Re: Apple's ways

[wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

Ralf Quint (Ralf_Quint@hot_mail.com) wrote:
: you have not necessarily to take eMachines as an example for bad
: PC hardware. Compaq's Presario's and HP's Brio's and low-end
: Pavilions's are as bad as those emachines, just a bit more expensive

Is that to say the technical and warranty support provided by Apple,
Compaq and HP are equal to eMachine's?  And again, I'm going to
question your measure of quality: are you talking about performance
or longevity?  I have noticed a tendancy among users to say that
their <insert component name here> is low quality because it is 
nowhere near as fast as the <insert trendy alternative here>.  As
far as I'm concerned, 350MHz (about 10x my old machine's speed) is
plenty fast.  To further improve performance, I simply run the old
when I can.  After all, it is a heck of a lot cheaper than upgrading
to the new software all of the time, I am familiar with its use and
features, and the latest G4 wouldn't run the new software as fast
anyway.  So longevity and problem free operation are what I expect
of quality machines.  My experiences in the PC world indicate that
this is not the case.

: I never said anything bad about an Apple II.... ;-)))

No, that was I.  I suggested that people may see the Apple II series
as cheap machines because of the longevity of the 8-bit models, and
the slow progress.  That argument still holds, and it is not the
early 90's I speak of here.  The Apple II appears to have been moving
at a glacial pace in the early to mid-eighties and, while browsing
through old magazines, I have seen the same sort of performance-
centric criticism aimed at the Apple II as you would see aimed at the
iMac of today.

: And Apple will have a hard time performance wise if those GHz P4's
: become mainstream in the PC market....

Performance is *not* everything.  Oh sure, it will be a huge factor for
the G4 userbase, but it is dubious that it would be a big factor for
current G3 buyers.

Byron.