebring
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:56:02 -0400, David Field wrote
(in message <3546a44e...@news.tiac.net>):
>>
>> Again, while I'm here...
>>
>> Here's an easy way to automatically hide a program when switching.
>>
>> Hold down the option key. No matter how you switch, ('click in',
>> Applications Menu, whatever) the app you are switching from will hide
>> itself.
>
> Now this really *is* useful, which is why it isn't documented AFAIK.
Just found it. It's documented in the MacOS help center. (Since you use OS8,
right, David?) It's in the 'Working with Windows' section of 'keyboard
Shortcuts'.
R. Kirk McPike
dusd...@KNOWSPAAM.amsn.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote in message ...
>
> >> > The only other GUI I ever saw that
> >> >> looked any more ugly then MacOS would have to be the Atari GUI (which
> was
> >> >> hardly a GUI).
> >> >
> >> >Don't tell me, your favorite car color is lavender, you think that Peter
> >> >Max is the twentith century's greatest artist, and Yanni the greatest
> >> >composer!
> >>
> >> And I suppose you'd prefer everyone to bleach their hair and dress in
> grey ?
> >
> >No, I'd prefer it if they hired someone at MS with some taste to do the
> >interface. I realize that they have to restrict their palatte due to the
> >number of users still stuck with 4-bit color, but better grey than what
> >they chose!
>
> Of course, up until OS8, MacOS stayed mostly with BLACK AND WHITE... even
> the grays were small patterns of black and white pixels. How unique, how
> interesting, how artistic... give me a break!
Hate to burst your bubble, but the grays in Mac OS 7 and later were true gray.
System 6.0x, in my experiece, only had black and white pixels to create its
grays, but I could be wrong -- the only computers I've ever seen running System
6 were black and white Mac Classic IIs.
> And I suppose the BLOCKY fonts look really appealing to you as well :-P
Gee, my System Font is Charcoal, not as smooth and attractive as Espy Sans
(Copland's font) would have been, but still, an attractive font. And not at all
blocky.
Kirk
R. Kirk McPike
dusd...@KNOWSPAAM.amsn.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote in message ...
>
The problem with Windows is that the default colors are all so God awful ugly.
Sure you can select new ones in the OS, but some apps will only let you use
the default Windows colors. Excel 97 comes to mind (could be wrong, but if
there's a way to select something other than a default color, I'm missing it).
Kirk
Herbavor
In article <gmgraves-290...@sj-pm3-2-130.dialup.slip.net>,
gmgr...@slip.net says...
> most PC users don't have hardware problems. the cheapskates are the
>> ones with the biggest mouths and also the ones with the biggest problems.
>> I'll compare my hardware with anyone and I have never had a hardware
>> problem. but my stuff is not e; cheapo crap either.
>Bullshit! All PC users have hardware problems almost anytime they try
>to add something new. PCs are a mess. They don't have to be, Gates has the
>power to change it. That he doesn't do so speaks volumes about the whole
>mess!
Generalizations like that just show you don't know what you are talking
about or are just trying to make your experiences apply to all PC's. I have
upgraded my PC and many others by adding hardware of many different types and
rarely have had a problem. The problems I have had were usually not caused
by the hardware or conflicts, but by not using the correct drivers. Its only
happened twice and both times it was with an external modem. Plug and Pray
has worked fine for me and so has installing PC hardware on PC's running DOS
and/or Win 3.X. If PC hardware was so problematic to install and get
running, it wouldn't be popular to upgrade PC's as it is. Most of the time
when I get a call from a friend that has computer problems after installing
new hardware, its because they didn't read the instructions before installing
it and did things out of order or are using the wrong drivers.
I am not trying to insult MAC owners, but in my opinion, MACs are for people
that can't program their own VCR because rarely are instructions needed to
install hardware on a MAC and that applies to people who have their VCR
constantly blinking 12:00 because they didn't RTFM.
>> you get what you pay for and if you don't know what you're doing you get
>> fucked.
>So get a Mac and leave both of those problems behind you!
So are you saying that you should get a MAC to know what you paid for and
that if you get a MAC you don't know what you are doing?
'bavor
Herbavor
In article <gmgraves-280...@sj-pm3-25-153.dialup.slip.net>,
gmgr...@slip.net says...
>> I must disagree with your logic here. Your point of view is more like
>> those who are unwilling to learn how to drive a manual transmission,
>> simply because they are afraid. As you know, a manual transmission is
>> cheaper than an automatic.
>Oh yeah? Have you priced 5-speeds against automatics lately? buying a
>car with a manual tranny doesn't save you a cent!
Compare the same model with the same options. 5 speeds are usually
$800-$1500 less. Trust me I was new car shopping just a coupe months ago and
looked into this. Also, 5 speeds usually give you better gas mileage and
better acceleration.
'bavor
MR_boxster
>Bullshit! All PC users have hardware problems almost anytime they try
>to add something new. PCs are a mess. They don't have to be, Gates has the
>power to change it. That he doesn't do so speaks volumes about the whole
>mess!
>>
>
You're wrong here.. Totally wrong.. In fact, I have had more problems with my
macs (powerbase and old 6100) . Because of my 'bad' experiences, I would not
conclude that the macintosh is a junk platform.
In fact, I have never, never had any problems with my wintel boxes. my
experiences invalidates what you say. Then again what does my opinion matter
to you. All that I care is that I 'have no problems' myself and that makes me
content. I believe that there are millions if people like myself that are just
as content with their machines.
So stop generalizing. Just because you had bad experiences, you can't say that
"ALL PC uses" have problems.
porschemeister
Thomas Womack
George Graves wrote in message ...
>I have purchased a PC, I have had hardware problems. Ignorant? I don't
think
>so. I bought a box full of parts; motherboard, floppy, HD, CD-ROM, case, PS
>etc. Put them together with NO instructions, and the whole mess worked
>the first time I turned it on.
'I went to the scrapyard and got an old car chassis and an engine and a
transmission, and bolted them together. Then I drove off and the indicator
lights didn't work. Fords must really suck'.
Ah. You haven't purchased a PC, you've built a PC. Purchased PCs, at least
from companies with >$1G turnovers, have had a *LOT* of engineering and
design work done to ensure that they work properly and are reliable. Have a
look at David Springer (hardware engineer, Dell)'s posts on
rec.games.programmer about the standards Dell requires from components to go
in their machines.
>Bullshit! All PC users have hardware problems almost anytime they try
>to add something new.
All my hardware problems were due to having started off with a motherboard
constructed by unemployed Korean rice-huskers. I fixed that machine,
eventually (it cost the thick end of $2K to turn it into a nice, stable
P200MMX, 40M RAM, 4G disc, 3dfx, Millenium, essentially by replacing every
component in succession); I sold it almost immediately and bought a Gateway
box.
>PCs are a mess. They don't have to be, Gates has the
>power to change it. That he doesn't do so speaks volumes about the whole
>mess!
I'd like to see Microsoft making PCs; their mice, keyboards and joysticks
are excellent.
Tom
Joe Ragosta
In article <6i81ah$bbc$3...@news1.fast.net>,
beavisb...@beavisandbutthead.com (Herbavor) wrote:
> Generalizations like that just show you don't know what you are talking
> about or are just trying to make your experiences apply to all PC's. I have
> upgraded my PC and many others by adding hardware of many different types and
> rarely have had a problem. The problems I have had were usually not caused
> by the hardware or conflicts, but by not using the correct drivers. Its only
> happened twice and both times it was with an external modem. Plug and Pray
> has worked fine for me and so has installing PC hardware on PC's running DOS
> and/or Win 3.X. If PC hardware was so problematic to install and get
> running, it wouldn't be popular to upgrade PC's as it is. Most of the time
> when I get a call from a friend that has computer problems after installing
> new hardware, its because they didn't read the instructions before installing
> it and did things out of order or are using the wrong drivers.
That's nice. How do you explain the fact that TCO for Windows is
consistently much higher than for the Mac? How do you explain that half of
the editorials in PC magazines discuss how to avoid problems? How do you
explain the fact that the top selling apps for Windows are consisently
utilities to fix it when it breaks?
>
> I am not trying to insult MAC owners, but in my opinion, MACs are for people
> that can't program their own VCR because rarely are instructions needed to
> install hardware on a MAC and that applies to people who have their VCR
> constantly blinking 12:00 because they didn't RTFM.
Obviously spoken by someone without a clue. I built a PC from scratch and
have been using computers since before you were born unless you're over 25
(which I doubt from your message). I still prefer Macs. The difference is
that I have reasons that I can support with facts. All you have are your
biases.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
K. Sebring
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:34:12 -0400, MR_boxster wrote
(in message <6i830a$a8d$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>):
>
>
>> Bullshit! All PC users have hardware problems almost anytime they try to
>> add something new. PCs are a mess. They don't have to be, Gates has the
>> power to change it. That he doesn't do so speaks volumes about the whole
>> mess!
>>>
>>
>
> You're wrong here.. Totally wrong.. In fact, I have had more problems with
> my macs (powerbase and old 6100) . Because of my 'bad' experiences, I
> would not conclude that the macintosh is a junk platform.
Just curious- what were your problems?
John Cutright
George Graves wrote:
>
> In article <6i6icr$jdk$1...@as1000.javanet.com>, "_X_"
> <j_...@mail.geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > higher end model. no they are not. Macs are simply Citroens and no one
> > cares. your market share tells the story. idiotic comments about color
> > schemes and the like show just how frivolous the 'rest of us' really are.
> >
> > the Mac had its time. that time has passed. the apple board was greedy or it
> > would be a Mac world. third parties do the Mac better than apple does
> > anyway. but we just don't care.
> >
> > the PC is the market leader.
>
> Apple, in their short-sighted greed made all the wrong decisions,
> and MS/PC makers made all the right ones, doesn't mean that the
> MS or PC products are superior, or even equal to the Mac. It just
> means thay made better business descisions. PERIOD.
>
>
> George Graves
I can see it all now. The Mac users will be standing by an open grave,
fists
thrust in the air, screaming "But ours was the superior product!". The
pc
users will be curled up playing Doom or Quake or some such. And Gates
will
be laughing all the way to the bank.
I use a pc. I have used a Mac. I agree that the Mac is probably the
superior
product. But all of that is meaningless unless the product brings in
the bucks.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Not always. Go price a Z28, Trans Am or Formula Firbird. 6sp manual or
Auto, it's the same price. No one charges an extra $1500 for an
automatic transmission. If you pay that much extra then you're a
damn fool.
Jeff
MR_boxster
Intermittent crashes (mostly due to the os). i'm talking 5-10 times a day even
with mac os8.1
My biggest problem is due to lack of responsiveness in apps due to poor CMT
multitasking.. Mac advocates deny it but I see it. i work faster than the mac
finder..
scsi problems... Wintel blows mac os out of the water in terms of scsi.
people would say its scsi termination but when I move my scsi devices over to
wintel, i could never reproduce those problems.
on the powerbase, shoddy keyboard, mouses.. thats a trivial problem due to
cheap components. the same can be said about cheap wintel goods too.
but like i said before, each person has their own experiences. mine tends to
be negative on the mac. i'm not saying wintel is perfect either, i know people
that consistently have problems with BOTH platform.
the problems are not germane to my machines. i just tend to crash macs in
general wherever i work.... and tend to see myself 'acting' faster than the OS
finder. I am so used to launching things at whim on an NT box; never really
worrying. But on the mac, if I start using netscape, start launching other
applications, kaboom.
lastly, macs are more tempermental whenever i work in a network. in an
isolated environment, i tend to have less problems
-
porschemeister
Joe Ragosta
In article <3547A5F...@rhea.umd.edu>, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
<jpo...@rhea.umd.edu> wrote:
> Not always. Go price a Z28, Trans Am or Formula Firbird. 6sp manual or
> Auto, it's the same price. No one charges an extra $1500 for an
> automatic transmission. If you pay that much extra then you're a
> damn fool.
"Not always"? True.
"No one charges an extra $1,500"? I don't know about the exact figure, but
on many compact to mid-sized cars in the United States, it's $1,000 or so.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's $1,500 on some cars.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
dusd...@knowspaam.amsn.com
Dr. Dennis J. Boccippio wrote in message ...
>Unless you're the poor average, computer-illiterate first-time buyer who
> happens to be smooth-talked into buying one of those double-digit DOA
> rate Packard Bells, huh?
Every market has it's "crap line"
Haven't you ever seen a car salesman talk some idiot into a yugo, etc.
The difference is... the PC is such a HUGE platform market, you can get
products that are "worse" or "BETTER" then any other platform. Period.