🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DDGy01.6tn@mail.auburn.edu> parrisc@mail.auburn.edu (Scott L Parrish) writes:

>Dan Pop (Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
>
>: Saying that not having a significant clone market is a good thing is a
>: proof of sheer stupidity.  Or are you missing the times when a dog slow
>: Mac used to cost a fortune?
>
>Uhhhh no... no...those "dog slow" macs are only dog slow when compared to 
>today's machines.  For example when Apple was using a 68020 (dog slow by 
>today's standard)  So were these guys (there are more I'm sure): Hewlett 
>Packard, Silicon Graphics, Apollo, Sun, NeXT.  Try comparing the price 

Yes, but none of those ran MacOS, which is primary factor in slowing
down a Mac.

>of a 68020 mac to one of those machines.  

Why?  Excepting the NeXT, none of them was targeted at the personal
computing market.  If you don't want to compare apples and oranges,
compare the price of a Mac with the price of an Atari or Amiga.

>The mac was much cheaper.  

Not when compared to the Atari and Amiga, i.e. computers from the same
league as the Mac.

>AS a 
>comparison these guys used the 80286 (which is slower than a 68020): IBM 
>and it's clone makers uhhh I cant think of any others. You?

Nope.  They used the 80386 by the time the Mac had the 68020.  Cheaper
and faster.
>
>I agree the price of macs was one of the primary resons behind apple's 
>low market share but you were getting a better machine. 

In what sense better?  More colours?  Higher resolution?  Better keyboard?
Better mouse?  Faster cpu? Better upgradability?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland