🚀 go-pugleaf

docjoe@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) wrote:

>In article <40pccd$61p@bug.rahul.net>, Bill Moyer <ttk@rahul.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Actually, it IS less expensive. The problem is that you're comparing
>Apples and Oranges.

>Look at name brand computers. (See my post on comp.sys.mac.advocacy).
>ComputerWorld printed a table showing various configurations from Apple,
>Compaq, and IBM. The PowerMacs were 8-28% less expensive than the
>comparable PCs. That doesn't even factor in that the PowerMacs were
>faster, had CD-ROM (not included in the PCs AFAIK), and several had
>advanced AV features. If you consider that these companies have similar
>cost structure (actually Compaq R&D is probably lower than the other two),
>and similar profitability (I believe Apple gross margins were actually
>higher), the difference is probably related to the cost of assembling a
>system.

I have read things like this for the past few months, but have yet to
find a vendor to give me a price on a PMac that compares to a P5
system.  I guess many retailers are taking advantage of Mac shortages
and keeping prices at MSRP.  But MSRP is really usless.  The MSRP
might be cheeper than a *quality* P5 system, but it is the street
price that counts.

>The reason it LOOKS like PPC is more expensive is that you don't have a
>significant clone market, yet. IMO, that's a good thing. Clones don't save
>that much money (current PowerMac prices are comparable to clone Pentium
>prices) and create a huge number of headaches.

What are you trying to say here?

Brandon
Soleil@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu