🚀 go-pugleaf

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

I am alarmed at Apple's continuing decline, especially in light of the
quality of their systems. I still feel Mac's offer more than just about
any PC, and they ARE price competitve with models from first tier PC
Makers or the corporate-grade systems from folks like Dell. As an
example, the PowerBook 520c is on sale at all of the discont business
stores in town for the same price as comparable speed PC laptops. But!!!
The 520c offers SCSI, ethernet, and some other goodies that I have to apy
extra for for the PC laptops. On top of that, PCMCIA cards are quite
expensive! To get SCSI and ethernet would run someone about $700-1000 for
a PC laptop.

Odd, but there is nothing that I use my PC for that my Mac can't do
better. Prices are not as bad as everyone claims either, but I think the
low market share has basically killed Apple. As more an more PC's are
sold, big customers are starting to drop their Mac investments and
replace them with Pentium systems running Win 95. The latest example was
Union Carbide who is replacing 1000's of Mac's, all PC's, and UNIX boxes,
and minicomputers with Intel boxes running NT Server and Win95.

Too bad for them because, from long experience, WIn95 is not that good,
and PC hardware is terrible. I like NT alot though. (There is NO reason
why Apple cannot build PPC NT boxes though to compete in the corporate
market. All it takes is a HAL and some drivers.)

WT
wwtaylor@ix.netcom.com