🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4063@merlin.usc.edu> gford@nunki.usc.edu (Gregory Ford) writes:
>In the June 8, 1989 edition of The Los Angeles Times, Richard O'Reilly
>in his computer column talked about, among other things, cost
>comparisons for similarly equipped (performance wise) IBM's and Macs.

>> an IBM PS/2 Model 70
>> with eight megabytes of random access memory, a math co-proccessor
>> and an 80-megabytes hard disk at about $13,000, compared to a Macintosh
>> IIx, with four megabytes of memory and an 80-megabytes hard disk for
>> about $8,000.  The Macintosh has math co-processing built in and has

  Does the article mention which version of the Model 70 was considered?
That model can be as fast as 25MHz compared to the 16MHz of the
Mac IIx.  As some else mentioned, the 68030 is a more powerful second
generation 32 bit processor, while the 80386 is a first generation 32
processor. The 68030 should be compared to the 80486 (which will
supposedly be three times faster than a '386 with the same clock).
Because Motorola is ahead of Intel in processor design this will be
true for some time.  Apple is also ahead of IBM in advanced OS design,
but Apple is not ahead of AT&T or Berkeley.

  Nothing is forcing someone to buy IBM.  Considering that they no
longer control the market, it may be best to buy from some other
company such as Compaq or at the other end of the spectrum thumb
through the Computer Shopper.  I have been following this discussion
for some time and it is evident that many think that IBM is the leader
of the IBM market, they are not.  It would be possible to get a system
for half the price quoted above for the IBM system.
--
Disclaimer: I like Macintosh's, and MS-DOS (sorta), and Unix, and...
Tony Stieber	 astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.ed	 att!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!astieber
	     I don't speak for CSD, and CSD dosen't speak.