🚀 go-pugleaf

> Take a look at secondary costs of the PC class machines. When you factor in
> the amount of training a person requires on a PC, and the differences in
> productivity, the speed a person becomes proficient and useful and all the
> other ancillary issues, the Mac becomes quite cheap. You're looking at only
> one part of the total cost of a system. When you start factoring in the cost
> of the software, the training, the maintenance, all the accessories, it's a
> different ballgame. You're $1K PC clone is cheap, but once you put the
> mouse, the extra memory, Windows, the software and all the other toys on it,
> the total system cost isn't as different as you might think.

Most departments here buy micros for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and data
bases. On a Mac this is Word, Excel, and Reflex; on a PC, this is WordPerfect,
1-2-3, and dBase III+ (not always of course, but these are the usual
purchases). Part of my job is to train faculty and staff to use their
machines, and although the Mac is generally easier to use, from my
experience it takes just about as long to train a computer-illiterate
user how to use a Mac as it does a PC. There are things that a basic
Mac can do a lot easier and cleaner than a PC (fonts and graphics), but
95% of our users don't usually need those features (or at least can get
along without them). So, guess what is usually purchased on campus?
Ultimately the Mac does a far better job for these basic applications
(in my opinion). But where it was difficult to convince people to buy
Macs before, it will be darned near impossible now. I'll end this by
saying that there's not a single PC on campus that has Windows or Gem
running. That would make the PC too expensive...

-- 
Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
BITNET: Peter@Acadia  Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU