Re: Re. Sun-Apple

[mlamorte@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Mike LaMorte)]

Dennis Doms (ddoms@qni.com) wrote:
<snip>

: The advantage with a clone (desktop, at least)... if a part fails,
: likely you can buy a suitable replacement cheaply, easily, and
: locally. If IBM pulled out of the PC market tomorrow, the remaining
: systems would close into the gap seamlessly. (There are even software
: alternatives down to the OS level. Try that on a Mac. :)

True. But finding one that works with all your existing hardware and
software might be a bit trickier. The phrase "IBM compatable" really means
"This item has a 75% chance it'll will work perfectly with your existing
system."

: Proprietary systems are increasingly hard to maintain after the
: company disappears, or withdraws support. (Apple II users know this
: all too well, unfortunately.)

Again, this is also true. The counterpoint is that compatability is much
less of an issue. Chances are, if it says "Macintosh compatable" it WILL
work. (Yeah, there is that 1% that doesn't, but compatability with Macs is
MUCH better than compatability with PCs.)

: Uh, some of us do significant work. And if you can get more horsepower
: for the same money, why not?

I'm not saying that there are people out there that DON'T need the
performance. Sure, Pentiums have their niche for existing software that
needs to be run faster. (Lotus, Excel, etc) But Macs have their niche too:
graphic design, publishing, animation, 3-d modeling, etc. SB's prefer Mac
format files. Why? They're more stable, more predictable, easier to
handle, and don't crash their imagesetter like the same file created on a PC.
If you think I'm lying, call any local SB and ask.

: I think I'd hate to see Java running on my IIsi (I'm impatient with it
: on my Pentium, though I respect what Java represents). But I'll wait
: and see.

Yeah, granted, older machines will run slower than newer machines when
running new software. What's your point there?

: I disagree on the second part. Look at other published performance
: stats for the Pentium Pros, since you can get 200MHz. (Oh, I'm sorry,
: I guess that is a bit more than the MHz the touted PPC has so far
: achieved. :)

Okay, lemme get this straight... If I take a Pinto and drop in a Porsche
V-8, it will not only go faster than the stock Pinto, but it'll transform
itself into a better car, right? Better than the Porsche the engine came from?

Something tell me no... that the Pinto is STILL a Pinto, regardless what's
under the hood, and the Porsche will outperform the Pinto simply because
the engine and car were made to run together.

: (Wait for System 8? Is this like waiting for the PPC 620?)

The beta copy of Copeland is already out. And Motorola expects to be
shipping the PPC620's by the end of the year. They are building an entire
new building just for PPC production and development. It'll be finished by
the end of March...

: >And I doubt it'll take up 40 megs on the hard drive like another GUI OS
: >that's floating around out there...

: I find that inconsistent with the disconcern over installing software
: on the hard disk versus running it off of CD-ROM (see below).

My point is that why should the OS take up so much room? Why does Win95
take up so much more HD space and not take maximum advantage of the
existing system like the MacOS does? Why does Win95 have to force the PCs
to do things they were not designed to do? Why does Win95 have to fight
the hardware rather than work with it?


: >:     NON-GAME-PLAYER ERROR $0666 (Beep!)-- Try some of the new live-action
: >: CD-ROM 'movie' games, like 'Killing Moon or Phantasmagoria. An upgrade
: >: from x4 to x6 is VERY noticable.

: >Uh, I'd rather just mount the whole thing on the hard drive. It's even faster.

: But maybe not practical, or economical. I've seen games that use 120
: meg for "full" HD installs; obviously being able to run them from
: CD-ROM acceptably with a minimum install is a more desirable solution.

Well gee, all the people who use their computers as high-priced game
machines probably are saving all the cash they can to be able to run all
their CD-ROM games from RAM.... screw CD-ROMs, screw HDs... they're ALL
too slow! Give me a GIG of RAM, or give me death! Economical? Heck no.
Fast? You bet. 

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're SO concerned about
gameplay, buy a machine that is optimized to JUST PLAY GAMES.

: >:     Certainly, if a company is going to sell VHS-compatible Betamax's at
: >: Betamax prices, it cannot afford inefficiency, management errors, or bad
: >: luck. The cheaper the VHS machines and the more new features competitors
: >: add, the harder it becomes to convince stockholders (and the public) that
: >: making VHS-compatible Betamax's is a really smart idea.

: >Are you trying to say that Apple is marketing itself as an IBM compatable?
: >I dunno where you've been, but that's not part of their marketing
: >strategy. Sure, you CAN do it, but why would you want to? Most of the
: >stuff that's halfway decent is available for both platforms and is
: >cross-platform compatable. The Mac is just a superior platform because
: >it's user-friendly, has TRUE plug-and-play, and makes the maximum use of
: >all its available resources. 

: Apple is obviously marketing Macs as personal computers, and therefore
: in competition with IBM compatibles. A competition they appear to be
: losing in the marketplace.

Not necessarily. There's been a 30% increase in sales AND 3rd party
development in the last year alone. They're behind, sure, but they're
gaining. Apple sells more computers than HP, Compaq, and even Packard
Bell. Granted, there are more IBM clones sold than Apples, but until
recently, you could buy an Apple, or.... an Apple.

: Beta had some superior performance characteristics to VHS. Being
: "superior" does not guarantee survival.

No, but if marketed properly, it does ensure financial success. Apple just
missed a LOT of opporotunities...

-- 
Mike LaMorte <mlamorte@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
CEO, President, Designer
Aurora Concepts Inc.
Design & Consulting