🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1082@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes:
>In article <12101@reed.UUCP>, wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes:
>   
>   [...]
>   they've got us.  As the Mac line is constantly upgraded, we time and
>   again face the choice of paying outrageous prices for new machines and
>
>AAIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!  no no no NO!
>
>Every time Apple announces a new machine, and upgrade programs for older
>machines, somebody posts an article like this (not to mention editorials
>in magazines and so on), and I for one am getting god damned tired of it.
>
>You are NEVER faced with the choice of "upgrade or die."  Your Mac never

You obviously haven't been using the Mac for very long.  The Macintosh was
originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the software or hardware being
adequate to support that concept.  The hardware platform was lame-brained
to begin with; original buyers had to pay for the privilege of obtaining
a *usable* hardware platform (i.e., 512K)--$1000.  The Mac didn't hit its
stride until the Mac Plus ($1000).  In my opinion, both of these upgrades
WERE "upgrade or die" situations--one was instantly forced into software
obsolescence.  Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their
computer "current."  

I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us--
I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future--
in this case, I'm voting with my pocketbook, noting that Apple's releasing
very expensive, haphazardly designed equipment.  When they stabilize with
an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump
on the bandwagon.

Right now, I'm somewhat concerned about the new high-density floppy drives.
That, in itself, could turn into a "do or die" situation.  From someone
who recently bought a Mac SE/30, they're INCREDIBLY slow...   I would not
be happy being forced to upgrade to that format--even if they DO make it
easier for publishers to distribute media.


>to pay for it.  As far as Apple is concerned, you bought a machine.
>Your choice.  If, later on, you want to buy another machine, you can,
>but it will cost you.  If I go to trade in my car, I don't get what I
>paid for it.  

Since when does Apple have a mechanism to trade in computers?  THAT I could
go for...


>So buy a 68030 and a PMMU and roll your own.  It's not just the <expletive
>deleted> hardware cost that you're paying for.  There's a significant
>amount of design investment in even an incremental improvement like the IIx,
>if nothing else.

All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000% price mark-
ups.


>   [...] you won't guarantee your machines past 12 weeks?  I know the answer:
>   buy AppleCare for the machine.  So I should pay for coverage you should be
>   providing?
>
>Computers don't break very often after an initial burn-in period.  I'd rather
>pay for things that actually break rather than pay extra for my machine
>(which is how you pay for your car warranty, to use your own analogy).

As a matter of fact, a whole lot of the original Mac's broke a couple of 
years after the initial burn-in period.  Ever hear of the problems with the
power supplies? :-)   I find it intolerable that computer companies don't
provide long-term warranties.


>Why do people go crazy and demand things from vendors in this market that
>they wouldn't even dream of asking any other kind of manufacturer?  Sigh.

Why do people insist on being apologists for Apple?  The way I see it, (a) if
enough people gripe loudly enough, perhaps the bean counters will pay at-
tention the next time it comes down to pricing a new machine; and (b) if Apple
ever provides a five-year, 50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty on its 
equipment, perhaps people would settle down.



>Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation
>amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170




Cheers,


Robert Dorsett
Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu 
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat