7600 PPC too expensive (Apple screws up pricing again...) $3k cpu
S. Varshney
Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
!!): Price = $3000.00
Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
This is value for your money folks.
Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
All of this is fine, but it's going to take atleast another year before
Powercomputing computers become accepted as one like the Apple Mac.
Another year until either Gateway or Compaq comes out with clones.
In the era of web marketing, a year is just too much for a computer
industry! And plus, within less than a year, a 16mb system will not be
adequate, the 24mb/32 mb home pc is coming in faster than one thinks...
Then, Copland is delayed (as expected, not many here were willing to
believe this when I reported this on the Usenet).
The now famous "maglite" quote by Amelio has come to fruit, only goes
to show what kind of radical marketing and pricing strategies need to be
adopted by Apple. Unfortunately, the management at Apple still has some
hangovers that need to be taken care of. Perhaps another huge loss next
quarter will do the trick...
-Suvrit "give me a $2k 120mhz apple macintosh" Varshney
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, S. Varshney wrote:
>
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
The initial unspoken premise of this argument seems to be that a 166 MHz
Pentium = 120 MHz 604. I'm not going to debate this point on a CPU speed
level. I'll leave that up to the unceasing discussions in
comp.sys.powerpc. I just want to say that with one machine you get Win95,
the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
things. You get what you pay for.
Regarding the Pentium in question: Is that a complete system, or does it
still need soundblaster, a monitor card, an ethernet card, SCSI, etc.?
Ian Ollmann
Benjamin Smith
S. Varshney wrote:
>
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
What is not understood is that when people buy computers it is NOT the
features, size of disks, amount of RAM, and whether or not monitors are
included. It is more the quality of the components inside the computer
and how these components work with each other. You can get expensive 17
inch monitors and cheap ones. But don't you look at things like dot
pitch and refresh rates and energy efficiency? Don't you look at the
type of RAM, type of drives, type of cards? It's amazing that people are
not as aware of cheap computers as they are, say, cheap or inefficient
air conditioners. They will be, as more and more people begin to
understand computers. The customers will demand better quality.
People are making the same mistake that American automakers made in the
1970's. Computers are "cheapified" down to cost products, that have
PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE. Apple, and other high quality makers of computers,
are not getting the message out. You must show people, in dollar
figures, how getting these cheap systems will cost you more in the long
run. They must point out why Apples are more. I see plenty of high
quality products that are doing well now. Do we want to see high quality
products from overseas replacing US computer manufacturers products.
Shortsightedness and accepting low quality equipment will produce
something akin to the auto industry of the 1970'sin the computer
industry of today or the near future. It can happen. Somebody, get on
the air, prime time, to both home users and businesses, and get the word
out.
$3K is a fair price. The 120 in the Apple computer runs just as fast, if
not faster, than the Pentium in the Dell. One is a PC, one is an Apple.
I think it is high time that people realize that the Apple is the higher
quality machine. The JD Powers studies in quality, the customer loyalty,
the expected life expectancy of the product all point to that. There is
no Dell vs. Apple comparison. Pardon the pun, but this is Apples to
Oranges comparison. I don't buy it.
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
Good price, Apple should not sell itself short. I say, put in more RAM,
the Mac OS needs it because so many of these machines are going to be
used for graphics and they should come with 32 MB RAM. That will bring
their value up. Actually 32MB RAM is a minimum requirement for most
graphic artists.
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right.
This is the old RISC vs CISC argument. Most benchmarks say that the
Apple chip beats the chip in the Dell, in most applications, by quite a
margin. So Apple's chip is ostensibly a less powerful chip. But in
reality it is not. So it is up to Apple and salespeople to get this out.
It is time for Apple to send literature that should be displayed
prominently next to the machines. In big bold attention grabing letters
"READ THIS BEFORE LOOKING AT PENTIUM MACHINES".
It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
> I actually think that is OK. But Power Computing makes some high end
machines also. I don't trust Compaq. People may not be able to
distinguish a Compaq running MacOS from a Wintel one.
I don't know how feasible this is but I would like to see Mac become a
high end computer. I think that it should be the Volvo to BMW of
computers. You can have some lower line Macs but must of them should be
76xx and higher 8xxx, and 9xxx to very prestigious companies. They can
start with law firms. Think about it. There are many prestigious
companies that are very expensively furnished. If the Apple name can get
in with the executive crowd, sort of the executive's crowd's darling
(that's why PowerBooks have to become more state of the art - also more
mobile computers)(many of these executives may be using Newton's), and
be associated with Apple, then this can work. I'd like to see 9500,
9700, 9900, whatever they call them , with ultrarefined graphics,
extremely powerful abilities, fully Windows compatible (they will have
to be - but run them in a much more refined interface. That's right,
Windows functions with a much more refined Mac-like interface. I could
see them going for the high tech Copland scheme, actually). Also their
casing should be distinguished. Their monitors should be extraordinary.
The look - refined, expensive, almost elite.
Of course Apple must work at elite support. While all customers should
have excellent support Apple must make some sort of special package for
the high end customer. An on-sight, knowlegeble specialist should be
able to address problems and troubleshoot in the minimal time. Loaner
powerbooks should become available (corporate machines should come with
back-up included and the powerbook can work off of the backup files.)
I don't think Apple/Macintosh is a low cost machine. Older Macs can be
used in schools, for college students, in depressed urban areas, etc. I
think Macs should progressively move upscale.
This is not to ignore the graphics crowd. yes, it is a different type of
customer, but the graphics people I know, even though they are solidly
middle income, and some even lower middle income, have PowerMac 7500's.
They will spend the money on medium end machines. Support for graphics
interest should be strong. Apple should keep customers abreast, through
e-mail and snail mail of the latest developments in graphics and
multimedia and their efforts in the internet. Along with excellent
quality machines Mac should offer the best service they can to
customers. Make us feel special. I sure want to, getting a machine that
is around $4500 - a 7600 with 32MB RAM and 17 inch monitor.
Apple should still make the $1500 entry Power Mac. But it should be
percieved as the lower model of a powerful, high quality family.
> All of this is fine, but it's going to take atleast another year before
> Powercomputing computers become accepted as one like the Apple Mac.
> Another year until either Gateway or Compaq comes out with clones.
>
I like the idea of Gateway, their quality is reasonably good. I really
believe, that Apple should only support clones which meet their quality
standards. It will pay off in the long run.
> In the era of web marketing, a year is just too much for a computer
> industry! And plus, within less than a year, a 16mb system will not be
> adequate, the 24mb/32 mb home pc is coming in faster than one thinks...
>
True. More RAM, and 2GB hard disks.
> Then, Copland is delayed (as expected, not many here were willing to
> believe this when I reported this on the Usenet).
>
> The now famous "maglite" quote by Amelio has come to fruit, only goes
> to show what kind of radical marketing and pricing strategies need to be
> adopted by Apple. Unfortunately, the management at Apple still has some
> hangovers that need to be taken care of. Perhaps another huge loss next
> quarter will do the trick...
>
What they can do is try to find analagous situations that they are in. A
company known for it's design, but at somewhat of a price premium.
How did they get out of their precipitous situation and flourish.
This could be a model, of course, only if the situations are
analagous. It should be something that happened recently. They already
may be doing this. They should then see the way to making an objective
and following the course. I think Apple's future is mid to high
end. Apples for discerning computers, some of which are for the high
brow crowd.
> -Suvrit "give me a $2k 120mhz apple macintosh" Varshney
> xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
I machine for this price would compromise quality.
Quality over quantity. This really has to mean something.
Ben S.
wil...@ekx.infi.net
Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
Folks, it doesn't take an econ major to figure that the mac folks are
in trouble. I don't care how much better the macs are (and they are
better) the fact is most people don't know the difference, nor do they
care. Price is the prime consideration. I want to buy a new system
myself, but I am having a really difficult time justifying the $2,000
premium for a top of the line mac, as compared to a Dell or Micron.
I want Apple to survive, but how they plan on doing so has yet to be
revealed to me or I suspect anyone else at this point in time.
Maglites are fine, but most people buy the $.99 brand.
--Steve--
Kumud Ajmani
You are *assuming* that a 120Mhz Mac is not equal to a 166Mhz Pentium,
But, before you make a final conclusion, check this out:
<http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/cgi-bin/hint.pl>
This is produced by the Ames Laboratory at the Univ. of Iowa. This Web
site enables you to pick various computers and compare their performance.
Suppose, for example, you wanted to compare a 9500 against a Pentium 120.
Why not buy a 7500 instead? You gotta pay to be on the bleeding edge.....
Kumud
In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
>with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
>!!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
>16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
>Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
>This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
>the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
>get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
>macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
>Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
>
> All of this is fine, but it's going to take atleast another year before
>Powercomputing computers become accepted as one like the Apple Mac.
>Another year until either Gateway or Compaq comes out with clones.
>
> In the era of web marketing, a year is just too much for a computer
>industry! And plus, within less than a year, a 16mb system will not be
>adequate, the 24mb/32 mb home pc is coming in faster than one thinks...
>
> Then, Copland is delayed (as expected, not many here were willing to
>believe this when I reported this on the Usenet).
>
> The now famous "maglite" quote by Amelio has come to fruit, only goes
>to show what kind of radical marketing and pricing strategies need to be
>adopted by Apple. Unfortunately, the management at Apple still has some
>hangovers that need to be taken care of. Perhaps another huge loss next
>quarter will do the trick...
>
>
>
>-Suvrit "give me a $2k 120mhz apple macintosh" Varshney
>xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
--
We are all involved in eternity!
http://w3.gwis.com/~ajmani
S. Varshney
In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
>The initial unspoken premise of this argument seems to be that a 166 MHz
>Pentium = 120 MHz 604. I'm not going to debate this point on a CPU speed
>level. I'll leave that up to the unceasing discussions in
>comp.sys.powerpc. I just want to say that with one machine you get Win95,
>the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
>difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
>minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
>things. You get what you pay for.
To a home pc buyer, keeping in mind that Apple's performa lines really got
trashed in the market, the numbers that matter most are the MHZ and the
ram and the hd space. Therefore, no home pc buyer is going to (atleast
most) look up damned specs released by whatever have you microprocessor
report or whatever... to come to a conclusion that the 604/120mhz is
faster than a p6/166mhz chip. That aspect is best handled by the sales
person, and many just don't care... they want to ship the computer which
will make people buy more software, in this case, mostly PCs.
Also, if I were walking towards a section of computers, and see two PCs...
one with lower price and the one with the higher price, I'd rather go see
the lower price PC first, evaluate it, and then see what the higher price
offers that the lower price does not. This itself means that the attention
has been grabbed by the lower priced PC first... that is always the
criteria/benchmark now.
That way, Apple has always lost market share in major retail computer
stores. People look at extremely high prices for the top or good computers
Apple offers. Then, they look at the performas... and say hey for the
same price I can buy a PC that's much faster than the performa... and the
same price I cannot buy a decent computer Apple offers...
Check out the new 7200, it's much slower thanks to lack of interleaved
memory. What Apple loves to do is to put the best things into one
overpriced model, and then the lower priced models have the most retarded
features, including slow CD rom, slower bus/memory with a fast chip
(wasting the chip), and some limitation that really is mindboggling.
It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
The bottomline is this in capitals: APPLE DOESN'T LIKE BEING THE PRICE
LEADER... IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE MARKET, ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PC MARKET
SETS THE PRICE.
That ought to change... if Apple has to make any money.
-Suvrit
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
John Kestner
In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, S. Varshney wrote:
>
> comp.sys.powerpc. I just want to say that with one machine you get Win95,
> the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
> difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
> minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
> things. You get what you pay for.
Amen. It's like comparing, umm...apples and oranges. You can't do a
straight-up comparison because the products are vastly different, both in
hardware and software.
I don't want to pay a lot, but more importantly, I don't want to buy an
inferior, uninnovative computer.
You get what you pay for, indeed.
john
Music is a higher revelation than philosophy. - Beethoven
Benjamin Smith
S. Varshney wrote:
>
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right.
I just took a look at MacWeek. These prices are for 604e machines coming
out this fall. They are as follows
7200 166Mhz 16/1.2/CD/L2 $2400
7600 180Mhz 16/2/CD/L2 $3100
8500 200Mhz 16/4/CD/L2 $5400
9500 200Mhz 16/4/CD/L@ $5500
So it would appear that apple is producing a 166Mhz 604e for under
$2400. These prices are not confirmed, Apple delined to comment.
To me, these are absolutely excellent values.
Apple's first Mac PPCP is called Orient Express, and is 166Mhz
16/1/CD/L2 and is $2700. Mac has bumped up its PowerMac line to compete
with its own PPCP. They are expected to go to 250Mhz 6 months after the
above line is introduced.
It seems like Apple is taking Mac upscale. I hope they've figured out
the market were these powerful machines will be used.
Check out the june version of MacUser at
http://www.zdnet.com/macuser/
Hey, Apple has some competitive products coming out.
Ben S.
John Daniel
In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
>
> All of this is fine, but it's going to take atleast another year before
> Powercomputing computers become accepted as one like the Apple Mac.
> Another year until either Gateway or Compaq comes out with clones.
>
> In the era of web marketing, a year is just too much for a computer
> industry! And plus, within less than a year, a 16mb system will not be
> adequate, the 24mb/32 mb home pc is coming in faster than one thinks...
>
> Then, Copland is delayed (as expected, not many here were willing to
> believe this when I reported this on the Usenet).
>
> The now famous "maglite" quote by Amelio has come to fruit, only goes
> to show what kind of radical marketing and pricing strategies need to be
> adopted by Apple. Unfortunately, the management at Apple still has some
> hangovers that need to be taken care of. Perhaps another huge loss next
> quarter will do the trick...
>
I'm not even going to get into the 120 PPC != 166 Pentium argument.
I'll make this short and sweet. Apple lost a lot of money by selling cheap
machines at a loss and not being able to sell enough expensive machines.
Apple has to make sure they make enough money on each machine to be
profitable and that they have expensive machines available whenever a
customer wants to buy them.
For about 19 of the past 20 years, Apple has sold the most expensive
machines in the industry. They made a _lot_ of money doing it. They then
lowered prices to be the same as the cheapest PCs. The lost a ton of
money. The people who want Macs will buy them at any price. The people who
don't want macs won't buy them at any price. So why not sell them for a
tidy profit? Sure, I'd like to pay less for my next mac. But I'd rather
pay more for a mac 2 years from now than not be able to buy one at all.
John Daniel
--
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
David Lawson
Before I start refuting points, a question. Why is it so hard for you to
accept the notion that people are willing to pay a premium for quality? To
beat a dead horse some more, a Chevy Lumina 3.4 will look better than a
BMW 328i in a point-by-point numerical/features comparison. But which
would you rather own?
(If you say "the Chevy," my deepest condolences.)
In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> To a home pc buyer, keeping in mind that Apple's performa lines really got
> trashed in the market, the numbers that matter most are the MHZ and the
> ram and the hd space. Therefore, no home pc buyer is going to (atleast
> most) look up damned specs released by whatever have you microprocessor
> report or whatever... to come to a conclusion that the 604/120mhz is
> faster than a p6/166mhz chip. That aspect is best handled by the sales
> person, and many just don't care... they want to ship the computer which
> will make people buy more software, in this case, mostly PCs.
Buy more software from their pathetic aisles, maybe. Mac buyers purchase
more software overall, but they do it through mail-order thanks to the
failure of those very same PC salespeople to put the software on the
shelves.
> Also, if I were walking towards a section of computers, and see two PCs...
> one with lower price and the one with the higher price, I'd rather go see
> the lower price PC first, evaluate it, and then see what the higher price
> offers that the lower price does not. This itself means that the attention
> has been grabbed by the lower priced PC first... that is always the
> criteria/benchmark now.
And if I were walking toward two PC's, I'd look at features first and then
compare price. I know what I'm looking for, and I know what it should
cost. The informed consumer wins again, not walking away with a Packard
Bell which is slower than a 7200/120 despite its 150MHz processor thanks
to bad engineering.
> That way, Apple has always lost market share in major retail computer
> stores. People look at extremely high prices for the top or good computers
> Apple offers. Then, they look at the performas... and say hey for the
> same price I can buy a PC that's much faster than the performa... and the
> same price I cannot buy a decent computer Apple offers...
If you shop for MHz alone, you'll be frustrated. Don't come crying to us
when your PC breaks in the first month, or when your monitor is fuzzy, or
when your keyboard sucks rocks, or when your case cuts your hand when you
open it.
> Check out the new 7200, it's much slower thanks to lack of interleaved
> memory. What Apple loves to do is to put the best things into one
> overpriced model, and then the lower priced models have the most retarded
> features, including slow CD rom, slower bus/memory with a fast chip
> (wasting the chip), and some limitation that really is mindboggling.
Over and over again, it has been documented that memory interleaving
scarcely benefits 601 machines. Memory interleaving does benefit 604's,
but it would be a waste of 10% money for 3% or so performance gain on the
601-based 7200.
There is no desktop U.S. Macintosh currently in production that does not
have a 4X CD-ROM, from the 5260 to the 9500. It's true that the 32-bit
memory bus in current Performas slows them down, but if you really want
Apple to compete on a price basis with Joe's PC and Fishbait, then they
will need to economize. Using the 32-bit bus, they were largely able to
carry over the older low-end motherboard, saving a ton of money on parts.
A 75MHz PowerPC Performa is fully competitive w.r.t. speed to an equally
cheap 75MHz Pentium machine, and includes many more extras. BTW, its bus
is not slower. It's just narrower.
> It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
> that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
> I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
> providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
7200/90. 90MHz 601, 45MHz system bus. True 64-bit path to RAM. Accelerated
64-bit VRAM internal video, comparable to midrange PC video cards and much
superior to PC-store blue-light specials. 4X CD-ROM. SCSI-2 internal hard
disk. All the goodies you could expect from a true midrange Power Mac,
with performance comparable to a well-designed P100 system or shoddy P120.
CPU: $1150 or so. It's a damned steal, given the high quality of the
machine.
> The bottomline is this in capitals: APPLE DOESN'T LIKE BEING THE PRICE
> LEADER... IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE MARKET, ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PC MARKET
> SETS THE PRICE.
Compare Apple with Compaq or IBM, not with Joe's PC's and Lunchmeats. Its
machines last longer than those bargain-basement POSs, and work
inconceivably better. Two months ago, I paid $1070 for a 7200/75, a
competitive price with a similarly outfitted P90 system at the time. I
would have paid $1370, no regrets.
> That ought to change... if Apple has to make any money.
One of these days, people will realize that there is more to a computer
than the number of times its processor cycles in a second. Many people
already do; it's just the throwbacks like you who are giving Apple trouble
in the marketplace.
> -Suvrit
> xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
_______________
David Lawson University of Washington
d...@u.washington.edu WWW: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~dal/
Aristophanes
S. Varshney wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
> Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Pentium = 120 MHz 604. I'm not going to debate this point on a CPU speed
> >level. I'll leave that up to the unceasing discussions in
> >the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
> >difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
> >minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
> >things. You get what you pay for.
Unfortunately most customers now say that thr MacOS is worth nothing more
than a Win95 machine. To most people that Apple MUST sell to in order to make
money, yhe MacOS is not a premium product. In the consumer's mind there is
parity between the two systems in terms of general usability. The MacOS might
earn some more praise for integrated configurability, but Win95 takes it
hands down for third-party product availability.
> To a home pc buyer, keeping in mind that Apple's performa lines really got
> trashed in the market, the numbers that matter most are the MHZ and the
> ram and the hd space. Therefore, no home pc buyer is going to (atleast
> most) look up damned specs released by whatever have you microprocessor
> report or whatever... to come to a conclusion that the 604/120mhz is
> faster than a p6/166mhz chip. That aspect is best handled by the sales
> person, and many just don't care... they want to ship the computer which
> will make people buy more software, in this case, mostly PCs.
If Mhz, RAM, HD space, modem speed (the bane of the 5200/6200 series) weren't
important, then manufacturers wouldn't bother to mention these. It's like
horsepower with cars; it's a reference point. Most consumers now are very
well-informed on their own - just look at today's magazine racks to see that.
As well, a greater and greater number of customers are now shopping for
second systems for the household, or are on their second or third computer
purchase, meaning that their knowledge is firsthand and little influenced by
salespeople.
The key to the above quote is the reference to software sales. Most money i
made by additional software sales, paricularly business apps and games. There
the PC is a clear winner in terms of availability and breadth of products.
[snip]
> .... Apple has always lost market share in major retail computer
> stores. People look at extremely high prices for the top or good computers
> Apple offers. Then, they look at the performas... and say hey for the
> same price I can buy a PC that's much faster than the performa... and the
> same price I cannot buy a decent computer Apple offers...
This is very true and speaks volumes as to why Apple is having trouble in the
very market which provides two-thirds or more of its revenue. first, Mac
prices were simply not competitive, then Apple dropped them to be more so and
gets no market share gain and winds up losing money. On the other hand, if
Apple hadn't dropped its prices when it did, PC advances would've stopped
Apple's growth eveb sooner. The installed base for Apple more or less kept up
to the PC for the last three years, and I'd credit the lower prices and that
alone for this parity in market share. If Amelio goes back to premium pricing
for its systems, the MacOS will die. Retailers and many VAR's will be forced
to drop it inlight of the fact that one can get better value elsewhere. The
MacOS is NOT a premium product. The 7.x OS has had so many bugs, as have the
PowerBooks, as have the 5300/6300 series, as has so much about the OS that it
has ben undermined in its own credibility by Apple itself.
> Check out the new 7200, it's much slower thanks to lack of interleaved
> memory. What Apple loves to do is to put the best things into one
> overpriced model, and then the lower priced models have the most retarded
> features, including slow CD rom, slower bus/memory with a fast chip
> (wasting the chip), and some limitation that really is mindboggling.
Apple's 4X CD-ROM's beat most 6X internal IDE CD-ROM's on PC's. No doub about
that! What bothers customers most is that they cannot get a 6X or 8X if they
so desire. There isn't one. That is NOT premium availability. So the 7200
series has no daughtercard or AV features? It's a business system market
target product and is based on price, Ethernet, and simplicity. It's a good
system. Bells-and-whistles are not always necessary nor deirable.
> It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
> that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
> I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
> providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
True. Appl has never been able to figure out a marketing and pricing strategy
to inspire mass consumer confidence.
> The bottomline is this in capitals: APPLE DOESN'T LIKE BEING THE PRICE
> LEADER... IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE MARKET, ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PC MARKET
> SETS THE PRICE.
>
> That ought to change... if Apple has to make any money.
I'm not sure about the money part, I'm more concerned with its ability to
hold on to what market share it has, and therefore third-party development.
With those basics out of the way, then Appl's margins will rise.
Richard E. Fiegle
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> [SNIP]
>
The 7600 also has built-in sound, built-in video capture, and built-in
Ethernet.
I wonder how much it costs to add a Sound Blaster card, a video capture
card, and Ethernet to that PC clone? And I wonder how much time you'd
spend trying to make them all work after the physical installation (i.e.,
setting jumpers, configuring drivers, etc)?
I suspect the difference in price alone would be _at least_ $500 (probably
more like $700 -- but, hey, let's give the clone the benefit of the doubt),
so this brings the cost of the Dell system up to $3079 -- if it has equal
capability (at least hardware-wise) as that 7600.
I think the remaining $21 would more than easily be made up in the time &
frustration you'd experience trying to get the sound card, the video
capture card, and Ethernet to work properly in the PC clone.
I'll refrain from listing all of the other good reasons to choose a
Mac over a PC clone: those are thoroughly documented elsewhere.
--
Richard E. Fiegle
Opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily those of my employer
Joe Ragosta
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
1. You're comparing a 604 to a P5. You really ought to compare the 604 to
a 150 MHz P6. Apples and oranges. How much do you think a P6 costs? The
cheapest junk clone I've seen is around $2700 without a monitor--right in
the PowerMac 7600 range.
2. You're comparing Dell Computer to Apple. You really ought to be
comparing Apple to Compaq, IBM, DEC, HP, etc. If you want to compare Dell
to someone, how about the $1800 PowerCenter clones running the same 120
MHz 604 chip (which beats the pants off your 166 MHz Pentium).
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
You need to understand that computer performance is not determined by
clock speed alone. Not only is the 604 one chip generation ahead of the
Pentium, but the 40 MHz bus (easily increased to 50 MHz if you install a
150 MHz board) is faster than the 33 MHz bus speed in your 166 MHz
Pentium.
>
> All of this is fine, but it's going to take atleast another year before
> Powercomputing computers become accepted as one like the Apple Mac.
> Another year until either Gateway or Compaq comes out with clones.
Then how do you explain Lockheed buying > $5 MILLION of PCC clones?
> The now famous "maglite" quote by Amelio has come to fruit, only goes
> to show what kind of radical marketing and pricing strategies need to be
> adopted by Apple. Unfortunately, the management at Apple still has some
> hangovers that need to be taken care of. Perhaps another huge loss next
> quarter will do the trick...
I don't see your point. When you compare _comparable_ systems, Apple is
very, very competitive.
>
>
>
> -Suvrit "give me a $2k 120mhz apple macintosh" Varshney
Then you ought to be the first on your block to buy the $1800 PowerCenter clone.
BTW, it's been possible to buy a 120 MHz Mac clone for under $2000 for
almost a year. Of course, a 120 MHz 601-based Mac is faster than a 166 MHz
Pentium. Where can you buy a name brand Pentium with on-site service for
that kind of money?
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.
David K. Every
> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
> without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
Then you would be ignoring the fact that the 604 is about 100% faster than
the p5 at the same clock rate. (In fact my 604/150 clocked out as about a
p5-450 according to bytemarks - so the p5-166 is completely outclassed).
Also with the power-computing you get lots-o-stuff that you don't get with
the Dell or Micron.
Now go back and compare the $1800 604/120 powercomputing box to the $3500
Dell or Micron, and realize that the latter is still outclassed.
> Folks, it doesn't take an econ major to figure that the mac folks are
> in trouble.
Actually, when people cant understand that Mhz on PPC <> Mhz on P5 then it
is the PC people that are in trouble. It seems that intel is eminating
stupid rays and it is effecting all their users!
> I don't care how much better the macs are (and they are
> better) the fact is most people don't know the difference, nor do they
> care.
So value is irrelevant. Cost of maintenance (support) is irrelevant.
Productivity is irrelevant. What you care about is Mhz. I'll tell you
what, I'll but a 1ghz crystal in my Mac for you (but not attach it to
anything) and you can be impressed.
> Price is the prime consideration.
Then you are not very bright. You'se gets whats you'se pay for.
> I want to buy a new system
> myself, but I am having a really difficult time justifying the $2,000
> premium for a top of the line mac, as compared to a Dell or Micron.
If you had an I.Q. that could compete with spam, you'de realize that Macs
cost less on the lower and mid range (and beat most of the PC's top end).
> I want Apple to survive, but how they plan on doing so has yet to be
> revealed to me or I suspect anyone else at this point in time.
> Maglites are fine, but most people buy the $.99 brand.
Sure, 20 of them because they keep breaking.
--
David K. Every
MacKiDo Warrior - The Power of the Macintosh Way!
Stan The Man
In article <jak-290496...@ppp1-12.inre.asu.edu>, j...@asu.edu (John
Kestner) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
>Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, S. Varshney wrote:
>>
>> comp.sys.powerpc. I just want to say that with one machine you get Win95,
>> the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
>> difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
>> minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
>> things. You get what you pay for.
>
>Amen. It's like comparing, umm...apples and oranges. You can't do a
>straight-up comparison because the products are vastly different, both in
>hardware and software.
>
>I don't want to pay a lot, but more importantly, I don't want to buy an
>inferior, uninnovative computer. You get what you pay for, indeed.
I buy Macs because they are wonderful to use. I also buy them because
they are 'desirable objects', beautifully designed and with a classic
pedigree. And because the Apple brand has a cachet that no other
computer brand can ever hope to match. This is the corporation with
which I wish to be associated.
We saw a great programme on British TV this week... a documentary
about the evolution of Apple. Steve Jobs was widely resented inside the
company because he would not accept 'second best'. Whatever Apple did
had to be done as near to perfectly as possible -- and Jobs sent many,
many people back to start over because of minor flaws or imperfections.
Yes, I know that Apple today has to make more commercial decisions, with
less personal passion and conviction. But the Jobs ethos lingers on and at
worst provided the best possible foundation for the company's future
development.
My Mac is more than a computer. It is a beautiful, classy thing which I
have desired for as long as I desired a Jaguar XJ-S. Now I have them both.
Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
Stan
--
st...@pro.u-net.com
+++Naked under this Macintosh+++
wil...@ekx.infi.net
Stan The Man wrote:
> Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
>
> Stan
> --
> st...@pro.u-net.com
> +++Naked under this Macintosh+++
Therein lies the problem. And by the way, I own two macs at present, a
five series BMW in the past, enough SONY electronics to stock a decent
store, three DirectTV units, etc, the point being that I too
appreciate quality products. The problem is that the general public
does not. We can talk all we want about why macs are better, but it
doesn't make any difference to the general public--they just shrug
their shoulders and go on buying Packard Bells.
The question is what has to happen for Apple to survive? I looked at
a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
Yes, we all know macs are superior, and we are all superior for using
for them. I fear we are living in our own little world that is headed
for oblivion. Comments?
--Steve--
Farul Ghazali
Joe Ragosta (jrag...@dca.net) wrote:
: In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
: xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
: > Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
: > with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
: > !!): Price = $3000.00
: >
: > Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
: > 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
: > Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
: > This is value for your money folks.
: >
: > Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
: > the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
: 1. You're comparing a 604 to a P5. You really ought to compare the 604 to
: a 150 MHz P6. Apples and oranges. How much do you think a P6 costs? The
: cheapest junk clone I've seen is around $2700 without a monitor--right in
: the PowerMac 7600 range.
I disagree, you cannot compare the 604 with a P6. Put it simply, the
604 is just not that fast. IBM benchmarks the 120mhz 604 at around 3.5
SPECint95. Intel benchmarks its P5-166 at around 4.5 SPECint95. Shave
maybe 30-35% off Intel's benchmarks, and you'll find that the P5-166
is around as fast as a 120MHz 604.
THis is of course, assuming that both machines are running decent
OSes, and on decent hardware. The one thing you can definitely get
from Apple's hardware is excellent quality, plus getting closer to the
theoretical maximum speed of the CPU than 95% of the clones out
there.
So if you want to compare a Mac with an Intel machine, compare it to a
good Compaq, HP or DEC machine. Don't compare apples and oranges.
michael
In article <ajmani-2904...@p2s10.gwis.com>, ajm...@gwis.com
(Kumud Ajmani) wrote:
>Why not buy a 7500 instead? You gotta pay to be on the bleeding edge.....
I'll add in my two sense... <g>
I got a 7500 because it will cost me the same $800 to get a 150 - 200 MHz
604e processors in 5 months as it will to waste it on an 8500. For the
same $2199 I could have gotten an ACER 150 MHz with all the extras and a 2
gig drive. The 7500 is plenty fast, but I think it is still a bit
overpriced, but the only thing upgradeable. Power Computing may soon be
taking over as the king ofMac compatible hardware sales.
I'll tell you how I know that Apple has got a serious marketing and
pricing problem.
1. I bought a 5300cs because it was the only laptop that I could use with
some of our native only software (proprietary). Two years after Apple has
implemented the PPC, it still sells the 040 chip to make things
"affordable." Something is wrong right there. Next, the "affordable" PPC
entrant in the laptop series is a GREYSCALE 5300. Who in the big wide
world makes this shit? NO one, except Apple. They all make affordable
color - even Toshiba's 486 laptops at $999.
2. The 7500 was initially $3000. If you want to compare a 7500 with a 100
Mhz Pentium then it was still somewhat overpriced. This is even in
comparison with Apple prices themselves. I never saw a 100 MHz Pentium
with monitor, keyboard, 288 modem, sound card, and all the add ons for
more than $3000.
Apple does have a problem selling older technology at curent prices. They
know we will buy it because of the system. They also know we have a large
investment in Apple compatible equipment. This is also getting to be an
argument that is holding less and less importance to REPEAT customers.
This is why the user base has levelled off and few new entries are made
from the PC world.
--
mic...@thelaw.com
"A trial is a method of finding out which party had the better lawyer."
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/
_/_/ Industrial Online Technologies, Inc.
_/_/ Computer & Legal Consulting Services
_/_/ in...@thelaw.com
_/_/ http://www.tiac.net/users/thelaw
_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
RM DAscenzo
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
It seems to me that you should be comparing the 7200/120 with this
Pentium. Or better yet a Power Computing model. (In my experience Dell is
not a top quality machine as IBM, Compaq, Apple are.) I also believe the
audio and video features on the 7600 would be extra on the Pentium. Video
conferencing on Wintel is expensive too you know. Not to mention the
swappable processor card.
We are currently carrying the POWERMAC 7200/120 16/1.2GB/CD/L2
CACHE $2087.35 on our price sheet. We're also carrying the
POWERMAC 7500/100 16/1000/CD $2030.67 depending on what tradeoffs you
might want to make. If you feel the edu discount is improper, then perhaps
you could consider the User Group prices, which anyone can join if I'm not
mistaken.
May Pricing *NEW* Models:
7765 AppleDesign Keyboard ........... $ 84.00
Power Mac 7500/100 16/500CD ......... $2,249.00
Power Mac 7500/100 16/1000CD ......... $2,449.00
May Pricing *Refurbished*
Power Mac 7500/100 16/500CD ......... $1,899
There is plenty of value to be found with Apple equipment. Any of the
machines cited above can be combined with a topflight moniter, Sony, NEC,
and still be competitive with the Dell (price and performance). THe 166
may be faster in some areas but let's not kid ourselves, the Macs above
provide a far better computing experience and performance for the dollar.
This is the real value for your money.
-rd
James A. Weston
In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote in part:
>The Macintosh with the best design, that makes use of the chip
completely, is >the most overpriced Macintosh.
Since the Mac OS is not native-code, no Macintosh makes use of the PPC
chip completely.
This is a big part of Apple's problem. Imagine what people would have
thought if Apple had said at the PPC introduction in March 1994,
"Realistically it's going to take us about 3.5 more years to come out with
a native-code operating system."
Let's face it, Pentium machines are clearly faster than Macintoshes for
general purpose computing.
Jay
>
>-Suvrit "give me a $2k 120mhz apple macintosh" Varshney
>xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
The 7200/120 is well under $2000. How much do Pentium Pros cost?
Eric Soroos
In article <jaweston-300...@jaweston.vip.best.com>,
jawe...@weston-sf.com (James A. Weston) came out of left field and wrote:
>
>Since the Mac OS is not native-code, no Macintosh makes use of the PPC
>chip completely.
Ummm. MacOS has the stuff that you use 90% of the time native. Little
things like Quickdraw. The biggest part that is not native is the file
system.
>This is a big part of Apple's problem. Imagine what people would have
>thought if Apple had said at the PPC introduction in March 1994,
>"Realistically it's going to take us about 3.5 more years to come out with
>a native-code operating system."
People who use applications would have said, Hey Photoshop screams on this
machine, I want one. Matlab screams on this machine, I want one. Even the
5300's are fast compared to an 040 machine.
>Let's face it, Pentium machines are clearly faster than Macintoshes for
>general purpose computing.
Let's face it. Peple don't buy computers to play with the operating
system. People buy machines to get their work done. They are tools. It
just so happens that the mac is the best tool for the jobs that I do,
since it works the way I want it to, and if it doesn't, I can program it
to make it work. The machine works with me, not against me.
eric
--
sor...@u.washington.edu
http://www.ce.washington.edu/~soroos
Bruce L Grubb
In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, S. Varshney wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> > with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> > !!): Price = $3000.00
> >
> > Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> > 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> > Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> > This is value for your money folks.
> >
> > Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> > the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
> >
> > That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> > get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> > macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> > Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
>
>
> The initial unspoken premise of this argument seems to be that a 166 MHz
> Pentium = 120 MHz 604. I'm not going to debate this point on a CPU speed
> level. I'll leave that up to the unceasing discussions in
> comp.sys.powerpc.
Comparing computers by MHz alone (as S. Varshney does) is S T U P I D.
Pentium Pro/120 cost more than a Pentium/120 which costs more than a 486dx4/120.
The 604 is in the Pentium Pro's class while the lowly 601 was much fast
than the Pentium. Pentium Pro's are in the 7600/120's price range which
is exactly where we expect them to be.
George Graves
>
> > Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> > with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> > !!): Price = $3000.00
> >
> > Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> > 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> > Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> > This is value for your money folks.
> >
> > Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> > the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
> >
> >
>
> The 7600 also has built-in sound, built-in video capture, and built-in
> Ethernet.
>
> I wonder how much it costs to add a Sound Blaster card, a video capture
> card, and Ethernet to that PC clone? And I wonder how much time you'd
> spend trying to make them all work after the physical installation (i.e.,
> setting jumpers, configuring drivers, etc)?
>
> I suspect the difference in price alone would be _at least_ $500 (probably
> more like $700 -- but, hey, let's give the clone the benefit of the doubt),
> so this brings the cost of the Dell system up to $3079 -- if it has equal
> capability (at least hardware-wise) as that 7600.
>
> I think the remaining $21 would more than easily be made up in the time &
> frustration you'd experience trying to get the sound card, the video
> capture card, and Ethernet to work properly in the PC clone.
>
> I'll refrain from listing all of the other good reasons to choose a
> Mac over a PC clone: those are thoroughly documented elsewhere.
>
> --
> Richard E. Fiegle
> Opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily those of my employer
I think configuring a PC clone to be like the 7600 would cost only about
$200. Soundblaster cards, Ethernet cards and video capture hardware for
the PC is incredibly cheap. But what really makes the difference is the
undeniable fact that whatever you paid for the PC is probably too much,
Junk is junk at any price
George Graves.
Justin Burk
[from Micron's web site-
http://www.mei.micron.com/products/micron/sheets/150maga.htm]
Magnum Pro 200 (A) $2,999
200MHz Intel Pentium Pro Processor
256 K Internal CPU SRAM cache
16MB Ram (upgradeable to 128 MB)
3 ISA, 2PCI, 1 ISA/PCI Slot shared
Phoenix Plug-n-Play Flash BIOS (Upgradeable)
Intel 82450KX PCI Chipset
1.44 MB 3.5" floppy disk drive
1.2MB/S 8X Eight Speed ATAPI IDE CD ROM drive
32-bit local bus Enhanced IDE hard drive controller
1.0GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive
PCI 64-bit Graphics Accelerator w/2MB EDO DRAM, MPEG
15" Micron 15FGx .28 digital SVGA NI color monitor
Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 sound card
Advent AV007 computer speaker
1 parallel,2 serial ports
Mini Tower chassis with "Tool Free" design
104 - key enhanced ps/2 keyboard
MS Mouse with Mouse Manager (ps/2)
MS Windows NT 3.51 Workstation Pre-loaded on CD-ROM
MS Office Pro 95 & Bookshelf 95 on CD-ROM
FCC class B, UL, CUL, & CE certified
5 Year Limited Warranty on microprocessor and main memory
3 Year Limited system Warranty
If you need a scsi system instead of the IDE hard drive, that's another
$200. An ethernet card should run about $50. I don't know how much a
video capture board would be- probably in the neighborhood of $300, I
don't really know. (I've never known anyone who needed to use them, on
Macs or PCs)
Chad Irby
wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
> without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
Go back and look at equivalent *machines*, not equivalent clock speeds.
If you want a Power Computing CPU with a bit more speed than that 166 MHz
P5 Dell, get the new 120 MHz PPC 604 machine (that sells for under $2000)
and add a nice monitor (bringing the price up to about $2600).
It looks like your "price advantage" is in the wrong direction...
The Power Computing 166 PPC 604 machine compares quite nicely to a PPro
running at about the same clock speed...
--
Chad Irby | My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net | for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Ian Russell Ollmann
David Lawson wrote:
> Over and over again, it has been documented that memory interleaving
> scarcely benefits 601 machines. Memory interleaving does benefit 604's,
> but it would be a waste of 10% money for 3% or so performance gain on the
> 601-based 7200.
Actually, it comes to 10% on my 7500/100, and I already have an L2 installed.
It is likely more for those without an L2. (sorry for the double correction --
posted twice in two different threads.)
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
Aristophanes wrote:
>
> S. Varshney wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.960429160737.5404B-100000@wong>, Ian Russell
> > Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >The initial unspoken premise of this argument seems to be that a 166 MHz
> > >Pentium = 120 MHz 604. I'm not going to debate this point on a CPU speed
> > >level. I'll leave that up to the unceasing discussions in
> > >comp.sys.powerpc. I just want to say that with one machine you get Win95,
> > >the other you get MacOS7.5.3. To many people that is worth the $500 price
> > >difference alone. I personally enjoy having a machine that requires a
> > >minimum of tinkering. It leaves me with much more time to do other
> > >things. You get what you pay for.
>
> Unfortunately most customers now say that thr MacOS is worth nothing more
> than a Win95 machine. To most people that Apple MUST sell to in order to make
> money, yhe MacOS is not a premium product. In the consumer's mind there is
> parity between the two systems in terms of general usability. The MacOS might
> earn some more praise for integrated configurability, but Win95 takes it
> hands down for third-party product availability.
This is an old issue, which I am sorry to see rehashed here. It is pointless to
cry "Product availablitiy" in any software market except games. I won't argue
that more games isn't a good thing, as long as they are good games. The standard
response from any Apple advocate for anything else should always be "...and how
many word processors do you want to buy?". If you really need 10 different word
processors, then it is probably best that you buy a PC so that you have enough
money left over to buy all of those word processors. This is especially true
since you really don't need a high performance machine for word processing, (Mac
Word 6.0 exclusive.) Good luck getting them all working at the same time on a
PC, though. I can't think of a commercial software market where there is a PC
product and no quality mac counterpart.* I am sure that there is one, but then
there are always the counter examples such as what Photoshop and Marathon used
to be. The Product Variety argument is an irrelevant distraction to the real
issues at hand unless you can identify a specific product that you *must* have
which wont run on one of the two platforms. The real question at hand is which
platform will serve your needs best and most efficiently. Much more often than
not, the mac is the better platform. If you can't afford a 7200/75 at $900, then
I submit that you need to look at why you need a computer and adjust your budget
accordingly. You can always buy a 286 for less than that.
*(Well, OK, there is Linux, but that will change this summer.)
> > The bottomline is this in capitals: APPLE DOESN'T LIKE BEING THE PRICE
> > LEADER... IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE MARKET, ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PC MARKET
> > SETS THE PRICE.
> >
> > That ought to change... if Apple has to make any money.
>
> I'm not sure about the money part, I'm more concerned with its ability to
> hold on to what market share it has, and therefore third-party development.
> With those basics out of the way, then Apple's margins will rise.
Just remember that if your margins are 10%, a 20% increase in price can triple
your profits (assuming volume remains constant.) Likewise, such a price increase
will allow you to lose 2/3 of your market share and still make the same profit.
Apple has room to maneuver here. Their margins are in the 10-15% range.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
Eric Soroos wrote:
> Let's face it. Peple don't buy computers to play with the operating
> system. People buy machines to get their work done. They are tools. It
> just so happens that the mac is the best tool for the jobs that I do,
> since it works the way I want it to, and if it doesn't, I can program it
> to make it work. The machine works with me, not against me.
I sometimes feel that my mac works despite me. Take the Find File command.
Ever played with that? I am continually amazed by what it will do and the
degree of integration into the System. It is truly astounding.
Ian
Jaliya Jayawardena
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:36 -0400, Benjamin Smith
<bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
>televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
>audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
>fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
Moot point. A BMW can drive on any road, a TV can watch any
channel. PCs & Macs have different software and as much as it is
changing, the balance still favours PCs. Now you may bring up
Softwindows, but to continue your analogy, if, on a quarter of the
roads I had to drive a BMW on, I could only go at half the speed a
Chevy could, I'd dump it in an instant.
Jaliya
Ian Russell Ollmann
wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
>
> Stan The Man wrote:
>
> > Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
> >
> > Stan
> > --
> > st...@pro.u-net.com
> > +++Naked under this Macintosh+++
>
> Therein lies the problem. And by the way, I own two macs at present, a
> five series BMW in the past, enough SONY electronics to stock a decent
> store, three DirectTV units, etc, the point being that I too
> appreciate quality products. The problem is that the general public
> does not. We can talk all we want about why macs are better, but it
> doesn't make any difference to the general public--they just shrug
> their shoulders and go on buying Packard Bells.
They get what they pay for.
> The question is what has to happen for Apple to survive? I looked at
> a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
> the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
> inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
Apple has always made the dumb move of shipping their machines with 50%
of the RAM that it really needs. The least they could do is lock in VM
in demo machines. Those little touches might help more than anything else
(except perhaps dumping the entire Performa line -- but then that is another
thread entirely.)
> Yes, we all know macs are superior, and we are all superior for using
> for them. I fear we are living in our own little world that is headed
> for oblivion. Comments?
There are some ships which are worth going down with. To my reckoning, there
is really little personal cost associated with going down with SS Apple.
There will continue to be a mac market for the next 3-4 years and I think
Apple may have poured enough steam into PPCP for it to continue on its own
without their help. (Assumes Apple dies not tomorrow, but next year.) Maybe
you'll end up running SunOS on your PPCP machine, but with this increasingly
networked world, unix may be something that we should all learn anyway.
Of course, I really don't think Apple is going to die at all. They have
some rough months ahead of them, but Copland and Exponential are two
big club wielding rabbits that have yet to emerge from the hat. They should
appear at about the same time in roughly 1 year. Next year will be a good
year for Apple.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
David Lawson wrote:
> Over and over again, it has been documented that memory interleaving
> scarcely benefits 601 machines. Memory interleaving does benefit 604's,
> but it would be a waste of 10% money for 3% or so performance gain on the
> 601-based 7200.
Actually, it comes to 10% on my 7500/100, and I already have an L2 installed.
Kevin Kennedy
In article <dal-300496...@carey.han.housing.washington.edu>,
David Lawson <d...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
... deleted
>In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
>xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
>
... deleted
>> It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
>> that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
>> I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
>> providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
>
>7200/90. 90MHz 601, 45MHz system bus. True 64-bit path to RAM. Accelerated
>64-bit VRAM internal video, comparable to midrange PC video cards and much
>superior to PC-store blue-light specials. 4X CD-ROM. SCSI-2 internal hard
>disk. All the goodies you could expect from a true midrange Power Mac,
>with performance comparable to a well-designed P100 system or shoddy P120.
>CPU: $1150 or so. It's a damned steal, given the high quality of the
>machine.
>
I can't believe you have the audacity to use this as a counter example. If
you read the specs carefully, you will see this machine has NO L2 CACHE!!!
A no-name 75 MHZ Pentium these days has Pipeline Burst cache standard.
(And, historically, I have never seen a Pentium MB without cache included.)
The 7200/90 reinforces the point of the original poster, Apple always
does something lame to its mid-priced machines. Even the new 120 Mhz
7200 describes the L2 cache as "optional" auggghhh!
Anyways, I don't want to trash Macs in general, (actually I just recently
recommended the 7200 to my cousin) I just wish Apple wouldn't "differentiate
its product line" with glaringly obvious compromises.
I can only afford mid-priced computers. As a consumer I don't like my face
being rubbed in that fact.
kevin
---------------
kev...@csd.uwo.ca
S. Varshney
In article
<mcglaughlin.4-0...@se-590-samac.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mcglau...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeremy McGlaughlin) wrote:
>I think we should all march our butts out to the local MicroCenter or any
>other computer store specializing in both Macintosh and PC computers.
>When we get there I think we should all stand at the door from open to
>close (any given day) and count the numbers of PC's and Macs bought that
>day. This, my friends is why apple needs to boost performance and
>decrease cost of machines at the same time. We're in a losing battle as
>it is. Apple needs to be outstanding in both performance (as it is now)
>**AND** Price (as it surely is not now). Yeah, we get all these cool
>things like ethernet, sound built in, video capture and all (many things,
>minus the sound, that home users 90% of the market, will never use) but
>what is that getting us? It surely isn't getting us any more buyers. But
>why? because the machines are so expensive and the lack of software titles
>doesn't help either. Think about it, is Joe Schmoe gonna go out and pay
>an extra grand for a base system that doesn't have half of the software of
>it's competitor? Hell no. Think about this, would you buy a 7600 if you
>knew it couldn't run half the software your 6100 can run? I don't think
>so. People are gonna buy the cheaper model, whether we elitist (as like
>I've never seen before in this thread) mac user assholes tell them how
>much better our systems are. The quality needs to stay the same and the
>price needs to drop seriously if apple wants to make some money. We all
>know that once you go mac you'll never go back. Well, why not allow more
>people to buy a mac first. If we give people reason to question buying a
>PC over a MAC (i.e. stellar performance and extremely competetive (if not
>even lower than competetive pricing) then there will be no doubt that mac
>will have a bright future. We all know customer satisfaction and loyalty
>are the highest in the market for macs so, get off our asses and MAKE
>people give macs a look.
Very well said. Thank you.
Louis M. Pecora
Precisely why the internet/WWW may be the big leveler. Any machine can
drive on it. Things like Java point to that platform neutral trend. Java
may not be the final answer, but it shows the direction things are
headed. Bill G. and MS aren't scrambling for nothing over getting in
control of the net. My two wishes are that (1) MS _never_ controls the
net (using your car example, GM does not control the roads) and (2) Apple
gets off its butt and really uses the net to its advantage -- which is
does have at this time.
--
Louis M. Pecora
pec...@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil
/* My views and opinions are not those of the U.S. Navy.
If you want those, you have to start a war. */
Jeremy McGlaughlin
and "the mac os is blah blah blah" well I love the mac os but it's time to
get real and get down to business. If we all knew how much it costs to
make one of our systems I don't think anyone would argue about the price
coming down. You people act like it actually costs apple $4000 to make a
7600. How do you think apple stays in business, we sure don't sell the
most machines. They hooked us all with their great user interface and
processing abilites and stuck us in the rear with their price. But hey
we're all willing to pay for it right? Thats why we're a niche market.
Time to get off the pot apple and go global. Sure there are going to be
teachers, desktop publishers, and artists forever but we'll all have to
use Windows if you don't get a larger customer base.
Jeremy
Joe Ragosta
In article <4m60v2$4...@lol.cs.columbia.edu>, fa...@cuccfa2.ccc.columbia.edu
(Farul Ghazali) wrote:
> I disagree, you cannot compare the 604 with a P6. Put it simply, the
> 604 is just not that fast. IBM benchmarks the 120mhz 604 at around 3.5
> SPECint95. Intel benchmarks its P5-166 at around 4.5 SPECint95. Shave
> maybe 30-35% off Intel's benchmarks, and you'll find that the P5-166
> is around as fast as a 120MHz 604.
It's amazing that it always comes down to the same old arguments.
Look. On SPECmarks, you're right. On almost every other benchmark known to
man, the 604 is in the P6 league. The Wintel crowd doesn't like it, but no
one has come up with a rational argument to counter this fact. If you
spend all day running SPEC, then you can believe your P6 is faster than a
604 (although this may only be true if you use Intel's compiler). If you
do anything else, published results (over and over and over again) show
the 604 to be a P6 class chip.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
David K. Every
In article <4m6igq$q...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>, jb...@husc7.HARVARD.EDU
(Justin Burk) wrote:
> Magnum Pro 200 (A) $2,999
+ 200 SCSI + 50 (ethernet)
+ cant get USB (but would be hundred and the same as ADB)
Actual cost ~ 3500+
>
> 200MHz Intel Pentium Pro Processor
> 256 K Internal CPU SRAM cache
> 16MB Ram (upgradeable to 128 MB)
> 3 ISA, 2PCI, 1 ISA/PCI Slot shared
-1 card for sound?
-1 card for SCSI
-1 card for video
-1 card for USB
-1 card for EIDE ?
= 1 or 3 slots free!?!
> Phoenix Plug-n-Play Flash BIOS (Upgradeable)
> Intel 82450KX PCI Chipset
> 1.44 MB 3.5" floppy disk drive
> 1.2MB/S 8X Eight Speed ATAPI IDE CD ROM drive
> 32-bit local bus Enhanced IDE hard drive controller
> 1.0GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive
> PCI 64-bit Graphics Accelerator w/2MB EDO DRAM, MPEG
> 15" Micron 15FGx .28 digital SVGA NI color monitor
> Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 sound card
> Advent AV007 computer speaker
> 1 parallel,2 serial ports
> Mini Tower chassis with "Tool Free" design
> 104 - key enhanced ps/2 keyboard
> MS Mouse with Mouse Manager (ps/2)
> MS Windows NT 3.51 Workstation Pre-loaded on CD-ROM
> MS Office Pro 95 & Bookshelf 95 on CD-ROM
> 5 Year Limited Warranty on microprocessor and main memory
> 3 Year Limited system Warranty
-----------
PowerComputings
PowerCenter 132mhz604 @ $2,833
132mhz604 ~ same as 200mhz P6 for most apps
** CPU upgradable through daughter card
256 K Internal CPU SRAM cache
** 16MB Ram DIMMS
** 3 PCI Slot FREE ***
** Mac 4meg ROMS!
** 1.44 MB 3.5" superdrive reads Mac and PC formats with autoexect, disk sense
4X Speed SCSI CD ROM drive that beats many PC 6x or 8x speed drives
** 32-bit SCSI hard drive controller
** 1.0GB SCSI hard disk drive - and since Macs are more drive efficient this
is more than the PC drive.
64-bit Direct Bus (on board) Video w/2MB VRAM
15" .28 digital color monitor
** 44khz Stereo in and out sounds
Labtec LCS-1020 computer speaker
** 1 ADB, 2 serial ports (geoport 2 mbs rate) ,
2 network (appletalk/ethernet)
Desktop chassis with "Tool Free" design
** 105 - key enhanced ADB keyboard
** ADB Mouse with velocity sensing and single button
** Software bundle that blows away the Magnum's
Mac OS System 7.5.3, Nisus Writer
ClarisWorks, Intuit's Quicken SE
Now Up-to-Date, Now Utilities, Now Contact
FWB Hard Disk Tool Kit PE, FWB CD-ROM Tool Kit
Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia
Launch, The Animals!, U.S. Atlas and World Atlas
250 Bitstream Type 1 and Type 2 fonts
Compuserve (Trial), America Online (Trial)
** 3 Year ON SITE system Warranty
--------
Conclusion... for $500 more (not counting installation issues and
configuation costs) you get less for the Magnum. (Of course to be fair
there are SOME tradeoffs on both systems)
Cost more, does less. Its that simple.
David K. Every
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:36 -0400, Benjamin Smith
> <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
> >televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
> >audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
> >fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
>
> Moot point. A BMW can drive on any road
Mac can work on any network
> a TV can watch any channel.
Macs can run Windows software, and their own better than windoze
counterparts (MS apps sometimes exempted).
>PCs & Macs have different software and as much as it is
> changing, the balance still favours PCs.
Depends. If you are looking at pure quantity PC's win. If you are looking
at quality and value then Macs usually win.
> Now you may bring up Softwindows, but to continue your analogy, if, on a
> quarter of the roads I had to drive a BMW on, I could only go at half the \
> speed a Chevy could, I'd dump it in an instant.
Funny... when I drove my dads RAM blazer (or my isuzu Amigo) on dirt roads
I would go twice as fast as when I drove the BMW 533i on the same roads.
Still liked the BM'er... and of course when I got the BMW on ITS terrain
(open highway/native apps) it blew the doors off the other two.
Kurt Glaesemann
>Magnum Pro 200 (A) $2,999
features. I just install an init and away I go. I guess that's the price
that one pays for the legacy of real-mode. Just hope that you don't get a
bios virus. Get one of those, and you'll probably have to get you
motherboard replaced. What kind of an idiot has writable ROM. Can't even
boot of off a floppy if it gets hosed.
Dan Caugherty
Jaliya Jayawardena wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:36 -0400, Benjamin Smith
> <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
> >televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
> >audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
> >fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
>
> channel. PCs & Macs have different software and as much as it is
> changing, the balance still favours PCs.
Found a hole in the logic here. If we explicitly stated this analogy
to its inevitable conclusion, it would end like this: "but a Mac cannot
run Windows software very well". Obvious, and also moot.
The real question is not that Macs can/cannot run Windows software, but
can they get tasks for which said software is intended done as quickly &
as effectively as Windows machines. The answer here is a resounding "yes"
-- they're even more effective, IMHO.
In fact, I'd say the analogy that "Mac is to PC what BMW is to Chevy" is
close to perfect. A PC bigot touting his superiority to the Mac is a scene
which closely resembles that of a redneck touting his new pickup's
superiority in speed and power to that of a Porsche. (Trust me, the Porsche
will get you where you want to go today a lot more quickly.. that's the
reason why you'd own one in the first place, no?)
From the blue heretic,
.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
Dan Caugherty : Speaking FROM but never FOR IBM Corporation.
IBM Corporation : ---Reread the line above, OK?---
Research Triangle Park, NC : "Castro in 1996. Vote for the *ultimate*
d...@raleigh.ibm.com : Washington outsider."
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Richard Huggins
You ever notice how people write things such as "Apple screws up..."
and never reply to the replies they generate? It always makes me think
they were more interested in flaming than in resolving, if resolution
were even possible.
In any event, one only has to subscribe (free) to Guy Kawasaki's
"EvangaList" mailing list if one wants to hear story after story---many
of them from PC techs---about horrors asociated with trying to get the
Windows/DOS machines to do almost anything. And yes, many times yes, it
is worth whatever extra the street requires to have the Mac available.
Even $1,000-$1,500 extra would be absolute "squat" to a professional who
needed a reliable, easy-to-use, savvy, intuitive, fun, capable,
low-maintenance, etc. computer.
Someone who argues Apple verses IBM on the basis of price is
totally out of touch with computer reality, and in my uglier moods I
might invite upon him a few months experiences trying to actually use
the Pentium that he chose because he thought he would save money by
doing so.
The marvelous Mac writer and columnist, David Pogue, has a simple
sentence in his "Macs for Dummies" book which says it all:
"Setting up the Mac should take less than 20 minutes; all you have
to do is plug in a few cables."
And no, that is NOT an exaggeration. But believe me, an IBM-type
tech would argue for days that such simply must be impossible.
He would be wrong.
-----------------------
Richard Huggins
Tyler, Texas
hug...@rapidramp.com
S. Varshney
In article <jragosta-010...@ppp-2017.dca.net>, jrag...@dca.net
(Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>In article <4m60v2$4...@lol.cs.columbia.edu>, fa...@cuccfa2.ccc.columbia.edu
>(Farul Ghazali) wrote:
>
>> I disagree, you cannot compare the 604 with a P6. Put it simply, the
>> 604 is just not that fast. IBM benchmarks the 120mhz 604 at around 3.5
>> SPECint95. Intel benchmarks its P5-166 at around 4.5 SPECint95. Shave
>> maybe 30-35% off Intel's benchmarks, and you'll find that the P5-166
>> is around as fast as a 120MHz 604.
>
>It's amazing that it always comes down to the same old arguments.
>
>Look. On SPECmarks, you're right. On almost every other benchmark known to
>man, the 604 is in the P6 league. The Wintel crowd doesn't like it, but no
>one has come up with a rational argument to counter this fact. If you
>spend all day running SPEC, then you can believe your P6 is faster than a
>604 (although this may only be true if you use Intel's compiler). If you
>do anything else, published results (over and over and over again) show
>the 604 to be a P6 class chip.
>
>What is so difficult to understand about that?
>
Well, MacWeek themselves have criticized the 7600's pricing...
Allan Guyton
In article <jaweston-300...@jaweston.vip.best.com>,
jawe...@weston-sf.com (James A. Weston) wrote:
*In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
*xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote in part:
*
*>The Macintosh with the best design, that makes use of the chip
*completely, is >the most overpriced Macintosh.
The Pentium with the best design (The PPro), that makes use of
the chip completely, is the most overpriced PC.
*
*Since the Mac OS is not native-code, no Macintosh makes use of the PPC
*chip completely.
Since Win95 is not 32 bit code, no PeeCee makes use of the Pentium
chip completely.
*
*This is a big part of Apple's problem. Imagine what people would have
*thought if Apple had said at the PPC introduction in March 1994,
*"Realistically it's going to take us about 3.5 more years to come out with
*a native-code operating system."
This is a big part of Wintel's problem. Imagine what people would
have thought if Microsoft had said at the Win95 introduction in August
1995 "Realistically it's going to take us about 2.5 more years to come
out with a native-code operating system."
(That's being generous with MS's vaporware reputation)
*
*Let's face it, Pentium machines are clearly faster than Macintoshes for
*general purpose computing.
Let's face it, PPC machines are clearly faster than Pentiums for
any and all purpose computing.
If you don't believe it, why not install Linux on both and take them
out for a test drive.
Cheers,
Allan
--
Never laugh at live dragons-- B.B.
wil...@ekx.infi.net
Richard Huggins wrote:
>
> You ever notice how people write things such as "Apple screws up..."
> and never reply to the replies they generate? It always makes me think
> they were more interested in flaming than in resolving, if resolution
> were even possible.
>
> In any event, one only has to subscribe (free) to Guy Kawasaki's
> "EvangaList" mailing list if one wants to hear story after story---many
> of them from PC techs---about horrors asociated with trying to get the
> Windows/DOS machines to do almost anything.
I'm one of those people who think Apple screwed up with its pricing of
the new machines. I own two macs at the present and love them, but I
have owned and used wintel machines for the past 12 years as well. I
get the impression from reading the articles in this and other mac
newsgroups that many mac people seem to have the idea that wintel
machines don't actually work, or that people can't be productive with
them. That is absolutely not true!
The truth of the matter is there are millions of people out there
using their wintel machines on a regular basis and having no trouble
in doing so. I know many people personally who use wintel machines
running windows, windows95, and even DOS who are not computer experts,
yet somehow manage to keep their machines running without major
problems. If you were to believe everything you read in this
newsgroup, that would be impossible!
Do mac users really believe that 90% of the PC market would be
controlled by systems that don't work? If so, it is a far greater
indictment against Apple to have allowed such a situation to occur.
Praise macs for all of their glorious capabilities, but don't assume
that the wintels are all setting around inoperable. Most of them are
actually working in both business and home settings, and doing tons of
work without incident. Example: In my work I have a Compaq PC
coupled to a Novell network running 9 machines locally and hundreds on
a statewide basis. My Compaq has not been turned off since it was
installed two years ago. I have used it everyday since without ANY
problems. Likewise, I was given an IBM Thinkpad 360 last year--not
much of a machine featurewise, but so far absolutely reliable, and
guess what? I run windows 3.1 on it and it has NEVER crashed (yet).
I wish I could use macs at work because they are more friendly, but if
asked if I could do anything on one that I couldn't on what I have at
present, I am forced to answer no.
--Steve--
S. Varshney
In article <31878B...@raleigh.ibm.com>, Dan Caugherty
<d...@raleigh.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> The real question is not that Macs can/cannot run Windows software, but
> can they get tasks for which said software is intended done as quickly &
> as effectively as Windows machines. The answer here is a resounding "yes"
> -- they're even more effective, IMHO.
> From the blue heretic,
> .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
> Dan Caugherty : Speaking FROM but never FOR IBM Corporation.
Obviously if your logic/reasoning is true, Mac would have had the
commanding market share today, instead of PCs...
Why don't fanatic mac users get it? Prices do matter... when it comes to
market share and Apple has not been a market price leader... since its
inception. Check out any store and you'll see why Apple gets killed in the
real markets, the corporate markets... and then foreign markets. Check out
the dynamic markets in Taiwan... where the markets are moving in some
cases, esp. hardware, faster than the US markets. Such kind of dynamism is
absent in the Mac platform. There is dynamism in the PC market from the
top level pcs (say Toshiba notebooks, HP servers, etc.) down to the non
brand name motherboards sold in PC shows.
No reasoning can convince me atleast, that only the speed of the chip
warrants a premium price, even if the top quality is there... if Apple
wants to be a Porsche, it cannot be, because it's entire existence is
dependant on 3rd party developers.... the analogy is completely askewed.
Like saying the Porsche people are dependant on the fuel that say Arco
develops... ugh..Can Arco say "hey we won't develop fuel for Porsche
anymore...." ???!
Everything including power of the OS, ease of use, gui, whatever
disappears if the market share is a tiny % of the competitor's. Then only
price matters in my opinion, and the number of 3rd party developers
interested in created software for that platform.
-Suvrit
xsvar...@fullerton.edu
-Suvrit
Rob Slater
> Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> !!): Price = $3000.00
>
> Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> This is value for your money folks.
>
> Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
>
> That's is too expensive for a 120Mhz computer. Again Apple just doesn't
> get the pricing right. It probably hopes that the Power Computing
> macintoshes grab the lower end prices market share, and maybe Gateway or
> Compaq comes up with new Mac clones, towards the cheaper side.
Anyone who chooses a 166 MHz Pentium over a 120 MHz 604 - even for $500
less - will be fat, dumb, and happy. If you buy a computer based on the
clock speed, you deserve whatever you get.
Most Wintel buyers don't consider buying Macs anyway (because Wintel is
"the corporate standard") and most Mac buyers couldn't imagine spending
more than $7.88 for anything with a Microsoft operating system so price
comparison of these two machines is an exercise with little real-world
meaning.
Apple could barely meet demand for the 120 MHz 8500 (at around $4000) last
fall, so I'd say their pricing is right on. Serious computer users with
real needs for number-crunching capability are salivating over the 7600
(and 7500 upgrade) and fortunately after the initial rush the price will
drop.
Of course then we'll have the dual-processor 200 MHz 604e machines to lust for.
Rob
Dan Caugherty
I hate to follow up on my *own* post, but someone just mailed me a reply
(which I deleted, unfortunately)..
Dan Caugherty (a.k.a. me) wrote:
>
>
> In fact, I'd say the analogy that "Mac is to PC what BMW is to Chevy" is
> close to perfect. A PC bigot touting his superiority to the Mac is a scene
> which closely resembles that of a redneck touting his new pickup's
> superiority in speed and power to that of a Porsche.
The responder replied, in effect, that by following this line of reasoning,
Macs should be ruling the marketplace, if not the world.
To which I say: NO, that's faulty reasoning on your part. Similarly,
not everyone is driving Porsches, even though their cost has gone down
in recent years to aid the flagging sales of their manufacturer. More
people drive pickups, pure and simple.
In other words, *more popular* or *more sold* does NOT imply *better*.
Nor does *less popular* or *less sold* imply *worse*.
Porsche and BMW each have a miniscule market share in the states. But,
who is going to argue that a 944 is somehow crappier than a Chevy Cavalier?
(Cavalier owners, maybe.)
Macintoshes won't rule the marketplace. Apple has learned (and
almost too late) that technology, no matter how splendid, does not sell
itself. But, I'll always prefer them over PC's, much in the same way
I'd prefer a Porsche over a Chevy any day.
Cheers,
-- Dan pearls before swine, pearls before swine Caugherty
.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
Dan Caugherty : Speaking FROM but never FOR IBM Corporation.
Joe Ragosta
> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
I haven't checked their page recently, but the list price for this with 16
MB is $3795. I doubt very much that they're charging $900 for 16 MB of
RAM.
> without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
What you are apparently forgetting is that the PowerCenter 166 computer is
faster than a 200 MHz P6. It is not a Pentium class machine. If you want
something in the performance range you're talking about, you can get a
stripped PowerCenter 120 for $1800. Add in more RAM, monitor, etc and
you're _still_ below your Dell or Micron.
aaron sommer
> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
> without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
How many times must it be said?
Pentium @166Mhz != PPC604 @166Mhz
Those are high-end systems aimes at video/graphics professionals, not home
systems. Did only being able to get AV drives not mean anything to you?
> Folks, it doesn't take an econ major to figure that the mac folks are
> in trouble. I don't care how much better the macs are (and they are
> better) the fact is most people don't know the difference, nor do they
> care. Price is the prime consideration. I want to buy a new system
> myself, but I am having a really difficult time justifying the $2,000
> premium for a top of the line mac, as compared to a Dell or Micron.
Sorry, you went for the systems aimed at corporate customers who can pay
the premium for the high-end hardware. Try the PowerCenters- they're the
systems for home/office users.
> I want Apple to survive, but how they plan on doing so has yet to be
> revealed to me or I suspect anyone else at this point in time.
> Maglites are fine, but most people buy the $.99 brand.
What does this prove? I believe the company that makes Maglites is doing
just fine, thanks, and Apple was doing just fine before this pricing fiasco.
Edward A Brekelbaum
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 1-May-96 Re: 7600 PPC too
expensive .. by Allan Guy...@comet.net
> *chip completely.
>
> Since Win95 is not 32 bit code, no PeeCee makes use of the Pentium
> chip completely.
There is a big difference between these two. Non-native code on PPC
needs to emulated (by the OS). 16 bit code will at most cause a mode
switch.
Have fun,
Ned
Edward Brekelbaum eb...@andrew.cmu.edu
z003...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
"When dreams are shattered, and hope seems lost; you still have your
spite."- PHari
tokarek ryan matthew
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, James A. Weston wrote:
> In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
> xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote in part:
>
> >The Macintosh with the best design, that makes use of the chip
> completely, is >the most overpriced Macintosh.
>
> Since the Mac OS is not native-code, no Macintosh makes use of the PPC
> chip completely.
>
Saying that the MacOS is not native-code is not entirely correct.
Let's be clear here. System 7.5.3 is partially native. The parts
that are used the most are native.
> This is a big part of Apple's problem. Imagine what people would have
> thought if Apple had said at the PPC introduction in March 1994,
> "Realistically it's going to take us about 3.5 more years to come out with
> a native-code operating system."
Even Copland won't be completely native. Before PC people start gloating,
the reason is that when using 68k software, switching from native system
code to emulated application code would take much longer than having
emulated parts of the system run when running 68k software.
For example, System 7.5.3 has two versions of the memory manager
(native/non-native). 68k applications use the non-native memory manager
while native apps use the native version. This incurrs much less of a
performance hit when running in emulation because of fewer mode switches.
>
> Let's face it, Pentium machines are clearly faster than Macintoshes for
> general purpose computing.
>
That is not clear at all. In some cases the PPro is faster than the
fastest PowerMacs, but the PPro isn't used for "general purpose
computing".
PowerMacs are generally faster (sometimes much faster, sometimes a
little slower) than Petium systems running at the same clock speed.
Ryan Tokarek
<tok...@students.uiuc.edu>
Kurt Glaesemann
In article <xsvarshney-01...@d-compcentermain29.fullerton.edu>,
S. Varshney <xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu> wrote:
>Everything including power of the OS, ease of use, gui, whatever
>disappears if the market share is a tiny % of the competitor's. Then only
>price matters in my opinion, and the number of 3rd party developers
>interested in created software for that platform.
little cheaper than windows and a lot cheaper than DOS. So if you want to
save money buy a mac.
Joe Ragosta
In article <xsvarshney-01...@newshub.csu.net>,
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> Well, MacWeek themselves have criticized the 7600's pricing...
Are we supposed to be impressed? MacWeek would criticize the pricing if
they sold them for $10.00.
Your_us...@osu.edu
> Saying that the MacOS is not native-code is not entirely correct.
>
> Let's be clear here. System 7.5.3 is partially native. The parts
> that are used the most are native.
Then why is it that EVERY machine that has installed 7.5.3 gets serious
CPU slowdown after upgrading? I explain me this...
--a user who went BACK to 7.5.1
Jeremy
Your_us...@osu.edu
> Apple could barely meet demand for the 120 MHz 8500 (at around $4000) last
> fall, so I'd say their pricing is right on. Serious computer users with
> real needs for number-crunching capability are salivating over the 7600
> (and 7500 upgrade) and fortunately after the initial rush the price will
> drop.
Just because we're stupid enough to pay such an outrageous price doesn't
mean that the price is right. The trend-setters will always put a rush on
first purchase buying. Just because someone has to be the first on their
block to own an 8500 (last fall) doesn't mean the price is right. Take a
look at the people who waited for the price to go down, most STILL haven't
bought an 8500 or 7500 becuase why? The price is STILL TOO HIGH!
hey guess what consumers,
high price DOESN'T mean that it's the best! It's every consumer's job to
get the best performance/highest quality for the least amount of money.
Apple, you're not making it easy for us.
Jeremy
David K. Every
In article
<mcglaughlin.4-0...@se-590-samac.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mcglau...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeremy McGlaughlin) wrote:
> I think we should all march our butts out to the local MicroCenter or any
> other computer store specializing in both Macintosh and PC computers.
> When we get there I think we should all stand at the door from open to
> close (any given day) and count the numbers of PC's and Macs bought that
> day.
Nope. Unit count doesn't mean shit.
If you go to a car dealer and count BMW's to all other cars you would
think BMW is in big trouble. Facts are otherwise.
The question is, is 1,000 million dollars in software sales per year
enough to entice compelling applications to be written for macs --
combined with lower development costs, lower support costs, and more
general productivity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!
> This, my friends is why apple needs to boost performance and
> decrease cost of machines at the same time. We're in a losing battle as
> it is. Apple needs to be outstanding in both performance (as it is now)
> **AND** Price (as it surely is not now).
It already is. But you can not teach a rock (or wintel lover) to think.
Does more, costs less - and they still don't get it. So why waste time?!?
They come around eventually... and when they do become BIG-TIME Mac
Advocates. This is why Apple is #1 in customer satisfaction, #1 in
costomer re-buys, #1 in productivity, etc., etc.
So let some people learn in life (the hard-way) and be Win-users. The rest
of us will take pride in more efficiency and better value. Just because
they bought a chocolate covered turd and call it confectionary is no
reason for me to eat one!
> Yeah, we get all these cool
> things like ethernet, sound built in, video capture and all (many things,
> minus the sound, that home users 90% of the market, will never use) but
> what is that getting us? It surely isn't getting us any more buyers.
Actually it is. Apple has never decreased yet - especially in UNITS sold.
At worst they have only been growing a few % less than the rest of the
industry combined... and when you look at the longer term trends, they
have been at least keeping up. But more important than all that - the
machine is still viable - it still makes me MORE productive than win-types
- and I still don't have to support MicroSoft.
> Think about it, is Joe Schmoe gonna go out and pay
> an extra grand for a base system that doesn't have half of the software of
> it's competitor? Hell no.
Show me a system that matches you comment. And by the way you are wrong
anyways. People buy IBM and Compaq by the hoards, and they both can cost
up to a grand more than Chang-house of Tiawanese Clones. So your buisiness
assumptions are incorrect.
> Think about this, would you buy a 7600 if you
> knew it couldn't run half the software your 6100 can run? I don't think
> so.
Think about this. Would you buy a 286 or a PowerMac9500, even if the PC
clone had 10 times the apps (that were of low quality and performance that
most are)?!?!!
So sure there is not enough compelling reasons to bring many PC lovers
over to the Mac platform... but on the same hand Apple has NOT been losing
as many people to PC's as they gain from them.
> price needs to drop seriously if apple wants to make some money. We all
> know that once you go mac you'll never go back. Well, why not allow more
> people to buy a mac first.
Because you can't. Even if it cost 1/4 as much, there would still be
idiots stating its not as good for some lame reason or another. (Probably
because the Mac is slower on Win-stones or some such). So why fight it?!?!
Fight the good fight. Help make people productive with Macs who have open
minds. Help fight the misinformation that is rampant. Don't waste time
trying to convert the unconvertable or playing the games of low-ball. I
buy quality even if it isn't always the cheapest.... and the fact that
IBM, Compaq, BMW, Mercedes, Sony, etc. are still in buisiness, shows that
there are enough smart people to make up for the herds of stupid ones.
Psychodad
In article <jragosta-010...@ppp-2026.dca.net>, jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>In article <318530...@ekx.infi.net>, wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
>
>> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
>> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
>> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
>> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
>
>MB is $3795. I doubt very much that they're charging $900 for 16 MB of
>RAM.
>
>> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
>> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
>> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
>
>faster than a 200 MHz P6. It is not a Pentium class machine. If you want
>something in the performance range you're talking about, you can get a
>stripped PowerCenter 120 for $1800. Add in more RAM, monitor, etc and
>you're _still_ below your Dell or Micron.
>
>--
>Regards, Joe Ragosta
Maybe in you dreams PPC604166 is faster,but in reality Ppro200 beats it hands
down,the system that comes closest to PPro200 performance is PowerComputing
Power Tower 180 (16mb RAM,no monitor) but that baby will set you back $4195
while the Micron MagnumPro200,(32 mb RAM,no monitor) can be had for just
$3199,so am I gonna pay extra $1000 for a slower machine with less RAM? I dont
think so.
Vladimir/Psychodad
Jaliya Jayawardena
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 07:42:38 -0600, refi...@mail.delcoelect.com
(Richard E. Fiegle) wrote:
>The 7600 also has built-in sound, built-in video capture, and built-in
>Ethernet.
>
>I wonder how much it costs to add a Sound Blaster card, a video capture
>card, and Ethernet to that PC clone? And I wonder how much time you'd
>spend trying to make them all work after the physical installation (i.e.,
>setting jumpers, configuring drivers, etc)?
While your point is valid, how many Joe Publics want more than
a sound card? A video capture card would not be of interest nor would
Ethernet. A fax/modem would be far more important as a bundled device.
No doubt all those capabilities in the 7600 are worth over $500 but
how many of us need them?
Jaliya
Jeremy McGlaughlin
> > I think we should all march our butts out to the local MicroCenter or any
> > other computer store specializing in both Macintosh and PC computers.
> > When we get there I think we should all stand at the door from open to
> > close (any given day) and count the numbers of PC's and Macs bought that
> > day.
>
> Nope. Unit count doesn't mean shit.
>
> If you go to a car dealer and count BMW's to all other cars you would
> think BMW is in big trouble. Facts are otherwise.
*hmmm, so you're saying BMW is doing better, or making 1/2 the money of
Ford or General Motors? Don't make me laugh. Unit count doesn't mean
shit, tell that to McDonalds.
> The question is, is 1,000 million dollars *(say a billion?)* in software
sales per year
> enough to entice compelling applications to be written for macs --
> combined with lower development costs, lower support costs, and more
> general productivity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!
*hmmm lower development costs (because several 'mac only' software
companies are 3 talented guys in a basement. Lower support costs? more
general productivity, I think that depends on the user.
> > This, my friends is why apple needs to boost performance and
> > decrease cost of machines at the same time. We're in a losing battle as
> > it is. Apple needs to be outstanding in both performance (as it is now)
> > **AND** Price (as it surely is not now).
>
> It already is. But you can not teach a rock (or wintel lover) to think.
> Does more, costs less - and they still don't get it. So why waste time?!?
> They come around eventually... and when they do become BIG-TIME Mac
> Advocates. This is why Apple is #1 in customer satisfaction, #1 in
> costomer re-buys, #1 in productivity, etc., etc.
*Once again the elitist mac user "wintel lovers are idiots" stance on
things. "Does more, costs less" I certainly don't think is true of the
macintosh. While it may do more out of the box it most certainly does not
cost less. Have you checked the price of *ANY* peripheral for a pc and
for the mac? You'll notice that any component for the PC is most likely
1/2 of the cost of a mac component. And don't give me that "it's just
crappy PC stuff" either, the best PC manufacturers' components are still
MUCH cheaper than macintosh ones.
hmmmmm, "So why waste time?!?" maybe because Apple is going to need a
large customer base. Like I said we're fighting a losing battle as it
is. Like Windows 95 (albeit hardly the mac OS) wasn't bad enough for the
market. The plain facts are people that are new to buying computers CAN'T
recognize the difference between a PC and a MAC. Why? because Apple
doesn't know enough about advertising and Marketing to get MACINTOSH in
the consumer's head. "Oh no, we're just fine being an increadibly
expensive niche market". Why on earth would apple want to get a large
customer, heavens no, they'd have to drop prices of units, spend money on
GOOD advertising campaigns. They seem happy to just give their customer
base (which they know will keep buying their machines) the rotor-rooter in
the ass with their prices.
> So let some people learn in life (the hard-way) and be Win-users. The rest
> of us will take pride in more efficiency and better value. Just because
> they bought a chocolate covered turd and call it confectionary is no
> reason for me to eat one!
*yeah it'll be us to be the ones that learn. The ones that learn if you
don't have a stranglehold on the market you don't have jack in the
computer biz. We're just a thorn in the side of MS. If anyone finds out
(sooner or later) it'll be us.
> > Yeah, we get all these cool
> > things like ethernet, sound built in, video capture and all (many things,
> > minus the sound, that home users 90% of the market, will never use) but
> > what is that getting us? It surely isn't getting us any more buyers.
>
> Actually it is. Apple has never decreased yet - especially in UNITS sold.
> At worst they have only been growing a few % less than the rest of the
> industry combined... and when you look at the longer term trends, they
> have been at least keeping up. But more important than all that - the
> machine is still viable - it still makes me MORE productive than win-types
> - and I still don't have to support MicroSoft.
>
> > Think about it, is Joe Schmoe gonna go out and pay
> > an extra grand for a base system that doesn't have half of the software of
> > it's competitor? Hell no.
>
> Show me a system that matches you comment. And by the way you are wrong
> anyways. People buy IBM and Compaq by the hoards, and they both can cost
> up to a grand more than Chang-house of Tiawanese Clones. So your buisiness
> assumptions are incorrect.
Show you a system that mactches my comment? well as you said people buy
IBM and Compaq by the hoards, they STILL cost much less than a Macintosh.
Even if both companies made a machine that was more expensive than a mac,
they would still buy the pc because of availability of Software AND
cheaper peripherals and upgrades. FACT. We are always looked down upon
no matter what we do. Salespeople will always push the machine that can
sell the most software. Apple has to take DRASTIC measures to compete
with that.
> > Think about this, would you buy a 7600 if you
> > knew it couldn't run half the software your 6100 can run? I don't think
> > so.
>
> Think about this. Would you buy a 286 or a PowerMac9500, even if the PC
> clone had 10 times the apps (that were of low quality and performance that
> most are)?!?!!
well think of this, I wouldn't I have a mac. A newcomer would because
why? "more people use them, more software (who cares if it's better or
not, at least I know EVERYONE uses it), cheaper prices". It's always gonna
come to that, face it. You seem to think that people actually think about
computers as quality items. When the media, salespeople and the general
public will always view them as a big calculator. "I mean hey they'll all
do the same things why not buy the one with the most software that's the
cheapest? this one has XX CD rom, XXX Mhz processor, XXX HD hell this
thing IS a mac but look at all you get. They're basically the same but
there isn't much software for the mac. I mean hey, why pay that much more
for something you can't even use right?"--- In my best swanky salesperson
voice.
> So sure there is not enough compelling reasons to bring many PC lovers
> over to the Mac platform... but on the same hand Apple has NOT been losing
> as many people to PC's as they gain from them.
*who gives a rats ass? When there are 8 jillion PC users it really
doesn't matter that 100 of them went to the mac does it? They don't have
to worry about people switching because everyone that buys for the first
time WILL buy a PC.
> > price needs to drop seriously if apple wants to make some money. We all
> > know that once you go mac you'll never go back. Well, why not allow more
> > people to buy a mac first.
>
> Because you can't. Even if it cost 1/4 as much, there would still be
> idiots stating its not as good for some lame reason or another. (Probably
> because the Mac is slower on Win-stones or some such). So why fight it?!?!
>
> Fight the good fight. Help make people productive with Macs who have open
> minds. Help fight the misinformation that is rampant. Don't waste time
> trying to convert the unconvertable or playing the games of low-ball. I
> buy quality even if it isn't always the cheapest.... and the fact that
> IBM, Compaq, BMW, Mercedes, Sony, etc. are still in buisiness, shows that
> there are enough smart people to make up for the herds of stupid ones.
*unfortunately David, not everyone has the budget to support such
"quality" businesses. If all the world were upper class.... And
unfortunately for Apple there will ALWAYS be more poor people than well to
do people that will MORE than make up for the smart and or dumb herds.
> David K. Every
Ty Klein
In article <3186B7...@scripps.edu>, Ian Russell Ollmann
<ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> > The question is what has to happen for Apple to survive? I looked at
> > a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
> > the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
> > inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
>
> Apple has always made the dumb move of shipping their machines with 50%
> of the RAM that it really needs. The least they could do is lock in VM
> in demo machines. Those little touches might help more than anything else
> (except perhaps dumping the entire Performa line -- but then that is another
> thread entirely.)
Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
--
~~~~"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
courageously uses his intelligence."~~~~
A. Einstein
Aristophanes
George Graves wrote:
>
> Richard E. Fiegle wrote:
> >
> > In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
> > xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> >
> > > Here's what MacWeek shows as prices for the 7600/120 (120Mhz 604 PPC),
> > > with a 16/1.2 gb/cd/256k l2 cache computer (only cpu, NOT MONITOR/KEYBOARD
> > > !!): Price = $3000.00
> > >
> > > Here's what Dell Computer is offering, a 166 Mhz Pentium system, with
> > > 16 MB ram, a 2gig hd, 6x cdrom, 15 inch trinitron monitor, keyboard & MS
> > > Office Professional (the corporate standard) for Win95, only for $2579.
> > > This is value for your money folks.
> > >
> > > Ok, let's assume that street prices are down by say, $400-500, still,
> > > the 7600 costs about $3100 with a monitor and keyboard.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The 7600 also has built-in sound, built-in video capture, and built-in
> > Ethernet.
> >
> > I wonder how much it costs to add a Sound Blaster card, a video capture
> > card, and Ethernet to that PC clone? And I wonder how much time you'd
> > spend trying to make them all work after the physical installation (i.e.,
> > setting jumpers, configuring drivers, etc)?
> >
> > more like $700 -- but, hey, let's give the clone the benefit of the doubt),
> > so this brings the cost of the Dell system up to $3079 -- if it has equal
> > capability (at least hardware-wise) as that 7600.
> >
> > I think the remaining $21 would more than easily be made up in the time &
> > frustration you'd experience trying to get the sound card, the video
> > capture card, and Ethernet to work properly in the PC clone.
> >
> > I'll refrain from listing all of the other good reasons to choose a
> > Mac over a PC clone: those are thoroughly documented elsewhere.
> >
> > --
> > Richard E. Fiegle
> > Opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily those of my employer
>
> I think configuring a PC clone to be like the 7600 would cost only about
> $200. Soundblaster cards, Ethernet cards and video capture hardware for
> the PC is incredibly cheap. But what really makes the difference is the
> undeniable fact that whatever you paid for the PC is probably too much,
> Junk is junk at any price
SoundBlaster's are cheap as are Ethernet cards, but the video capture is not
if you want to match the quality of the Mac's built-in AV with its DSP
features.
I think $500 total would be an accurate add-on to match the 7600's price
more favourably.
Funny how this hasn't degenerated into an OS war yet!
The question is: with Intel and its vendors about to cut Pentium prices by
up to 30% in May, will Apple keep up?
That will be the test of Apple's new pricing strategy.
Aristophanes
wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
>
> Stan The Man wrote:
>
> > Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
> >
> > Stan
> > --
> > st...@pro.u-net.com
> > +++Naked under this Macintosh+++
>
> Therein lies the problem. And by the way, I own two macs at present, a
> five series BMW in the past, enough SONY electronics to stock a decent
> store, three DirectTV units, etc, the point being that I too
> appreciate quality products. The problem is that the general public
> does not. We can talk all we want about why macs are better, but it
> doesn't make any difference to the general public--they just shrug
> their shoulders and go on buying Packard Bells.
This is a poor comparison.
what is unique about the computer industry is that it is software
dependent and there are myriad different formats flying around, from
OS's to file formats.
If you focus on hardware alone, then yes, Apple's products shine as the
best on the market.
Apple's systems rely on the MacOS for the entirety of their existence,
so it's the MacOS which counts in the argument, not the hardware. Since
your BMW's all use petrol as fuel as do most other autos, since your
Sony products all use VHS or CD's or tapes used by the rest of the
industry (I can hear a Betamax argument here...) and since your DTV gets
the same picture as a cable TV can, then that is where the metaphor
ends.
The general public is swayed more by market share than by quality as
they go where the software and other related third-party products go.
That's the determining factor.
> The question is what has to happen for Apple to survive? I looked at
> a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
> the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
> inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
Not to mention a 14.4 modem that cannot be upgraded tp 28.8 unless you
want to get an external, with no trade-in in-store option to do so. This
is a textbook lesson in how poor ,arketing kills sales.
> Yes, we all know macs are superior, and we are all superior for using
> for them. I fear we are living in our own little world that is headed
> for oblivion. Comments?
Concentrate on the survival of the MacOS. Apple's just a brand and some
R&D as far as I'm concerned.
Borrow marketing ideas from.........Microsoft.
Keep prices low.
Cheers.
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Wed, 1 May 1996 Your_us...@osu.edu wrote:
>
> > Saying that the MacOS is not native-code is not entirely correct.
> >
> > Let's be clear here. System 7.5.3 is partially native. The parts
> > that are used the most are native.
>
>
> Then why is it that EVERY machine that has installed 7.5.3 gets serious
> CPU slowdown after upgrading? I explain me this...
Not every machine did. Mine is now faster. I own a 7500/100. There is a
slowdown for NuBus PowerMacs for graphics by about 10% due to something
slow in the System Update 7.5 file which is installed with 7.5.3. If you
use the 7.5.1 version of the same file, NuBus powerMac owners should find
their machines returning to the previous graphics speed. Has anyone else
experienced a slowdown? I haven't heard of any complaints beyond the
graphics issue.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Wed, 1 May 1996, tokarek ryan matthew wrote:
> Even Copland won't be completely native. Before PC people start gloating,
> the reason is that when using 68k software, switching from native system
> code to emulated application code would take much longer than having
> emulated parts of the system run when running 68k software.
>
> For example, System 7.5.3 has two versions of the memory manager
> (native/non-native). 68k applications use the non-native memory manager
> while native apps use the native version. This incurrs much less of a
> performance hit when running in emulation because of fewer mode switches.
It depends on how you look at it. If you have no 68k apps on your machine,
then Copland will be enitrely native, since the 68k parts of it will never
get used.
Ian
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Wed, 1 May 1996 wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
> I'm one of those people who think Apple screwed up with its pricing of
> the new machines. I own two macs at the present and love them, but I
> have owned and used wintel machines for the past 12 years as well. I
> get the impression from reading the articles in this and other mac
> newsgroups that many mac people seem to have the idea that wintel
> machines don't actually work, or that people can't be productive with
> them. That is absolutely not true!
No knowledgeable mac user honestly believes that the PC's simply don't
function. What they do believe is that they don't work consistently. With
a mac you can honestly expect that when you buy a new piece of hardware or
software that after plugging it in and firing up the install disk, it will
work. If it doesn't you have just cause to be upset. This is not true in
the PC market. Installer programs just don't work that well. Apps don't
always consistenly interface well with hardware, everything needs its own
printer driver, etc. It is this complicated morass of nothing quite
integrating with anything else completely that Mac users object to. There
is also the issue of junk. The Wintel market is full of it. Products which
do little and are more or less worthless. You don't get this sort of thing
as often in the mac market. Quality is systemic in the mac market. It is
not necessarily so in the Wintel world. Mac users pay a premium for it,
they know it, and the expect quality. For the most part, that is what they
get.
Ian
Aristophanes
michael wrote:
>
> In article <ajmani-2904...@p2s10.gwis.com>, ajm...@gwis.com
> (Kumud Ajmani) wrote:
>
> >Why not buy a 7500 instead? You gotta pay to be on the bleeding edge.....
>
> I'll add in my two sense... <g>
>
> I got a 7500 because it will cost me the same $800 to get a 150 - 200 MHz
> 604e processors in 5 months as it will to waste it on an 8500. For the
> same $2199 I could have gotten an ACER 150 MHz with all the extras and a 2
> gig drive. The 7500 is plenty fast, but I think it is still a bit
> overpriced, but the only thing upgradeable. Power Computing may soon be
> taking over as the king ofMac compatible hardware sales.
If trends hold, I'd like to point ou that Macs do hold their value used for
far longer than PC's. we shouldn't forget that. However, Apple's warranties
are only one year which defies a market position as a premium product.
> I'll tell you how I know that Apple has got a serious marketing and
> pricing problem.
>
> 1. I bought a 5300cs because it was the only laptop that I could use with
> some of our native only software (proprietary). Two years after Apple has
> implemented the PPC, it still sells the 040 chip to make things
> "affordable." Something is wrong right there. Next, the "affordable" PPC
> entrant in the laptop series is a GREYSCALE 5300. Who in the big wide
> world makes this shit? NO one, except Apple. They all make affordable
> color - even Toshiba's 486 laptops at $999.
Tell me about it. No CD-ROM killed several large real estate agent sales in
my area. The lack of 28.8 modems for the non-PPC PB's (save the 190's) and
the Duos is a severe hole in Apple's internet/intranet strategy.
> 2. The 7500 was initially $3000. If you want to compare a 7500 with a 100
> Mhz Pentium then it was still somewhat overpriced. This is even in
> comparison with Apple prices themselves. I never saw a 100 MHz Pentium
> with monitor, keyboard, 288 modem, sound card, and all the add ons for
> more than $3000.
>
> Apple does have a problem selling older technology at curent prices. They
> know we will buy it because of the system. They also know we have a large
> investment in Apple compatible equipment. This is also getting to be an
> argument that is holding less and less importance to REPEAT customers.
> This is why the user base has levelled off and few new entries are made
> from the PC world.
Apple relied to much on the OS to sell its system, and not on innovations
which so marked its earlier forays into portables. Now Apple is seriously
behind on portable development compared to Digital and IBM and Compaq and
Toshiba. This is where Apple desperately needs IBM as a cloner.
Cheers.
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Wed, 1 May 1996, S. Varshney wrote:
> Obviously if your logic/reasoning is true, Mac would have had the
> commanding market share today, instead of PCs...
Absolutely not! People buy things for the stupidest reasons. They like the
color, everyone else has one, they prefer the size of the cup holder in
the dashboard, the machine is cheaper, etc. Many new computer buyers are
novices. They buy what is cheap since they don't know anything else about
what they are buying. They don't even know if they will really like or use
the machine, so why waste a bunch of money on it? After that machine dies,
then they go with what they already know and have software for -- again
another Wintel machine. The same is true when you are buying a computer
for someone else that you yourself have no intention of using. Imagine a
boss debating mac vs PC for his secretary. Giving his secretary a mac
doesn't help him much. However, he has to ustify the expense report and it
is a lot of work to explain how support costs will be lower, etc. It is
best to just get the cheap one / do what everyone else did. It is easy to
see how the cheap stuff won a lot of market share, especially when the
battles were first being raged and one machine was sold by International
Business Machines, Inc. and the other was widely regarded as a toy!
> Why don't fanatic mac users get it? Prices do matter... when it comes to
> market share and Apple has not been a market price leader... since its
> inception. Check out any store and you'll see why Apple gets killed in the
> real markets, the corporate markets... and then foreign markets. Check out
> the dynamic markets in Taiwan... where the markets are moving in some
> cases, esp. hardware, faster than the US markets. Such kind of dynamism is
> absent in the Mac platform. There is dynamism in the PC market from the
> top level pcs (say Toshiba notebooks, HP servers, etc.) down to the non
> brand name motherboards sold in PC shows.
>
> No reasoning can convince me atleast, that only the speed of the chip
> warrants a premium price, even if the top quality is there... if Apple
> wants to be a Porsche, it cannot be, because it's entire existence is
> dependant on 3rd party developers.... the analogy is completely askewed.
> Like saying the Porsche people are dependant on the fuel that say Arco
> develops... ugh..Can Arco say "hey we won't develop fuel for Porsche
> anymore...." ???!
With OpenDoc, java and other cross platform standards, this will no longer
be as much of an issue. When you can port your program between platforms
for a minimal cost, you will seek to expand your markets any way you can.
You'll see. Apple will survive.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Richard Huggins wrote:
> You ever notice how people write things such as "Apple screws up..."
> and never reply to the replies they generate? It always makes me think
> they were more interested in flaming than in resolving, if resolution
> were even possible.
Actually, in this one case, I think you are wrong. If I am correct in
asserting so, I believe that this thread was started by S. Varshney, who
has been a liberal and frequent contributor to this thread ever since. I
don't agree with many of his opinions, but I will stand here and loudly
and without hesitation say that he is voicing them quite clearly and has
not shirked from his Net.responsibility in this regard one bit, even
though one or two of us might be much much happier if he did. :-)
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
On 1 May 1996, Kevin Kennedy wrote:
> In article <dal-300496...@carey.han.housing.washington.edu>,
> David Lawson <d...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
> >xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote:
> >> It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
> >> that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
> >> I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
> >> providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
> >
> >7200/90. 90MHz 601, 45MHz system bus. True 64-bit path to RAM. Accelerated
> >64-bit VRAM internal video, comparable to midrange PC video cards and much
> >superior to PC-store blue-light specials. 4X CD-ROM. SCSI-2 internal hard
> >disk. All the goodies you could expect from a true midrange Power Mac,
> >with performance comparable to a well-designed P100 system or shoddy P120.
> >CPU: $1150 or so. It's a damned steal, given the high quality of the
> >machine.
> I can't believe you have the audacity to use this as a counter example. If
> you read the specs carefully, you will see this machine has NO L2 CACHE!!!
> A no-name 75 MHZ Pentium these days has Pipeline Burst cache standard.
> (And, historically, I have never seen a Pentium MB without cache included.)
>
> The 7200/90 reinforces the point of the original poster, Apple always
> does something lame to its mid-priced machines. Even the new 120 Mhz
> 7200 describes the L2 cache as "optional" auggghhh!
>
> Anyways, I don't want to trash Macs in general, (actually I just recently
> recommended the 7200 to my cousin) I just wish Apple wouldn't "differentiate
> its product line" with glaringly obvious compromises.
>
> I can only afford mid-priced computers. As a consumer I don't like my face
> being rubbed in that fact.
Apple always lames their computers to meet these key low prices that
everyone always insists that they do. Many of you simply have to face
facts that you can't have top quality systems for cheap quality prices. As
far as I am concerned, laming the machines is fine, as long as the damage
can be undone. (Laming the Performas with a 32 bit bus, on the other hand
was unforgivable.) If I could have bought my 7500/100 thoroughly lamed
with no RAM and no Hard Drive, I would have, because that would have meant
I could have gotten more RAM for cheaper elsewhere and gotten a decently
sized, quick harddrive that comes with a 5 yr. warranty, rather than
Apple's relatively short 1 yr. deal for about the same money. As it was, I
still put in more RAM and bought an L2 cache.
David Lawson was right. The 7200/90 is a scream of a deal, even if you
have to add 8 MB of RAM, 1 MB of VRAM and an L2 cache to it. Apple just
gives you the option not to.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
Ty Klein wrote:
>
> In article <3186B7...@scripps.edu>, Ian Russell Ollmann
> <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
> > > a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
> > > the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
> > > inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
> >
> > of the RAM that it really needs. The least they could do is lock in VM
> > in demo machines. Those little touches might help more than anything else
> > (except perhaps dumping the entire Performa line -- but then that is another
> > thread entirely.)
>
> Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
Well, I didn't mean to start another thread, but since you asked...
Unequivocably Yes.
Apple should abandon the Performa line in all haste. In fact, no haste is undue
haste. In this case the phrase "Haste makes waste" does not apply. The Performa's
are a waste of space already. I know, I use one - the 6300 - and it is the best of
the lot. "Get rid of them all," is what I say. Where else can you buy a machine
which handicaps it processor to 2/3 of its potential speed with a 32 bit bus, has
insufficient RAM, a fussy IDE drive, pitiful video, and comes bundled with a junky
monitor, a modem of dubious quality and a cheapo keyboard... (You Wintel sorts
don't all jump up and answer at once, I'm not done yet) ... and pay too much for
it in the process? Answer: Nowhere else. You have to buy a Performa. Thank God
Apple made so many of them, I'm sure we will all have an opportunity to buy one
for years to come. Of course, there is little reason to buy one when you can still
pick up a Quadra 475 extra cheap from MacWareHouse! The only redeeming feature of
the Perfoma PowerPC line is that they will run Copland -- assuming Open Transport
is not required.
Ian Ollmann
Ian Russell Ollmann
Aristophanes wrote:
> The question is: with Intel and its vendors about to cut Pentium prices by
> up to 30% in May, will Apple keep up?
>
> That will be the test of Apple's new pricing strategy.
Power Computing is selling PPC 604/120 daughtercards for their Powercurve
machines for $295. Now, assuming they are not taking a loss on these processors,
that would seem to suggest that the bottom of the line 604's cost less than that,
maybe $200. So, let us assume that Apple gives away the PPC portion of its mac
for free -- a 100% price reduction -- then the mac would only be $200 cheaper. I
don't think this is quite the price dent you had in mind. I am not sure how much
30% of a pentium costs, but I don't think it is that much either -- $100?
Ian
Justin Burk
David K. Every <d...@adnc.com> wrote:
>In article <4m6igq$q...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>, jb...@husc7.HARVARD.EDU
>(Justin Burk) wrote:
>> Magnum Pro 200 (A) $2,999
> + 200 SCSI + 50 (ethernet)
I would tend to think that SCSI is pretty optional for PC owners. EIDE
drives are still by and large cheaper and faster- though you can't daisy
chain them (though you can attach 4 drives total I think) and they tend
to max out around 2 gigs, while SCSI drives go to around 9.
> + cant get USB (but would be hundred and the same as ADB)
When USB is available, it will most likely be built into the motherboards
at a low cost. Besides, USB peripherals aren't likely to be widespread
for another year at least.
>> 3 ISA, 2PCI, 1 ISA/PCI Slot shared
> -1 card for sound?
Yes, on an ISA slot
> -1 card for SCSI
Yes, if you need it- most likely on a PCI slot.
> -1 card for video
Yes, on a PCI slot.
> -1 card for USB
Yes, if you need it. Probably PCI, but again, it won't really be needed
for another year at least.
> -1 card for EIDE ?
No, it's built into the motherboard.
> = 1 or 3 slots free!?!
2 ISA slots free- if you really need SCSI & USB, that is. But, if you put
in USB, what are you going to need more expansion slots for? In any case,
I've never seen a PC that had all of its slots filled.
>PowerCenter 132mhz604 @ $2,833
> 132mhz604 ~ same as 200mhz P6 for most apps
I'm not so sure about that- remember this is running WinNT and probably
all 32 bit apps (I'm running 32 bit apps exclusively on my Win95 machine-
it's not too difficult to do). The P6 is pretty good with 32 bit apps,
and I suspect it would have a substantial speed advantage over the 132
mhz 604, though I haven't read up on the latest speed comparisons yet.
> 4X Speed SCSI CD ROM drive that beats many PC 6x or 8x speed drives
Depends on the drive you test against- I'm not sure which ones Micron is
using now, but they generally put in pretty good components.
>** 1.0GB SCSI hard disk drive - and since Macs are more drive efficient this
> is more than the PC drive.
I think the NT file system brought the PC up to speed on this point.
>** ADB Mouse with velocity sensing and single button
Only one button? :) I use Macs and PCs, and I honestly prefer the two
button interface for most tasks- but that's just user preference.
>** Software bundle that blows away the Magnum's
> Mac OS System 7.5.3, Nisus Writer
> ClarisWorks, Intuit's Quicken SE
> Now Up-to-Date, Now Utilities, Now Contact
> FWB Hard Disk Tool Kit PE, FWB CD-ROM Tool Kit
> Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia
> Launch, The Animals!, U.S. Atlas and World Atlas
> 250 Bitstream Type 1 and Type 2 fonts
> Compuserve (Trial), America Online (Trial)
[ooohh- trial packs from Compuserve and aol!]
I'm not so sure it blows it away- WinNT and the Microsoft
Office/reference pack match up with most things there except Quicken,
Launch, Animals!, and the font packs. It also has a dictionary,
thesaurus, and quotation book.uotation
>Conclusion... for $500 more (not counting installation issues and
>configuation costs) you get less for the Magnum. (Of course to be fair
>there are SOME tradeoffs on both systems)
I'm not sure about the Magnum actually being a worse computer,
but the Powercomputing deal does look like a pretty good deal.
Matt Giancarlo
mren...@earthlink.net (Ty Klein) wrote:
[...]
> Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
That would be a shame IMO, since it would effectively signal that Apple
was no longer interested in "non-power users" who want a home system that
comes complete. Yes, certain Performas have their problems; but the "real
problem" is not the whole Performa line itself...
Would it be wise for Apple to ignore a market that Apple effectively
created, namely, the home computer user? Strictly speaking, the "Performa"
is today what the "Macintosh" was when it first came out: an easily
accessible and pleasant-to-use computer system. Is this an idea that
should be abandoned?
--
Matthew Giancarlo | Yale English Dept.
matthew....@yale.edu | (203) 776-4805
Erik A. Speckman
In article <dke-300496...@adnline32.adnc.com>,
>
>> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
>> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
>> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
>> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
>> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
>> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
>> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
>
>the p5 at the same clock rate. (In fact my 604/150 clocked out as about a
>p5-450 according to bytemarks - so the p5-166 is completely outclassed).
I don't think apple, IBM or motorola would put much truck in these
benchmarks, besides, Intel has just cut P6 prices. You can get a 200 MHz
P pro for the same price the previous poster listed for the P5 166.
>Also with the power-computing you get lots-o-stuff that you don't get with
>the Dell or Micron.
Such as? The Micron's, at least, come with MS office Pro and MS
bookshelf. They could be better, but that is quite a bit of
functionality.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com
"The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's"
Erik A. Speckman
In article <dke-010596...@adnline37.adnc.com>,>In article <31873025...@news.brandeis.edu>, jal...@cs.brandeis.edu wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:36 -0400, Benjamin Smith
>> <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
>> >televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
>> >audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
>> >fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
>>
>> Moot point. A BMW can drive on any road
>
>Mac can work on any network
Yeah, how do they do in a Windows95 peer to peer network. Apple and
others make it easy for PCs to infaltrate Mac networks, they do nothing to
help Macs infiltrate PC networks.
>> a TV can watch any channel.
>
>Macs can run Windows software, and their own better than windoze
>counterparts (MS apps sometimes exempted).
Horsefeathers, Macs do poorly running windows software, though some of the
DOS cards are respectable.
Macs do a poor job with memory management on MacOS apps. The OS is still
stuck in a world where apps think they have the whole system. This leads
to either wasted memory or a great deal of inconvenience when one has to
quit an app and boost its memory partition.
>>PCs & Macs have different software and as much as it is
>> changing, the balance still favours PCs.
>
>Depends. If you are looking at pure quantity PC's win. If you are looking
>at quality and value then Macs usually win.
Whatever, this is too subjective to debate. Though I will say, I have yet
to find a peer to BBedit.
>> Now you may bring up Softwindows, but to continue your analogy, if, on a
>> quarter of the roads I had to drive a BMW on, I could only go at half the \
>> speed a Chevy could, I'd dump it in an instant.
>
>Funny... when I drove my dads RAM blazer (or my isuzu Amigo) on dirt roads
>I would go twice as fast as when I drove the BMW 533i on the same roads.
>Still liked the BM'er... and of course when I got the BMW on ITS terrain
>(open highway/native apps) it blew the doors off the other two.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <cirby-30049...@news.magicnet.net>,
Chad Irby <ci...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote:
>
>> Let's face it. The Apple and even the Power Computing machines are
>> simply not price competitive with their wintel counterparts. Go to
>> the Power Computing home page and check the prices on their new
>> machines! I did, and a Power 166 with 32 megs ram, etc. was $4700+
>> without a monitor. Then go the the Dell and Micron home paages and
>> check out their products. You can get a 166 Dell or MIcron with 17"
>> monitor, cd-rom, modem, etc (the works) for no more than $3500-3800.
>> I figure they have a price advantage of $1500-2000.
>
>
>If you want a Power Computing CPU with a bit more speed than that 166 MHz
>P5 Dell, get the new 120 MHz PPC 604 machine (that sells for under $2000)
>and add a nice monitor (bringing the price up to about $2600).
>It looks like your "price advantage" is in the wrong direction...
Yeah, but that Sub $2000 machine has only 8 MB RAM an 850 MB hard drive
and crummy graphics.
>The Power Computing 166 PPC 604 machine compares quite nicely to a PPro
>running at about the same clock speed...
Yeah, but I can get a 200 MHz Ppro system with a 2 GB Ultra SCSI disk, 32
MB Ram 8x SCSI CD-ROM and a 17 " monitor for less than that 166 MHz PPC
604 system.
Stephen D. Schaper
In article <mrenigma-010...@news.earthlink.net>,
mren...@earthlink.net (Ty Klein) wrote:
>
> Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
>
I think it is a logical place for Apple to cut model formats. OTOH,
continuing to market through those channels (though something must be done
to get salesstaff at those stores to be willing to sell them), But perhaps
packaging 7200s with bundles of software, would make more sense.
--
Impeach President Clark!
--Brought to you by the Committee for a Free Mars.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <4m7koh$c...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
>
>I can't believe you have the audacity to use this as a counter example. If
>you read the specs carefully, you will see this machine has NO L2 CACHE!!!
>A no-name 75 MHZ Pentium these days has Pipeline Burst cache standard.
>(And, historically, I have never seen a Pentium MB without cache included.)
I think it unlikely that any no-name vendor sells a P75 with pipelined
burst cache, and not just because the P75 has been phased out.
I will agree though , I don't know of any Pentiums sold without an L2
cache.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <dal-300496...@carey.han.housing.washington.edu>,
David Lawson <d...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>accept the notion that people are willing to pay a premium for quality? To
>beat a dead horse some more, a Chevy Lumina 3.4 will look better than a
>BMW 328i in a point-by-point numerical/features comparison. But which
>would you rather own?
>
>(If you say "the Chevy," my deepest condolences.)
Yeah, but the question is not "which would I rather own", the question is
"which would I rather pay for."
That BMW is expensive to buy and expensive to own beacuse it breaks down
too often and it costs too much to fix, insure and register.
Of course, I would rather not have a car at all.
Getting away from your materialistic, macho analogy, when it comes to
computers, I would rather have a Mac. In fact, I do have a Mac, but I am
not sure what I am going to get next. I appreciate that Macs "just work",
but I think they don't work as well as they used to and the underpinnings
of the OS are getting rusty.
On the hardware side, I feel that apple has failed to deliver on the price
performance promises they made when the Power Macs first shipped. At the
time they were showing graphs which they siad proved that the x86
architecture was peaking leveling out while the PowerPC was about to take
off. Of course, by the time the PMacs shipped, reasonable people could
already see taht Intel had the money and the talent to flog the x86 along
for the forseeable future. I hope that we will see cheaper MacOS
compatable hardware in the near future. When it comes it won't come from
apple, it will come from clone makers who copy the manufacturing
arrangements of companies like Dell and Micron. For the most part, they
don't even have the parts for your computers on hand when you place your
order. Instead they order the parts almost as soon as you place your
order. This way they avoid getting stuck with inventory built with
expensive parts and they can immediately pass component price reductions
on to buyers. The disadvantage is that you have to wait 2-3 weeks for
the computer you want, but the same things goes for Apple.
>
>In article <xsvarshney-29...@newshub.csu.net>,
>If you shop for MHz alone, you'll be frustrated. Don't come crying to us
>when your PC breaks in the first month, or when your monitor is fuzzy, or
>when your keyboard sucks rocks, or when your case cuts your hand when you
>open it.
Of course, this does not reflect my experience buying PCs from Dell and
Micron.
[macs with slow components, like th 7200]
>There is no desktop U.S. Macintosh currently in production that does not
>have a 4X CD-ROM, from the 5260 to the 9500.
Yeah, but the PC I just ordered has an 8x. Apple misses every other
generation of components.
>> It's happened over and over again. The Macintosh with the best design,
>> that makes use of the chip completely, is the most overpriced Macintosh.
>> I've never come across a Mac which was introduced with an eye towards
>> providing the best config with the lowest price in the market.
>
>7200/90. 90MHz 601, 45MHz system bus. True 64-bit path to RAM. Accelerated
>64-bit VRAM internal video, comparable to midrange PC video cards and much
>superior to PC-store blue-light specials. 4X CD-ROM. SCSI-2 internal hard
>disk. All the goodies you could expect from a true midrange Power Mac,
>with performance comparable to a well-designed P100 system or shoddy P120.
>CPU: $1150 or so. It's a damned steal, given the high quality of the
>machine.
Yes, but the reason it is going for that price is that Apple once again
mis predicted demand and built a bunch of machines that no one wanted at
their original asking price which they now have to sell at or below
material or manufacturing cost, leaving them with less money for much
needed software R&D.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <aguyton-0105...@news.comet.net>,
Allan Guyton <agu...@comet.net> wrote:
>*
>*Since the Mac OS is not native-code, no Macintosh makes use of the PPC
>*chip completely.
>
>Since Win95 is not 32 bit code, no PeeCee makes use of the Pentium
>chip completely.
First, Win95 is 32 bit code, but it is also 16 bit code. Second, there
are a number of OSs on the PC that are all 32 bit code. WinNT, Linux,
FreeBDS, NetBSD, BSDI, OS/2 and coolest of all NextStep.
>*This is a big part of Apple's problem. Imagine what people would have
>*thought if Apple had said at the PPC introduction in March 1994,
>*"Realistically it's going to take us about 3.5 more years to come out with
>*a native-code operating system."
>
>This is a big part of Wintel's problem. Imagine what people would
>have thought if Microsoft had said at the Win95 introduction in August
>1995 "Realistically it's going to take us about 2.5 more years to come
>out with a native-code operating system."
What are you talking about? They already had NT and many of Win95s
advantages will be on NT this summer, one year after Win95 (finally)
shipped.
>(That's being generous with MS's vaporware reputation)
And Apple's is any better. How late was System 7? QD GX, v.34 geoport,
a few years ago they were saying that copland (or something like it) would
be out in late 1995.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <31855E...@ix.netcom.com>,
Benjamin Smith <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I just took a look at MacWeek. These prices are for 604e machines coming
>out this fall. They are as follows
They are also the prices of the machines that just came out the other day.
>
>7200 166Mhz 16/1.2/CD/L2 $2400
>7600 180Mhz 16/2/CD/L2 $3100
>8500 200Mhz 16/4/CD/L2 $5400
>9500 200Mhz 16/4/CD/L@ $5500
>
>So it would appear that apple is producing a 166Mhz 604e for under
>$2400. These prices are not confirmed, Apple delined to comment.
>To me, these are absolutely excellent values.
To me these prices are for machines that won't be released for 4 months or
so.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <stan-30049...@news.u-net.com>,
Stan The Man <st...@pro.u-net.com> wrote:
>My Mac is more than a computer. It is a beautiful, classy thing which I
>have desired for as long as I desired a Jaguar XJ-S. Now I have them both.
>Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
...and money to burn.
I am quite distressed to see people equating Macs with over-priced
european status symbols with poor reliability and expensive repair bells.
As a "rank and file" mac user it makes me fear for the future of the
platform.
Erik A. Speckman
In article <Pine.Sola.3.91.96050...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>,
tokarek ryan matthew <tok...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>That is not clear at all. In some cases the PPro is faster than the
>fastest PowerMacs, but the PPro isn't used for "general purpose
>computing".
What is general purpose computing? You can get a fully equipped P6
system with a 200 MHz chip for $3000.
JDL Web Staff
The reason that people don't understand the differences between the
Pentium and the PPC 604 is that...
*Apple, Motorola and IBM don't market their technology correctly*
People just compare MHz because they *don't know any better*. I think
this is Apple's fault.
Apple would have a *much* easier time selling their machines if they
could just explain to people:
#1. What the 604 is (why it is different from the 601)
#2. Why the 604 is better and faster than the Pentium (and the crappy
Pentium Pro for that matter)
#3. Why buying Mac OS machines gives people added benifits that would
cost in hardware, (if they could even be duplicated) hundreds of $
extra.
Apple needs to inform the public. And I am not just talking about a
few small adds in MacUser or MacWorld. We need T.V. adds (good ones),
adds in newspapers and adds in a range of publications. Apple has the
power to do this and it *should* (must) be done. When Apple is pushed
by Micropenis, it has got to push back! Maybe the next time I get my
list of news items, I won't have to read messages like "I can get a
Pentium 120 for less money than a 7600."
--
Ari Rubin
JDL Web Staff
http://www.loop.com/~rubincomm/
Jerry Kindall
In article <4m8hc4$e...@news.iastate.edu>, ku...@iastate.edu (Kurt
Glaesemann) wrote:
>Ah. But macs are significantly cheaper in the long term to support. A
>little cheaper than windows and a lot cheaper than DOS. So if you want to
>save money buy a mac.
More importantly, Macs pass the Mom Test.
Would you feel comfortable recommending a Windows machine to your mom? I
sure wouldn't. She'd call me all the time for help, and she's 220 miles
away. I won't do telephone troubleshooting anymore, not even for my mom.
I did enough of that to last me a lifetime while working for a mail-order
computer dealer.
On the other hand, I was perfectly comfortable setting her up with my old
IIsi. I set up the machine for her, with a carefully selected suite of
extensions, then took an hour and showed her how to use the Finder and how
to run Norton Disk Doctor (and told her to run it once a week or so,
unless the machine crashed, in which case she should run it immediately
after recovering from the crash). In the year and a half she's had it, it
has crashed maybe two or three times.
On my next visit I hooked up my old SupraModem 14.4 and installed AOL.
AOL is a ripoff compared to an Internet account, true, but the Internet
doesn't pass the Mom Test, whereas AOL does. Besides, she doesn't use it
that much.
She calls me maybe once a month with a question. One time her mouse died
and she didn't even bother to call me; she just went to Micro Center and
bought a new one. She has also bought, installed, and taught her to use
several new programs. Things she did call me about included:
= Printer stopped printing (solution: buy new ink cartridge)
= Printer stopped printing, part deux (solution: plug in serial cable,
which Dad had knocked loose during vacuuming)
= Program won't install (solution: bring her a bigger hard drive, as
she'd filled up the old one)
= Tetris stopped playing music (solution: re-install the game)
= Machine crashed (solution: restart, run Norton Disk Doctor, which
found no errors; re-open document -- thanks to auto-save she'd lost
maybe ten minutes of work). After the first time she didn't call
me. She was afraid she'd broken it at first but now she doesn't
worry about that.
There were a few more issues, but they were so minor I don't even recall
the details. She found the Keyboard control panel and adjusted the key
repeat speed on her own. And she bought the Macintosh Bible and is
working her way through it. She realizes that the machine can do a lot
and that while it's easy to get started, to tap its full power she will
need to learn some things about it.
She is not using ClarisWorks as much besides a glorified typewriter at
this point (e.g. she is often retyping things that could simply be sorted,
etc.), but she's learning gradually how to harness the power of the
computer, and she knows how to use the online help and the manual.
She is also quite happy with its speed, which is much better than the
Brother Word Processor it replaced, and with the print quality of her HP
DeskJet, which can produce many more fonts and is much quieter than the
Brother WP. She was also glad to see it can read her Brother WP disks,
which are MS-DOS format, once she saved her documents as text files on the
Brother.
Macs: Mom-tested, mom-approved.
>--
>ku...@iastate.edu
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
PALINDROME #5 IN A SERIES: Collect 'em all!
Evil I did dwell, lewd did I live.
Aristophanes
David K. Every wrote:
>
> In article
> <mcglaughlin.4-0...@se-590-samac.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> mcglau...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeremy McGlaughlin) wrote:
>
> > I think we should all march our butts out to the local MicroCenter or any
> > other computer store specializing in both Macintosh and PC computers.
> > When we get there I think we should all stand at the door from open to
> > close (any given day) and count the numbers of PC's and Macs bought that
> > day.
>
> Nope. Unit count doesn't mean shit.
It maens everything to third-party developers. Ask them.
> If you go to a car dealer and count BMW's to all other cars you would
> think BMW is in big trouble. Facts are otherwise.
Uh, last I heard BMW WAS in trouble and was closing factories and outsourcing
their production lines to exotic places like South Carolina. They've also
downgraded many of their parts specifications and some of their lines to keep
more market share. Sound familiar?
> The question is, is 1,000 million dollars in software sales per year
> enough to entice compelling applications to be written for macs --
> combined with lower development costs, lower support costs, and more
> general productivity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!
That's still not enough money to develop complex software. Look at how much
it costs to make a new action game for the market (over $10 million and goin
waaaay up) and then divide that by the number of systems it can be marketed
to. Add something in for distribution, margins, packaging, and markup and
suddenly you have little reason to cater to a 10% market share unless you've
got an absolute lock on the segment as the only provider of that particular
product. All it takes is simple math....
> > This, my friends is why apple needs to boost performance and
> > decrease cost of machines at the same time. We're in a losing battle as
> > it is. Apple needs to be outstanding in both performance (as it is now)
> > **AND** Price (as it surely is not now).
>
> It already is. But you can not teach a rock (or wintel lover) to think.
> Does more, costs less - and they still don't get it. So why waste time?!?
> They come around eventually... and when they do become BIG-TIME Mac
> Advocates. This is why Apple is #1 in customer satisfaction, #1 in
> costomer re-buys, #1 in productivity, etc., etc.
"They come around eventually....?" Where'd you make that up? Major sites are
threatening to drop the Mac, not the other way around.
> So let some people learn in life (the hard-way) and be Win-users. The rest
> of us will take pride in more efficiency and better value. Just because
> they bought a chocolate covered turd and call it confectionary is no
> reason for me to eat one!
>
> > Yeah, we get all these cool
> > things like ethernet, sound built in, video capture and all (many things,
> > minus the sound, that home users 90% of the market, will never use) but
> > what is that getting us? It surely isn't getting us any more buyers.
>
> Actually it is. Apple has never decreased yet - especially in UNITS sold.
> At worst they have only been growing a few % less than the rest of the
> industry combined... and when you look at the longer term trends, they
> have been at least keeping up. But more important than all that - the
> machine is still viable - it still makes me MORE productive than win-types
> - and I still don't have to support MicroSoft.
They decreased many times: 1982, 1985, 1991, 1993, and just the last quarter
when units shipped were down around 12% over the same peiod as last year. All
the while the total market was growing, Apple's actually shrunk.
[snip]
Cheers.
John Christie
Aristophanes (scr...@netcom.ca) wrote:: >
: > > Money doesn't come into the equation for people with taste.
: > >
: > > Stan: > Therein lies the problem. And by the way, I own two macs at present, a
: > five series BMW in the past, enough SONY electronics to stock a decent
: > store, three DirectTV units, etc, the point being that I too
: > appreciate quality products. The problem is that the general public
: > does not. We can talk all we want about why macs are better, but it
: > doesn't make any difference to the general public--they just shrug
: > their shoulders and go on buying Packard Bells.
This is the crux. I wonder why the computer industry seems to
get away with stuff that no other industry is allowed to? I can open my
discount dollar computer shop and cobble together some PCs for cheaper
than anyone else locally, sell some, and then move on. I am not
complaining about laws or warranties or what have you. I am awestruck at
the supidity of the public. Or, to put it more precisely I am fascinated
that computer consumers don't care about reliability. Toyotas are vastly
overpriced m,achines (feature for feature) compared to American cars and
yet, they seel like hotcake. Why, because people don't trust that they
will be able to drive their American cars as trouble free.
I wonder if this is just a consequence of the infancy of the
industry. Are most people unknowledgeable users or tech heads? I can
see the advantage of getting lower end gear if you know how to solve
problems yourself, but if you know zip it appears unlikey to me that
there would be a distinct advantage to getting high end gear. Thus, the
downfall of the Amaerican auto industry in the 70s.
I think that the market is broadening out toward people who are
not in the know about computers. This is where Apple's recent failures
are going to hurt them. This bullshit that they didn't get 7.5.3 CDs
bundled with every machine going out the door or that PCI macs were
shipped with 8meg of RAM (it needs 16 to use it).
the new consumers, the places the market will expand, want to
plug in the computer and go. Apple's could do that when most users could
build a PC and now that the market is shifting they are blowing it. they
have got to get back into their previous position. When there is a
computer in every home what do you think the odds are that the public
will put up with startup glitches and general unreliability? Ask people
who ran GM in 1981. Now, people who buy a new computer consult friends
who have one or buy what is like they use at work (if they like it).
Someday, people are really going to use consumer reports and the column
that says relibility is going to be VERY important.
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Christie
"You aren't free because you CAN choose - only if you DO choose."
"All you are is the decisions you make. If you let circumstances make
them for you then what you are becomes very easy to estimate."
Poor White Trash
> In article <3186B7...@scripps.edu>, Ian Russell Ollmann
> <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
> > > The question is what has to happen for Apple to survive? I looked at
> > > a mac in a store today. A Performa 6200--when I tried to run one of
> > > the demo applications, I got an "Out of Memory" reply!! Really
> > > inspires one to buy the machine, huh?
> >
> > Apple has always made the dumb move of shipping their machines with 50%
> > of the RAM that it really needs. The least they could do is lock in VM
> > in demo machines. Those little touches might help more than anything else
> > (except perhaps dumping the entire Performa line -- but then that is another
> > thread entirely.)
>
> Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
Absolutely not!!
Apple needs to enlarge their market share by targeting new customers. This
would lead to greater sales and profits for the corporation. What Apple
needs to do is let the cat out of the bag. Maybe advertising in the
main-stream media rather than Macworld would be a start. C'mon, Apple!
We're reading the magazine. Isn't it obvious that we're already hooked?
It's the easiest to use OS out there but nobody knows it.
The Performa line of Macs is perfect for new users. I think the majority
of new computer buyers today know what they want but don't know what they
need. What new user wants to buy everything component by component? Seems
pretty simple to me. Give the buyer everything in one or two boxes.
Everybody wants a monitor, keyboard, modem, mouse, printer, and software.
When I brought my first Mac, little over a year ago (seems ALOT longer),
the Performa was the only way to go. It was actually an impulse buy. I
didn't know what I was getting into. I hadn't used a computer since my
Apple IIe. I just knew the the Performa looked like the best deal out
there. The box was the major selling point. I couldn't have told you what
RAM was at the time let alone how much I needed (I was lucky enough to be
blessed with 8 MB). I had the whole package up and running perfectly and
was signed on to eWorld in under an hour. I wonder how many first time PC
users could claim the same thing?
As my Mac wisdom has grown, so have my computer needs. Now I know what I
want and need. A Performa would probably not be an option in the future. I
really didn't need alot of the software that came with it and I soon
discovered my Teleport Bronze was the SLOWEST thing going. But for all the
enjoyment my Mac has given me, I'll bite the bullet on the add-on's and
replacements any day. I now find myself grumbling about the lack of a
custom install option on the Performa cd and my inability to run Copland
if it ever ships. But those are the breaks, eh? I know I'll be coming back
to Apple (or manufacturers of clones) for all my future CPU and OS
purchases.
Evolution of a Mac user:
Macintosh Performa 630cd
8 MB RAM -> 16 MB
Teleport Bronze -> Teleport Platinum
68LC040 processor -> PowerPC upgrade
eWorld -> AOL -> PPP
250 MB HD -> Added 1 GB external HD + Zip Disk
HP Desk Writer 550C -> Apple LaserWriter 4/600PS
Various bundled software -> Better software
Performa Plus Display -> AppleVision 1710 Display
All this and more, without one call to tech-support, in just over a year.
Apple is a sleeping giant and needs to WAKE UP!!! Stop the Microsoft
proliferation and let potential customers know what the Mac is!
PWT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't DUMP it!!! MARKET it!!
Now if I could only learn how my Mac could start making me money...
instead of costing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David K. Every
In article <4m8smu$l...@usenet9.interramp.com>, us03...@interramp.com
(Psychodad) wrote:
> Maybe in you dreams PPC604166 is faster
And in every known test under the sun - EXCEPT Specs. But of course I do
not run MY computer to run specs from ONLY the Intel ref. compiler... I
try to do work... and on that the PPC woops P6200's butt.
> but in reality Ppro200 beats it hands down
Could you show us ANYTHING that supports that other than Spec?
>,the system that comes closest to PPro200 performance is PowerComputing
> Power Tower 180 (16mb RAM,no monitor)
Closests to doubling it you mean.
> but that baby will set you back $4195
> while the Micron MagnumPro200,(32 mb RAM,no monitor) can be had for just
> $3199,so am I gonna pay extra $1000 for a slower machine with less RAM?
I dont
> think so.
You mean after you add all the cards to do what the PowerComputing does
(but worse) to the Micron it will costs $1000 more and be slower? We
agree.
--
David K. Every
MacKiDo Warrior - The Power of the Macintosh Way!
David K. Every
> David K. Every wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <mcglaughlin.4-0...@se-590-samac.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > mcglau...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeremy McGlaughlin) wrote:
> >
> > Nope. Unit count doesn't mean shit.
>
> It maens everything to third-party developers. Ask them.
I am one. And intelligent ones think not of unit count but of third party
software sales (in my markets). Where apple varries from double to 1/3 the
Windoze software sales.
Except on the Mac I can write a single target. On PC's I may have to write
many targets (Win95, WinNT, Win31, DOS).
On the Mac development costs are lower, support costs are lower, I am
dealing with a less saturated market, I do not have MS changing things in
the OS (using undocumented calls, or making last minute changes that break
my stuff so they can swallow my market). Which is why sooo many developers
are flocking to Macs.
> > The question is, is 1,000 million dollars in software sales per year
> > enough to entice compelling applications to be written for macs --
> > combined with lower development costs, lower support costs, and more
> > general productivity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!
>
> That's still not enough money to develop complex software.
Please rent a clue...you obviously do not have one of your own.
A HOT package on PC's or Macs is something that sells 100K units+. With 23
million Macs and a billion dollars in sales, and a market that uses more
apps/machine and is more open to change and something other than MS
products - the Mac market is VERY VERY enticing... and plenty to support
"complex software".
Obviously people will support both (in most cases). Because you can double
your revenue stream. But there is no doubt that there is enough revenue to
entice people over to Macs.
> Look at how much
> it costs to make a new action game for the market (over $10 million and goin
> waaaay up) and then divide that by the number of systems it can be marketed
> to. Add something in for distribution, margins, packaging, and markup and
> suddenly you have little reason to cater to a 10% market share unless you've
> got an absolute lock on the segment as the only provider of that particular
> product. All it takes is simple math....
You seem incapable of simple math. Mac market varries, but is over DOUBLE
the software market share that you quote (when you factor out MS's cut of
the dollars).
> > It already is. But you can not teach a rock (or wintel lover) to think.
> > Does more, costs less - and they still don't get it. So why waste time?!?
> > They come around eventually... and when they do become BIG-TIME Mac
> > Advocates. This is why Apple is #1 in customer satisfaction, #1 in
> > costomer re-buys, #1 in productivity, etc., etc.
>
> "They come around eventually....?" Where'd you make that up? Major sites are
> threatening to drop the Mac, not the other way around.
Obviously you only see one side of the coin. There have been many
companies that do the other way as well... there are also LOTS of
companies that are NOT dropping the Mac BECAUSE of the added productivity.
It is true that insecure MIS weenies (who don't seem to know shit about
computers) do try to standardize on machines that are more expensive to
support - but only because it is job security and easier than them having
to learn how to tailor a machine to a task. (These are the same types that
buy MS apps for the same reasons).
> > Actually it is. Apple has never decreased yet - especially in UNITS sold.
> > At worst they have only been growing a few % less than the rest of the
> > industry combined... and when you look at the longer term trends, they
> > have been at least keeping up. But more important than all that - the
> > machine is still viable - it still makes me MORE productive than win-types
> > - and I still don't have to support MicroSoft.
>
> They decreased many times: 1982, 1985, 1991, 1993, and just the last quarter
> when units shipped were down around 12% over the same peiod as last year.
82 was not Macs dingleberry. 85 I'll give you. One quarter (and apple
traditionally worst quarter WITH the barage of the media, as compared to
one of their biggest growth years ever) is not the same thing as a yearly
decrease.
> the while the total market was growing, Apple's actually shrunk.
What you are looking at is that Apple did not grow as fast as the actual
industry - but as a company did not shrink... and as a trend Apple is not
20 times as big (in dollar sales) or over 10 times (unit sales) as
'84/85. Not exactly looking like a shrinking company. Oh I forget, you
can't think past a quarter.
Richard Huggins
>
>Then why is it that EVERY machine that has installed 7.5.3 gets
>serious CPU slowdown after upgrading? I explain me this...
>
>--a user who went BACK to 7.5.1
>
>Jeremy
>
=====================
On what basis do you mke such a sweeping generalization?? If you
don't like it, fine, but I have read many reports from people who say
the OPPOSITE of what you said. Far from "EVERY machine."
-------------------
Richard Huggins
Tyler, Texas
hug...@rapidramp.com
tomlinson
Ty Klein (mren...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
Theoretically, the concept of Performa (read 'home computer') is sound.
In practice, Apple has done a horrible job with the Performa line.
If Apple wants to design an inexpensive computer for the home market,
they should follow the example of the 7200. The 7200 has its
disadvantages, but it is still a fine machine. The same can hardly
be said of the 5200/6200/6300 line. Why use the 603(e), a processor
designed for use in the PowerBooks, for a desktop machine? Why
is the only expansion slot a PDS slot and not a PCI (or even a NuBus)
slot? Why not DIMM slots for memory, which would preserve the ability
to add more RAM without purchasing a pair of SIMM's, but which would
give a 64-bit path to memory?
(It doesn't help that the Performas are the only machines to be found
at appliance-stores and department stores. Walk into Sears or The
Good Guys, and what do you see but a role of slow Performas, running
At Ease--the inventors of At Ease should be lined up against a wall
and shot--while all the Pentium machines are running cool games.)
Cheers,
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - e...@ugcs.caltech.edu, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
(To forty-four million U. S. news buyers, more newsworthy than the names
in his own headlines, was Kane himself, greatest newspaper tycoon of this
or any other generation.)
Its humble beginnings in this ramshackle building--a dying daily.
Kane's empire in its glory held dominion over thirty-seven newspapers,
two syndicates, a radio network--an empire upon an empire!
Stan The Man
In article
<Your_user_name-...@mac122.doj-lab.ohio-state.edu>,
Your_us...@osu.edu wrote:
>> Apple could barely meet demand for the 120 MHz 8500 (at around $4000) last
>> fall, so I'd say their pricing is right on. Serious computer users with
>> real needs for number-crunching capability are salivating over the 7600
>> (and 7500 upgrade) and fortunately after the initial rush the price will
>> drop.
>
>Just because we're stupid enough to pay such an outrageous price doesn't
>mean that the price is right. The trend-setters will always put a rush on
>first purchase buying. Just because someone has to be the first on their
>block to own an 8500 (last fall) doesn't mean the price is right. Take a
>look at the people who waited for the price to go down, most STILL haven't
>bought an 8500 or 7500 becuase why? The price is STILL TOO HIGH!
If a product sells at its determined price then it cannot, according to the
basic principles of economics, ie supply and demand, be overpriced.
The above post is Y-A Wild Generalisation (why do people _always_
generalise?) unless it is supported by research, which of course it isn't.
In my circle of associates, and from reading posts here, it is apparent
that a great many people have been filling their boots with discounted
7500s and 8500s. Of course there are some folk who get caught up in
the vicious circle of 'wait-and-see' because with the discounted prices
comes the option of waiting for a new speed-bump machine. Such folk
will never jump.
At today's prices, the 7500 is a staggeringly good buy, IMHO.
Thomas J. Nugent, Jr.
>Of course, I really don't think Apple is going to die at all. They have
>some rough months ahead of them, but Copland and Exponential are two
>big club wielding rabbits that have yet to emerge from the hat. They should
>appear at about the same time in roughly 1 year. Next year will be a good
>year for Apple.
What is Exponential? I haven't heard of it.
Thanks (in advance).
-- Tom N.
Tom Nugent: Temporarily Free Soul (tm)
email: nano...@ix.netcom.com URL: http://www2.gol.com/users/nugent
Join the JapanSpace mailing list by sending me email w/ your email address
R. Tang
In article <mcglaughlin.4-0...@mac122.doj-lab.ohio-state.edu>,
Jeremy McGlaughlin <mcglau...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> > I think we should all march our butts out to the local MicroCenter or any
>> > other computer store specializing in both Macintosh and PC computers.
>> > When we get there I think we should all stand at the door from open to
>> > close (any given day) and count the numbers of PC's and Macs bought that
>> > day.
>> think BMW is in big trouble. Facts are otherwise.
>Ford or General Motors? Don't make me laugh. Unit count doesn't mean
>shit,
Don't make ME laugh. It depends on the company. Unit counts are
not necessarily the best way of measuring profitability.
Jeeeeezus....doesn't anybody around here know basic business management?
Wait. I forgot. Computer nerds only here.
>*hmmm lower development costs (because several 'mac only' software
>companies are 3 talented guys in a basement. Lower support costs? more
>general productivity, I think that depends on the user.
No.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Central:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
"The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Tom Keyes
In article <mrenigma-010...@news.earthlink.net>,
mren...@earthlink.net (Ty Klein) wrote:
>
> Should apple dump the performa line? Any thought or comments on it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought the 'performa' was just a computer
packaged along with a complete set of periperals, aimed at people without
current mac hardware or who desire one-stop shopping, mac newcomers,etc.
So their are non-PPC performas, 601 PPC performas, 602 PPC performas, etc.
That's why I'm always surprised when I read a post like 'can I run OT on a
performa?' Offering a complete package is obviously a reasonable marketing
strategy, it wd make no sense for Apple to stop doing that. Maybe some
individual performas are not good deals...TK
--
Tom Keyes, Theoretical/Computational Chemist
Chemistry Department, Boston University, Boston MA 02215
http://chem.bu.edu/~keyes
Ty Klein
In article <ADAE3506...@als-il2-20.ix.netcom.com>, nug...@gol.com
(Thomas J. Nugent, Jr.) wrote:
> In article <3186B7...@scripps.edu>,
> Ian Russell Ollmann <ia...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
> >Of course, I really don't think Apple is going to die at all. They have
> >some rough months ahead of them, but Copland and Exponential are two
> >big club wielding rabbits that have yet to emerge from the hat. They should
> >appear at about the same time in roughly 1 year. Next year will be a good
> >year for Apple.
>
> What is Exponential? I haven't heard of it.
>
> Thanks (in advance).
>
> -- Tom N.
Exponential is a company that makes processors for macs.(PPC's) They
have recently announced that they are going to release a new PowerPC chip
in early 1997 that will run at 300-600mhz! *Very fast*! Just think of a
500mhz PPC chip running copland! Not bad eh? Things look pretty good for
apple in '97!
--
~~~~"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
courageously uses his intelligence."~~~~
A. Einstein
Aristophanes
Richard Huggins wrote:
>
> You ever notice how people write things such as "Apple screws up..."
> and never reply to the replies they generate? It always makes me think
> they were more interested in flaming than in resolving, if resolution
> were even possible.
That's an unfair generalization. I've been one of the Mac users and sellers
most vocal and very critical of Apple and I respond as often (too often,
right Joe!?!?) in follow-ups, as do many PCer's.
> In any event, one only has to subscribe (free) to Guy Kawasaki's
> "EvangaList" mailing list if one wants to hear story after story---many
> of them from PC techs---about horrors asociated with trying to get the
> Windows/DOS machines to do almost anything. And yes, many times yes, it
> is worth whatever extra the street requires to have the Mac available.
> Even $1,000-$1,500 extra would be absolute "squat" to a professional who
> needed a reliable, easy-to-use, savvy, intuitive, fun, capable,
> low-maintenance, etc. computer.
Evangelist only caters to an elite few Mac users who Kawasaki goads on to
do the Mac proud. Good for it!
Now, can we get down to business?
For every glowing post about the Mac on the Evangelist I've seen, I've read
my share of horror stories about bugs and network problems ever since 7.5
cam out, and this still continues. Such glowing endorsements hardly come
close to the truth, nor do such vindicative pogroms against Win95 help the
MacOS's cause.
Truth is best found through introspection and self-examination. Apple's
faults are mostly of its on doing. And the mac is not a godsend to
personalcomputing as the Evangelist - by its very name - implies.
> Someone who argues Apple verses IBM on the basis of price is
> totally out of touch with computer reality, and in my uglier moods I
> might invite upon him a few months experiences trying to actually use
> the Pentium that he chose because he thought he would save money by
> doing so.
If price is not reality, then you have too many credit cards paid off by
soemone other than yourself.
> The marvelous Mac writer and columnist, David Pogue, has a simple
> sentence in his "Macs for Dummies" book which says it all:
>
> "Setting up the Mac should take less than 20 minutes; all you have
> to do is plug in a few cables."
I take no longer than that - even less - with a Win95 Compaq Presario
loaded with MS Office in our store.
> And no, that is NOT an exaggeration. But believe me, an IBM-type
> tech would argue for days that such simply must be impossible.
>
> He would be wrong.
No serious techie would make such a claim.
In the words of someone famous somewhere: "Get Real!!!"
Cheers.
Aristophanes
Louis M. Pecora wrote:
>
> In article <31873025...@news.brandeis.edu>, jal...@cs.brandeis.edu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:36 -0400, Benjamin Smith
> > <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >OK, let me ask this. Why are people willing to pay more for Sony
> > >televisions? or Nakamichi systems which are basic compared to lower end
> > >audio systems with far more features? or Mercedes Benz cars which offer
> > >fewer luxury features than a mid priced Buick??
> >
> > channel. PCs & Macs have different software and as much as it is
> > changing, the balance still favours PCs. Now you may bring up
> > Softwindows, but to continue your analogy, if, on a quarter of the
> > roads I had to drive a BMW on, I could only go at half the speed a
> > Chevy could, I'd dump it in an instant.
>
> drive on it. Things like Java point to that platform neutral trend.
Is there a web brower with Netscape plug-ins for DOS or the Amiga (I know of
Mosaic, but with no plug-in support)? Will the Amiga have Java embedded in
the OS?
The CPU/OS debate continues with increased relevance due to the Internet.
NOW Apple has to both reconfigure its OS for CPU and multimedia advances as
well as vastly increase the OS's networking capabilities, all while losing
money.
The Internet is hardly a leveller. It winnows out the chaff.
It DOES sound like Amelio understands this, however, much to his credit.