Why Mac's cost so much (was Re: Apple lost me)
BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU
>to spend money on R & D if they they don't get any from guys like you?!
Who cares...geez are we anal today.
>
>Unlike PC clones that you see everywhere (NEC, Compaq, Toshiba and other
>"expensive" PC clone manufacturers excepted), Apple products are designed
>under their OWN R & D umbrella. They design the hardware, the system
>software, peripheral interfaces and drivers... even the user manuals and
>computer cases. For all their production quality, I'd see Apple as superiors
>in their art and craft.
>
Uh duh? Compaq and Nec not doing their own R&D. Aren't we really the
ignorant one? WIthout IBM adn Motorola, who would be disigning processors
for your beloved Macs? System 7 is nothing to brag about anymore. There are
subjectively better OSs out there.
>In order to support the ongoing development of the Apple Macintosh as unique
>personal computers, they need R & D revenue. They need your money. And
>frankly, considering that the Macintosh is advanced in many respects over
>any kind of PC technology (well... System 7 could be more industrial strength,
>but that's coming!), I'd say that they deserve to price their systems 25%
>more than what any, heh, "equivalent" PC is worth.
>
25% over something that is 25% overpriced to begin with sucks!. The
PowerMacs are the only value. Quadra's are still too expensive. You should
be able to get a 33mhz true 040 with 14" Trinitron, extended keyboard,
8/230 for $1799. OK, fine give it the old "Macs have built in Sound, a
great OS and built in Networking" and Crank it up to $1999. Keep pace with
PCs. That is where the market is whether you like it or not.
>So before you bicker about how much you're paying for in a Macintosh, you'd
>better look into WHAT you're paying for in a Macintosh.
>
A name. Face it, HW is not that much and Apple does nowhere near as much R&D
as you imply. Where is a new bus (no pun intended)? Multitasking OS? They
have nothing to show for how many years of work? Lets look at some major
engineering flaws of apple HW, and incompatibilities! Believe me, either
they have slacked quite a bit, or cut a few corners along the line.
>Otherwise, you're just about as arrogant as all the other PC users in the
>world.
Sounds to me like you are the arrogant one. Have a little more of an open
mind and you will see that Macs are not God's gift to total, universal
computing. They have some great qualities which is why I no longer refer
to them as moron machines. Heck, I am working on getting a PB to use,
because it would suit several of my needs. I am not going to enjoy working
with System 7, but that's life. We could go shot for shot pointing out
pros and cons. There are PC bigots as well as Mac bigots. Lets just try to
have an open mind, huh? And keep the FUD to a minimum :)
cheers,
bvl
>Tony Kavadias
--
Brian P. Van Lieu AXP-Phi Mu Chapter
lb...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu Lehigh Ultimate Frisbee Team - GOHO!
b...@vnet.ibm.com
Team OS/2: Spreading the News around the World
#define disclaimer
My opinions are mine, and in no way reflect upon IBM Corporation or Lehigh
University.
Wes Simonds
LIEU, lb...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:
> 25% over something that is 25% overpriced to begin with sucks!. The
> PowerMacs are the only value. Quadra's are still too expensive. You
should
> be able to get a 33mhz true 040 with 14" Trinitron, extended
keyboard,
> 8/230 for $1799. OK, fine give it the old "Macs have built in Sound,
a
> great OS and built in Networking" and Crank it up to $1999. Keep
pace with
> PCs. That is where the market is whether you like it or not.
Ah... you CAN get this, amigo. It's called the LC575. Check it out.
IMO, the Q605 is an even better deal. The FPU is not significant for
the vast majority of users.
Wwtaylor
(BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU) writes:
>>25% over something that is 25% overpriced to begin with sucks!. The PowerMacs
are the only value. Quadra's are still too expensive. You should be able to get
a 33mhz true 040 with 14" Trinitron, extended keyboard, 8/230 for $1799. OK,
fine give it the old "Macs have built in Sound, a great OS and built in
Networking" and Crank it up to $1999. Keep pace with PCs. That is where the
market is whether you like it or not.<<
If Apple is SO bad, why do you even care? I noticed that you are a Team OS/2
booster so you do have a decent OS/2 to compare the Mac too (I have been a
longtime OS/2 buff). But most low cost PC hardware is junk...just the bare
minimum quality. I have tried to install OS/2 on too many semi-compatible PC
clones in my day. To get a decent PC you have to pay top dollar for a Dell,
Compaq, NEC, IBM, ALR, HP, or DEC system. They cost about the same as Mac's.
The truth is that the computer you want will always cost around $4000-5000.
Every year what you get for that amount increases, but the price is constant.
I use both platforms everyday (have an 8100 and a 486DX2). I even use
workstations on a regular basis. When I have to get a paper or other task done
fast and with no hassles I use the Mac. Even when my Mac was an old IIci and a
lot slower than my 486, I still got my work done faster.
Windows is a kludge. Windows 4 is a kludge. Windows NT needs 32MB RAM, and OS/2
lacks native apps forcing you back to WinOS2. The 10 year old MacOS still looks
pretty good compared to this competition. Personally, I'd like to see NeXTstep
running on everything, but its not going to happen.
WT
Yan Lee
are very expensive. You know what I hate? Seeing prices of a full PC
for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699 with the
fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell, sometines
without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand PC, but I'll
be damned to pay too much. I'll stick with my old Mac for a couple of
years until I feel that the Mac is actually affordable. IMHO it is not.
And this bothers me because I am sure others feel this way, meaning that
if Apple continues to price it high, they will go out of business.
Tony
AFL GeneS
> As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple
> products are very expensive. You know what I hate? Seeing prices of a
> full PC for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699
> with the fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell,
> sometines without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand
> PC, but I'll be damned to pay too much. I'll stick with my old Mac
> for a couple of years until I feel that the Mac is actually
> affordable. IMHO it is not.
You can buy a barebones Mac for around $900 or so (a Quadra 605), plus another
$400 for a cheap keyboard and monitor. Is $1300 a better figure for you? But
the Power Macintosh at $1699 is probably three-four times faster (with native
software) than the cheaper spread. So even if you end up spending two grand for
a complete basic system, you are still getting performance that is miles ahead
of what's available on the PC side of the fence at similar cost. Think of what
you spent on your Mac and how it performs when compared to the new models, or
any competing product. Then tell us again why it costs too much.
Also look at Apple's profit margins, since they're a publicly trading company,
and tell us how we are being gouged (not!).
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Shimpei Yamashita
:As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple products
:for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699 with the
:fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell, sometines
:without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand PC, but I'll
If you see a desktop Mac without a mouse (of course, PowerBooks don't come
with one), do us a favor and let us know--or let Apple know. The dealer
is trying to pull a fast one on us.
WRT the keyboard and monitor, it's not necessarily a bad thing--people can
then find whatever keyboard or monitor that fits their needs, instead of
whatever Apple (or the dealer) thinks is the best for that model. I think
this is a good policy since monitors and keyboards are highly subjective
choices (i.e. there isn't really a "best" choice for everybody). I can't
stand Color Plus and Standard Keyboard II, but many others fid them adequate.
:Tony
:
:
--
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University shi...@leland.stanford.edu
Jim Correia
>In article <2que7r$a...@news.bu.edu>, y-t...@bu.edu (Yan Lee) writes:
>
>> As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple
>> products are very expensive. You know what I hate? Seeing prices of a
>> full PC for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699
>> with the fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell,
>> sometines without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand
I would be interested to know which macs (powerbooks aside) come without
a mouse...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Kevin B. Hayes
: As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple products
: for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699 with the
So, I've seen a mac for 1099 with keyboard, mouse, monitor. Which models?
How do they compare?
: fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell, sometines
: without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand PC, but I'll
All macs come with mice. (except powerbooks which have built in trackballs).
Desktop macs always did come with mice, and probably always will. If you
saw one without, then the dealer opened the CPU box and took the mouse out.
I really don't htink a dealer would do that.
Cheers,
Kev.
--
Kevin Hayes | "My opinions do necessarily
Dalhousie University | reflect the opinions of
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | myself; so sue me!"
ha...@ug.cs.dal.ca |
Hypnotist of Ladies
>Yan Lee so eloquently professed:
>: As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple products
>: are very expensive. You know what I hate? Seeing prices of a full PC
>: for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699 with the
>
>So, I've seen a mac for 1099 with keyboard, mouse, monitor. Which models?
>How do they compare?
Well, my roommate bought a 486 DX2/66 (8/350) with a basic NEC 1024-capable
monitor for $1700. That was six months ago. The mac you can get for that
price now gives you nowhere near the performance. I don't care what any
benchmarks say, the proof is in actually using the machines. I bought an
840av about 9 months ago, and using the same apps on his and mine (eg Adobe
Photoshop), I can say without question that his kicks my computer's butt.
I have 16Mb of RAM, and I have the DSP helping Photoshop with tough tasks.
I knew this would happen before I bought my 840. Call me stupid, but I
dig macs, whether or not they're as fast, so I went out and dropped almost
three times $1700 on a system that I liked*. What can you get with $1700?
From reading news, it seems that it's somewhere around a Quarda 610 level.
I have a graphics class at school where we use Quadra 610's, and let me
tell you, it's painfully slow. It seems slower than my parents' IIcx ever
did (of course it's not, but it still ain't no picnic).
One other thing that I've noticed is that Windows seems to have far better
performance in the Virtual Memory department. My roommate only has 8Mb,
as I mentioned before, and he uses VM. It is hardly noticeable. On a mac,
I avoid virtual memory at all costs, because it bogs down.
-Neal Tucker
*Well, okay, it's the bank's money, but I'm going to be paying for it until
I'm dead. ;-)
__________________________________________________________________________
"Good luck and Godspeed. May the bird of paradise fly up your, uh...nose."
AFL GeneS
ntu...@farad.elee.calpoly.edu (Hypnotist of Ladies) writes:
> What can you get with $1700?
A Power Macintosh 6100/60. Blows the 486/66 away in the dust.
Hypnotist of Ladies
Where do you get this info about the 6100 "blowing away" a 486/66? Does
it come from marketing hype? Does it come from people on the net (who
are likely repeating marketing hype)? Or does it come from personal
experience? I've used 6100's quite a bit at work, and let me tell you,
I was not all that impressed. It's a quick mac, but you don't walk away
from it stunned by the speed.
-Neal Tucker
Wes Simonds
Ladies, ntu...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu writes:
>Where do you get this info about the 6100 "blowing away" a 486/66? Does
>it come from marketing hype? Does it come from people on the net (who
>are likely repeating marketing hype)? Or does it come from personal
>experience? I've used 6100's quite a bit at work, and let me tell you,
>I was not all that impressed. It's a quick mac, but you don't walk away
>from it stunned by the speed.
You aren't using native software, laddie. You mentioned Photoshop --
well, Photoshop on a PowerMac simply destroys Pentium performance at the
same clock rate. Check any recent PC (not Mac) magazine -- they're all
running comparisons. I think PC Shopper is the name of the one I was
looking at yesterday that wound up recommending the PowerMac over the
Pentium (not to mention any 486 system).
Wes Simonds
level.
WHERE has this guy BEEN?
Neal, take a look at a 6100 and a clock-chip kit to take it to 80Mhz+.
We are talking about a machine that will blow out Pentium boxes twice as
expensive.
AFL GeneS
ntu...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Hypnotist of Ladies) writes:
> I've used 6100's quite a bit at work, and let me tell you, I was
not
> all that impressed. It's a quick mac, but you don't walk away from
it
> stunned by the speed.
It comes from benchmarks run with native software against your
486/66, and these benchmarks have been published in every major
computer magazine. You may not see any performance worth commenting
over with emulated software, but when you have the real thing there
is a difference.
Specmarks, the industry standard means of measuring CPU performance,
will also show a decided advantage of the 60Mhz 601 chip over the
486/66, but real world experience is what counts anyway.
Hypnotist of Ladies
>ntu...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Hypnotist of Ladies) writes:
>
>> I've used 6100's quite a bit at work, and let me tell you, I was
>not
>> all that impressed. It's a quick mac, but you don't walk away from
>it
>> stunned by the speed.
>
>It comes from benchmarks run with native software against your
>486/66, and these benchmarks have been published in every major
>computer magazine. You may not see any performance worth commenting
>over with emulated software, but when you have the real thing there
>is a difference.
I might add that I was using a major commercial app that was NATIVE
when I came to this conclusion. The overall system doesn't seem that
fast, either. Go figure.
-Neal Tucker
Hypnotist of Ladies
>In article <1994May21.1...@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> Hypnotist of
>Ladies, ntu...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu writes:
>>Where do you get this info about the 6100 "blowing away" a 486/66? Does
>>it come from marketing hype? Does it come from people on the net (who
>>are likely repeating marketing hype)? Or does it come from personal
>>experience? I've used 6100's quite a bit at work, and let me tell you,
>>I was not all that impressed. It's a quick mac, but you don't walk away
>>from it stunned by the speed.
>
>You aren't using native software, laddie.
Wanna bet?
> You mentioned Photoshop --
Yes, I did. But in that case, I was making a comparison between my
840 and the 486.
-Neal Tucker
Wes Simonds
Ladies, ntu...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu writes:
>I might add that I was using a major commercial app that was NATIVE
>when I came to this conclusion. The overall system doesn't seem that
>fast, either. Go figure.
Of course it doesn't. A great deal of the operating system, including
the Finder, is still running in emulation, which is virtually as foreign
to the PowerPC as the Intel chips.
Michael Coburn
>:As far as all these bickering is going on, I tell you that Apple products
>:are very expensive. You know what I hate? Seeing prices of a full PC
^^^^^^^
>:for $1699 (blabblah model), but then seeing the Mac for $1699 with the
>:fine print saying with out keyboard, without monitor, hell, sometines
>:without a dang mouse too. I love macintoshes, I can;t stand PC, but I'll
Yeah but this "full" PC usually has some mickey mouse keyboard (which you
can upgrade for an extra 50-100 bucks) and a blurritron monitor which
your average mac user wouldn't stop to spit on. This can be upgraded as
well for another 200 bucks or so. In the end Apple is saving some face
by not bundling their h/ware with the dodgiest taiwanese stuff they
can find. Which is a _good_ thing.
--
Michael Coburn email: s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.oz.au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| These _are_ the opinions of my employer! Now - if only I could get a job..|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent
s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Michael Coburn) writes:
> Yeah but this "full" PC usually has some mickey mouse keyboard (which you
> can upgrade for an extra 50-100 bucks) and a blurritron monitor which
> your average mac user wouldn't stop to spit on. This can be upgraded as
> well for another 200 bucks or so. In the end Apple is saving some face
> by not bundling their h/ware with the dodgiest taiwanese stuff they
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> can find. Which is a _good_ thing.
I hate to do this, but I see it comes up every time when people are
trying to make a comparison between Mac vs. PC, high quality vs low
quality. I don't think there is anything wrong with those cheep
monitors manufactured in Taiwan. The market demansd for low-cast
monitors, and Taiwan is providing them. We have a small country without
any natural resources, so we have to survive on making anything people
want. But it doesn't mean that Taiwan does not have the technology and
can make only "cheep" monitors. Just for an example, during the Persian
Gulf War, almost all the satellite telephones used by the journalist to
report on-the-scene news are made in Taiwan.
No offense to anyone who had mentioned this, just want to make a point
here.
BTW, I don't think Mac are expensive now (they used to be), you got
what you paid for.
Vincent
Jonathan K. Goodish
dh...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Vincent) wrote:
> I hate to do this, but I see it comes up every time when people are
> trying to make a comparison between Mac vs. PC, high quality vs low
> quality. I don't think there is anything wrong with those cheep
> monitors manufactured in Taiwan. The market demansd for low-cast
The point as I understood it was that most of the monitors bundled with the
PC bundles are cheap, low quality garbage. I have used enough PCs and
enough Macs and enough Unix workstations to have been exposed to all
different kinds of monitors from all different companies from all different
areas of the world.
And of that experience, there are only a few (particularaly color) monitors
that I can stand to spend hours a day at. Even some of the better ones
aren't that great. I have found monitors based on the Trinitron tube hard
to beat.
> No offense to anyone who had mentioned this, just want to make a point
> here.
I agree with you. Where it comes from doesn't necessarily mean as much as
who makes it, which doesn't necessarily mean as much as what market it
targets in terms of the quality that becomes the end result.
> BTW, I don't think Mac are expensive now (they used to be), you got
> what you paid for.
No, they're not. I think they're downright cheap, especially the Power
Macintosh line.
JKG
--
=============================================================
Jonathan K. Goodish <j...@telerama.lm.com>
=============================================================
Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA
=============================================================
Bill Mayhew
cheap Applecolor monitor and standard keyboad is about in the leage
with a Packard-Bell 468SX in terms of quality of construction and,
perhaps, even country of origin.
A WGS95 server is in about the same leavge as an IBM model 95 in
terms of price and build quality. Funny that the numbers are both
95.
I've used macintosh computers since the original model. If
anything, there have been manifold increases in the quality of the
hardware product and drastic cuts in price over the course.
Things I don't like:
1. The Extended keyboard II, the flagship macintosh keyboard if
you go by price is not anywhere close in terms of quality to IBM's
Easy Options F2 model M keyboard. If IBM understands anything in
the computing business, it is how to make a keyboard that
withstands the rigors of student labs or 8 hour per day typing pool
use for years. Our current macintosh extended II price is abuout
$149, while IBM F2 model Ms run about $89. I've never had to
replace an IBM keyboard, but have been thorugh a fair number of
machintosh keybords. IBM does supply a junk keyboard on the low
end models. You get what you pay for. Compaq makes pretty good
computers but has never been able to find a good keyboard OEM to
save its life.
2. Mouse. IBM doesn't know how to make a decent mouse. Apple is
only recently catching on. I could never figure why Apple
continued to make those confounded mechanical-contact mice. I hate
to think how many I've had to clean over the years. Most recent
macintoshes seem to be supplice with optical-chopper mice; its
about time. The specs sheets for the current mac models do imply that
the mouse might be either technology.
3. Ethernet port that isn't really an ehternet port. If the Q650
and similar models really had an ehternet port, it wouuldn't be
necessay to purchase a $89 adapter to connect to a 10baseT network.
4. Lack of a decent scripting tool to create user customized
applications. I suppose research shows that most users only ever
word-process or something like that. Those users could probably
live with a PC. I want a macintosh to give me something that I
don't get other places. I am really annoyed that all that ships
anymore is the ridiculous hypercard player; and it doesn't even
comre with an even slightly useful stack. At lest up through 7.0,
the systems shipped with the "appointments with audio" stack. A
microsoft/windows system gives the user the macro recdorder and
qbasic as standard tools.
Re conuntry of origin: it doesn't make much difference. A good or
lousy system, depending on the company's choice, can be made almost
anywhere in the world. Many machintosh computers are made in
Singapore and other places in the asian pacific region. Those
products are as good as products made anywhere else.
I personally own PC clones, a macintosh IIvx and a Sun IPC.
They're all good for different things. I think I can speak farily
neturally on the good points and weak points. Over all, the strong
points of the macintosh line outweigh the weak. The macintoshes
really excell at simplicty of set-up and opoeration. If users buy
in at the bottom rung of either macintosh or PC clones they are
likely to quickly outgrow the processing capcity of their
machines.
--
Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH 44272-0095 USA phone: 216-325-2511
w...@uhura.neoucom.edu amateur radio 146.58: N8WED
Mark Rogowsky
w...@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew) writes:
>3. Ethernet port that isn't really an ehternet port. If the Q650
>and similar models really had an ehternet port, it wouuldn't be
>necessay to purchase a $89 adapter to connect to a 10baseT network.
>
likes Apple's AAUI port, requires a transceiver. Should Apple have
built in all three ports to satisfy you? Or perhaps just thin and
10BaseT (they certainly couldn't pick one or the other)? Also, Sonic
sells AAUI transceivers for $55. Regular AUI transceivers, which are
much harder to keep connected, cost about that much. It's a real
Ethernet port, just like many other computers out there.
>4. Lack of a decent scripting tool to create user customized
>applications. I suppose research shows that most users only ever
>word-process or something like that. Those users could probably
>live with a PC. I want a macintosh to give me something that I
>don't get other places. I am really annoyed that all that ships
>anymore is the ridiculous hypercard player; and it doesn't even
>comre with an even slightly useful stack. At lest up through 7.0,
>the systems shipped with the "appointments with audio" stack. A
>microsoft/windows system gives the user the macro recdorder and
>qbasic as standard tools.
>
Perhaps you've not heard of AppleScript. Many applications, like
Filemaker, Quark, Excel, MacWrite, support it now. Many more will
soon. I agree Apple should bundle a macro recorder, however, I've
never seen a Windows user use the one Microsoft provides.
Mark
Michael J. Angell
>I've used macintosh computers since the original model. If
>anything, there have been manifold increases in the quality of the
>hardware product and drastic cuts in price over the course.
I don't know where you are buying your Macs, but if this is true could you send
me the address?
In my opinion Apple hasn't made a solid computer since the IIci! I remember one
Systems Engineer at Businessland that dropped an SE off the tailgate of his
stationwagon sans luggage case. It booted up and ran fine. I'd be loath to try
this with any of the current Macs.
Mike
Greg Landweber
In my opinion Apple hasn't made a solid computer since the IIci! I remember one
Systems Engineer at Businessland that dropped an SE off the tailgate of his
stationwagon sans luggage case. It booted up and ran fine. I'd be loath to try
this with any of the current Macs.
I have heard stories of people driving their cars over PowerBooks or
dropping them on pavement and then still being able to use them.
My old IIcx survived being shipped by Royal Mail Parcel Force
(apparently they read "handle with care" as "drop only once" and
anything not so marked as "destroy the box"); my monitor didn't.
-- Greg "Browser" Landweber
g...@maths.ox.ac.uk