🚀 go-pugleaf

From: garb@ix.netcom.com(Garby Leon)
Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
To:  cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby)
You wrote: 
>
>Garby Leon (garb@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: 
>: The 200Mhz Pentium Pro Spec benchmarks (8.09 SPECint95) show that on

>: 32 bit code, it's integer performance beats anything now available,
>: including the 300Mhz Dec Alpha (7.33 Specint95) and 133Mhz Power PC 
>: 604 (4.07 SPECint95).

>: Too add insult to injury, some industry analysts that have taken an
>: in-depth look at the architecture and are speculating that the
>: architecture will support clock frequencies nearly twice as high as
>: those released. It may be possible that Intel is sandbagging on 
>: PentiumPro performance in order to keep sales of Pentiums strong.
>
>...or it's possible that the analysts are just a little bit wrong.
>

Ppro will go to 300Mhz easily.  You can bet the farm on that. 

On 15 Jan 1996 11:41:49 -0500, cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:


>
>Not to mention that little company in California that is working on a 700 
>(yes, seven *hundred*) MHz version of the PPC. 

And how close are they?  From what I've read, they have a set of
"technologies" which they "hope" will enable such a fast PPC.  How
competitive, price wise, will it be?

I hope for it, if it's comparable pricing to say, a 150mhz 604e at the
time it could revolutionize the processor landscape.  But what is the
mhz-relative to- a 601, 603, or a 604?  How much faster could they
clock it after 700?  Since it's a process technology, what are the
bets Intel might not come up with something similar?  Frankly, I'm not
putting anything past them, especially after reading the tidbits about
the P7.

In article <4deme9$6db@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
|> On 15 Jan 1996 11:41:49 -0500, cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:
|> >Not to mention that little company in California that is working on a 700 
|> >(yes, seven *hundred*) MHz version of the PPC. 

|> And how close are they?  From what I've read, they have a set of
|> "technologies" which they "hope" will enable such a fast PPC.  How
|> competitive, price wise, will it be?

They will charge what they think the market will bear.  

Chris

-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@eworld.com

I'll put a few of these together. By the way the original post is mine
and was re-printed from another list. It was intended to let PC people
know what's going on in the worl of PCs not to fuil a Pentium Pro vs
Power PC debate.

> : The 200Mhz Pentium Pro Spec benchmarks (8.09 SPECint95) show that on 32
> : bit code, it's integer performance beats anything now available,
> : including the 300Mhz Dec Alpha (7.33 Specint95) and 133Mhz Power PC 604
> : (4.07 SPECint95).
> 
> Well, besides the fact that the 604 is available at 150 MHz, you're
> comparing "preliminary SPECs" versus SPECmarks in a selling computer.

> Let's talk actual systems, not estimated processor benchmarks.
> January 1996 Byte, Page 140 Graph "Raw Performance: The VIS-less Ultra I".

Preliminary Yes, in that no system is currently shipping with these parts
in them. But they were run on a real, but probably souped up system.
Still the difference in performance between PowerPC and Pentium Pro is nearly
2x and I would bet real system performance is not going to be half of the
performance of Intel's reference system.

> Come back when there are real systems to test.

Whats the point. It does not take long following discussions such
as this one to realize that most people quote benchmarks when they
support their view and argue with them when they don't.

> : It even beats the estimated performance of any Power
> : PC chip yet talked about including the new PowerPC 620 (225 Specin92).
> 
> The 620?  How about the 604e?  The current line on the 620 is that it's
> being redesigned, and the last I heard, the 604e should be out sometime
> this year in a faster (200 MHz+) model that should give performance about
> even with the real-world PPro 200 MHz machines.

Not what I've heard. I didn't mention the 604e because I did not have
the numbers in front of me to back up any statements I might make. I
don't like vague unsupported statements like the one above. At the risk
of making my own vague statements, the information I've seen from Mot and
IBM places the 604e well below the 200Mhz Pentium Pro. If you have other
information please post it. I would be interested in seeing it.

It's real clear that the Power PC guys have badly missed their mark. They
stated at the start of the consortium that to make headway into the Windows PC
market they would need to have twice the performance at half the cost. They
have done neither, and now the first silicon of the 620 has had so many problems
they pushed the release date back 6 months. By there own estimates, their fallback,
the 604e is not going to even match the Pentium Pro on performance. These guys
are in trouble.

> ...or it's possible that the analysts are just a little bit wrong.

I've seen two reports, one from Microprocessor Report is quite detailed.
It discused the subject in a level of detail I am not equiped to comment
on. The two primary supporting pieces of evedence are the architecture of
the clock distribution network. It seems the placement and type of clock
buffers result in much lower skew than on previous processors. The other
was the placement and interconnection of functional units. Although I can't
recall the details I believe that they have arranged the architecture with
an unusualy high number of redundant functional units so that highly
highly interconnected blocks can be placed very close together. The result
is that the interconnect between functional units is very fast.

> WHY are the Pentium Pro SPECint/fpXX scores so high in comparison to the
> PowerPC and other CPU's, when the BYTEMark scores are so low comparing
> the same systems?

Prior to the release of the Pentium Pro Intel only refered to 133Mhz and 150Mhz
parts. These are the ones that the Byte benchmarks are based on. When the part
was released it was released at much higher clock frequencies, 150Mhz and 200Mhz.
Give Byte some time and they will release new benchmarks. I am as interested
to see how these will turn out as anyone.

One of the reasons I generated the original post (to a PC list) is that it
seems the press have given up on the Pentium Pro. If you watch Computer Shopper,
Byte, or PC Magazine there is very little said on the subject. It's almost as
if these magazines ran their initial benchmarks with 133Mhz Pentium Pro's,
found lack luster 16 bit code performance and decided the processor was
irrelevent. The unexpected release of 200Mhz processors and the accompanying
performance increase stike me as very exceiting news for PC owners, yet have
received little notice in the press.

-- 
David Scidmore
davids@globaldialog.com

Garby Leon wrote:

> Ppro will go to 300Mhz easily.  You can bet the farm on that.

From that I heard from Intel it will go even higer than that. It
seems like the PPro is designed to scale well with increased clock
rates.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

In article <30FD210E.63B4@globaldialog.com>, David Scidmore
<davids@globaldialog.com> wrote:

***Major Snippage****
>> WHY are the Pentium Pro SPECint/fpXX scores so high in comparison to the
>> PowerPC and other CPU's, when the BYTEMark scores are so low comparing
>> the same systems?
>
>Prior to the release of the Pentium Pro Intel only refered to 133Mhz and 150Mhz
>parts. These are the ones that the Byte benchmarks are based on. When the part
>was released it was released at much higher clock frequencies, 150Mhz and
200Mhz.
>Give Byte some time and they will release new benchmarks. I am as interested
>to see how these will turn out as anyone.
 
In the latest Byte, they publish Bytemarks for the Intergraph
multiprocessor PPro-200 machine. I can't recall the exact numbers, but
they are about what one would predict based on scaling the 133 and 150 Mhz
part Bytemarks up to 200 Mhz. So it seems that the large-scale differences
between Spec95/92 and Bytemarks also apply with the faster (200 Mhz) parts
as well.



>One of the reasons I generated the original post (to a PC list) is that it
>seems the press have given up on the Pentium Pro. If you watch Computer
Shopper,
>Byte, or PC Magazine there is very little said on the subject. It's almost as
>if these magazines ran their initial benchmarks with 133Mhz Pentium Pro's,
>found lack luster 16 bit code performance and decided the processor was
>irrelevent. The unexpected release of 200Mhz processors and the accompanying
>performance increase stike me as very exceiting news for PC owners, yet have
>received little notice in the press.
>
>-- 
>David Scidmore
>davids@globaldialog.com

-- 
ted.oliver@asu.edu

Martin Nisshagen (martin@mts.se) wrote:
: Garby Leon wrote:
: 
: > Ppro will go to 300Mhz easily.  You can bet the farm on that.
: 
: From that I heard from Intel it will go even higer than that. It
: seems like the PPro is designed to scale well with increased clock
: rates.

Unfortunately, from the things I've heard lately, the big problem won't 
be scaling the clock- it'll be scaling the heat sink.

A 300 MHz PPro won't be much fun if you have to buy a quart of liquid 
nitrogen every time you want to recalc a spreadsheet.

-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

On 18 Jan 1996, Chad Irby wrote:

> Martin Nisshagen (martin@mts.se) wrote:
> : Garby Leon wrote:
> : 
> : > Ppro will go to 300Mhz easily.  You can bet the farm on that.
> : From that I heard from Intel it will go even higer than that. It
> : seems like the PPro is designed to scale well with increased clock
> : rates.
[...]
> A 300 MHz PPro won't be much fun if you have to buy a quart of liquid 
> nitrogen every time you want to recalc a spreadsheet.

Oh I don't know.  Have you ever played with a quart or two of liquid 
nitrogen?  Load a microfuge tube with about 100 ul of it and you get a 
real impressive explosion.

poneil@genetics.utah.edu

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960118230741.4974B-100000@howard>, Patrick
O'Neil <patrick@howard.genetics.utah.edu> wrote:

> On 18 Jan 1996, Chad Irby wrote:
> 
> > A 300 MHz PPro won't be much fun if you have to buy a quart of liquid 
> > nitrogen every time you want to recalc a spreadsheet.
> 
> Oh I don't know.  Have you ever played with a quart or two of liquid 
> nitrogen?  Load a microfuge tube with about 100 ul of it and you get a 
> real impressive explosion.
> 

That's a strange statement. I've worked with hundreds of liters of liquid
N2 and never had a problem. Liquid nitrogen is very inert and hardly
reacts with anything. It won't explode under any circumstances I know of
(that is if you're using "explode" in the same manner as the rest of the
world meaning an uncontrolled, violent chemical reaction).

Of course, you should never confine a liquified gas in a sealed container.
Is that what you did?

-- 
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1995. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. Fee for Microsoft is $1,000 per posting.

In article <4dlt57$2552@seminole.gate.net>, cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:

> Martin Nisshagen (martin@mts.se) wrote:
> : Garby Leon wrote:
> : 
> : > Ppro will go to 300Mhz easily.  You can bet the farm on that.
> : 
> : From that I heard from Intel it will go even higer than that. It
> : seems like the PPro is designed to scale well with increased clock
> : rates.
> 
> Unfortunately, from the things I've heard lately, the big problem won't 
> be scaling the clock- it'll be scaling the heat sink.
> 
> A 300 MHz PPro won't be much fun if you have to buy a quart of liquid 
> nitrogen every time you want to recalc a spreadsheet.
> 
> -- 

   Alternatively you could multiprocess 10,000 8086s. After all, the P6 is
a really fast 8086. BTW, how the HELL do they keep that 9000 P6
supercomputer cool?

>>Apple maintains a 10-13 percent US market share as a computer
>>manufacturer in a glutted market and consistently rankes as
>>vendor 1 through 3 (sources below). 
>>
>>The Macintosh operating system, (Mac/OS), is gaining market
>>share globally, with US figures of approximately 15% according
>>to combined statistics from Apple and the Mac compatable
>>manufacturers (Power Computing, etc.) 
>>
>>According to the US Microcomputing Statistics Committe, Apple's
>>US market share grew to 10.8% in Q2 '95 up from 10.2% in Q2 '94.
>>They shipped 20 percent more computers in Q2 '95 than in Q2 '94
>>compare that to 15 percent for Compaq, 18 percent for IBM and a 5
>>percent growth for industry overall. 

These figures are for selected quarters. How about for a whole year!

Last time I checked, the industry's overall growth rate is around 25%, 
I beleive. If Apple only gained 20%, then they are losing market share.

>>
>>Both Dataquest and International Data Corporation (IDC) put
>>Apple in first place in their quarterly surveys of computer sales in
>>the U.S. for Q3 '95. Apple topped all competitors, with over 13
>>percent of all computers sold in the U.S. being Macintosh
>>computers, in Q3. Dataquest pegged market share at 13.1 percent,
>>while IDC estimated share of 13.9 percent. Apple shipped 25
>>percent more computers in Q3 '95 and had previously shipped over
>>20 percent more units worldwide each quarter for the previous
>>three quarters, with units increasing over 50 percent in the U.S. in
>>Q2. 

Again, these numbers are for a single quarter (Q3 95), what about the
whole year. Also, why compare Apple vs. a single PC vendor. 

Try Apple vs (Compaq + IBM + GW200 + Dell + Micron + Packard Bell +  
a 1000+ other PC cloners.)


>>
>>Apple is the #1 vendor in US markets in K-12 education, higer
>>education, publishing, and multimedia authoring and playback. 

Again, Apple vs. a single PC vendor.

Apple doesn't have such a high market share in K-12 when you exclude 
the Apple IIe's and GS's. 

>>
>>Apple has a 63% share of the installed base in US K-12
>>institutions, according to QED, Apple's market share in K-12 has
>>risen over four points in the last year. 

40% or so of that 63% is made of Apple IIe's and GS's (many of those
they got free from Apple and higher education institutes.)

>>
>>58% of all K-12 purchased in the 95-96 school year will be Macs,
>>per QED. 
>>
>>IDC estimates that Apple is the #1 installed base vendor in US
>>homes in 1995. 

Again, Apple vs. one PC vendor. How about Apple vs. the PC world?
If you do that, you'll still come up with about 1-to-9 ratio.


>>
>>Apple has a 63% share of the US commercial publishing market.
>>Apple has a 26% share of the US corporate publishing market.
>>Apple has a 50% share of the US chemical, pharmaceutical,
>>biotechnology, scentific, and engineeering markets. 

Sounds high to me. I know PCes have been steeling market share from
Apple in the publishing/graphic market in the last few years. 
The total number of Macs that are in the publishing market is lower
than the total number of PCes in the same market. I believe this has
been the case since 94.

>>
>>Apple is the #1 brand among college students: Among full-time,
>>undergraduate students who own personal computers and attend
>>U.S. four-year public and private colleges, 29% own Apple-- a
>>full 11% more than the nearest competitor. (Source: Roper College
>>Track 1994) 

Again, Apple vs. a single PC vendor.

>>
>>Apple is the brand of choice in higher education institutions:
>>19.4% of PCs purchased by higher education institutions in 1994
>>were Apple computers, 11.5% were IBMs, 8.4% were Gateway
>>2000s, 4.1% were DECs, and 2.9% were Compaqs. (Source:
>>Computer Intelligence InfoCorp, 1994) 

Same as above.

>>
>>Schools looking to own the most powerful technology available
>>are indicating a strong preference for Apple technology: In the
>>coming year, PowerPC/Power Macintosh sales are projected to
>>out-pace Pentium sales 3-to-1. (Source: Quality Education Data's
>>1995-96 Technology Purchasing Forecast) 
>>
>>Macintosh is the number one Web authoring platform. 
>>
>>Apple achieved status as the number two Internet server vendor in
>>two months time. 

The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple. 
According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
Windows 3.x/95. 

>>
>>63% of all multimedia applications development is done on
>>Macintosh, per Dataquest. 
>>
>>33% of existing multimedia personal compters are Macintosh, per
>>SIMBA Information, INC. 

May be a while back. I don't beleive this is true anymore.

>>
>>Apple is the #3 vendor in the US business market. Over one-third
>>of Apple's revenues come from the business market. 

That's why Apple's Market share in the business market fell from 5%
in 93 to 3.2% in 95?

3.2% of the business market is nothing to brag about -- even if it
was third highest for a single vendor.

>>
>>Apple is the number one US computer vendor and the number two
>>vender overall in Japan with 16-20 percent of the market, per IDC
>>and Dataquest. 

What year? Watch Apple's very important market share in Japan drop
soon. 


>>
>>Macintosh software sales accounted for 18% of the Japanese
>>market in Q2 95, up from 13 in Q2 '94, per Software Publishers
>>Association. 

Windows applications grew by 47% while Mac sales declined by 13%
in the first three quarters of 1995 compared to the same period 
in 1994. (Byte 2/96, page 30).


>>
>>Apple is the most used personal computer brand overall in
>>Australia, per IDC and is the number one brand in Australian
>>business, education, and consumer markets. 

Again, Apple vs. a single PC vendor. How about Mac's vs. all PCes?


>>
>>Apple was the number one vendor in the Canadian education
>>market in 1994, with 32.5% share, per IDC. Apple was the number
>>one vendor in the Canadian consumer makret in 1994 and through
>>the first half of 1995, per AC Nielsen Markeing Research.
>>Apple's growth in Canada through the first half of 1995 was
>>double the overall Canadian market growth. 
>>

Again, see above.

>>
>>Just for the record.
>>
>>Chip



--
 ====================================================================== 
|  Issa El-Hazin  (issa@unomaha.edu)     ||  Phone: (402) 554-3483     |
|  University of Nebraska at Omaha       ||    Fax: (402) 554-2722     |
|  Education and Technology Coordinator  ||     issa@unomaha.edu       |

bayleyp (bayleyp@slip.net) wrote:
: 
:    Alternatively you could multiprocess 10,000 8086s. After all, the P6 is
: a really fast 8086. BTW, how the HELL do they keep that 9000 P6
: supercomputer cool?

Well, according to the article in Byte, the beast need 400 kilowatts of 
power and takes up 1500 square feet.  That's about a million BTUs worth 
of cooling.  Considering the efficiencies of cooling and such, they're 
going to need a megawatt of power just to turn it on.


-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, Joe Ragosta wrote:

> That's a strange statement. I've worked with hundreds of liters of liquid
> N2 and never had a problem. Liquid nitrogen is very inert and hardly
> reacts with anything. It won't explode under any circumstances I know of

Er...this is WAY off topic but just to clarify, putting some liq nitrogen 
into a microfuge tube and closing the lid is much like placing a chip of 
dry ice into such a tube and closing the lid...both will explode as 
enough of the material, whether "ice" or liquid melts into gas and the 
pressure builds...POP!

The difference is that the dry ice generally just loudly blows the lid 
off the tube after a handful of seconds while the liq nitrogen almost 
doesn't allow enough time to release the tube and when it blows, it turns 
the plastic microfuge tube into fragments.  Dry ice in a microfuge tube 
is occasionally used as a joke...seal in a chip of ice, close the lid and 
toss the tube next to your target individual.  POP!  The person is 
startled and jumps.  The liquid nitrogen is louder and not really useful 
for this silly practical joke due to the speed with which it 
blows...though the one time I did it, it not only startled me, but 
everyone else in the lab...it was respectably loud.

I wasn't talking some militia nutcase terrorism here, just a simple 
little bit of play or a joke.

poneil@genetics.utah.edu

> 
> Try Apple vs (Compaq + IBM + GW200 + Dell + Micron + Packard Bell +  
> a 1000+ other PC cloners.)
> 

Probably for the same reason you wouldnt compare:

  Ford vs (GM + Honda + Toyota + VW + ...)

when looking at a single company's performance and standings.

Frank N

Issa El-Hazin (issa@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
: 
: Last time I checked, the industry's overall growth rate is around 25%, 
: I beleive. If Apple only gained 20%, then they are losing market share.
: 
: Again, these numbers are for a single quarter (Q3 95), what about the
: whole year. Also, why compare Apple vs. a single PC vendor. 
: 
: Try Apple vs (Compaq + IBM + GW200 + Dell + Micron + Packard Bell +  
: a 1000+ other PC cloners.)

The industry as a whole *didn't* grow by 25%.  1995 was, overall, *very* 
disappointing for the personal computer industry.  Christmas was a 
disaster for just about everyone- numbers were pretty much flat from last 
year's sales.  The top vendors did gain market share, yes- but nowhere 
near as much as in past years.  I've seen numbers (not the guesstimates 
which many folks have been using) that show an overall growth rate for 
the PC industry of under 15% for 1995.  That makes Apple's 20% pretty good.

Some vendors did better than the industry as a whole, yes- but that 
mostly came at the expense of smaller companies.  The roll-your-own clone 
companies that were springing up at such a great rate a couple of years 
back are running into hard times.  Not to mention the recent troubles of 
companies like Packard Bell, AST, and CompuAdd (RIP).

: Sounds high to me. I know PCes have been steeling market share from
: Apple in the publishing/graphic market in the last few years. 
: The total number of Macs that are in the publishing market is lower
: than the total number of PCes in the same market. I believe this has
: been the case since 94.

In the real, big-time commercial graphics market (not little Bobby 
running Harvard Graphics on his dad's PC), Macs still stomp all over the 
PC market share.

: The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple. 
: According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
: Windows 3.x/95. 

Which experts?  Considering that there *is* no Web server for W95 yet, 
you're going to have to come up with a source for this.

: Windows applications grew by 47% while Mac sales declined by 13%
: in the first three quarters of 1995 compared to the same period 
: in 1994. (Byte 2/96, page 30).

No- Windows *retail* sales grew versus the Mac.  A huge proportion of Mac 
sales come from mail order now.

And here's the major theme of your argument:

: Again, Apple vs. a single PC vendor. How about Mac's vs. all PCes?

How about it?  Apple isn't really competing against every PC manufacturer 
in the world.  It's just competing for enough market share to make money 
and pay for R&D.  Now, if the PC makers had some sort of pact where they 
would bail each other out when they got into financial straits, you might 
have a point, but when PC vendors like Packard Bell, AST, and the others 
are struggling just to stay afloat, you're better off *not* comparing 
them to Apple.

Now- here's something interesting...

: |  Issa El-Hazin  (issa@unomaha.edu)     ||  Phone: (402) 554-3483     |
: |  University of Nebraska at Omaha       ||    Fax: (402) 554-2722     |
: |  Education and Technology Coordinator  ||     issa@unomaha.edu       |

Let me guess.  you're a long-time PC user and fanatic, and you've been 
reduced to dealing with us lowly Macintosh users.  Now you're upset, so 
you have to go out on the Internet and complain about Apple in the hopes 
that a big part of your job will be eliminated.

Or are you one of those empire-builders who wants more PCs in your 
department so you can hire a lot more support staff than you can 
currently justify?

-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

>>
> Try Apple vs (Compaq + IBM + GW200 + Dell + Micron + Packard Bell +
> a 1000+ other PC cloners.)
>

Probably for the same reason you wouldnt compare:

  Ford vs (GM + Honda + Toyota + VW + ...)

when looking at a single company's performance and standings.<<

Cars and computers don't make for much of an analogy, at least not 
when you're talking about the Mac vs. PCs.  The problem is that Macs 
run the MacOS which does not run apps written for that other OS 
which owns about 80% of the market.  

Ford, GM, Honda, et al all run on the same gas so that is not an 
accurate comparison.  Imagine Ford's cars required a special 
gasoline that no other cars could use, then you'd have a better 
analogy.
-- 
Ernest Kim
e.kim@dotsonline.com
Microcomputer Specialist for DOTS, Inc.
http://www.dotsonline.com

In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
El-Hazin) wrote:

>These figures are for selected quarters. How about for a whole year!
>
>Last time I checked, the industry's overall growth rate is around 25%, 
>I beleive. If Apple only gained 20%, then they are losing market share.

 You believe wrong. The latest available numbers are for Q3/95:

--------------------------

Source: International Data Corporation, Personal
Systems Group, Q4 1995.
 
Table 3 - Top 10 Worldwide Desktop PC Vendors,
Q3 1995 (Thousands of Units)
 
             Q3/95  %      Q3/94   %        Yr/Yr
Rank Vendor  Ship.  Share  Ship.   Share    Growth
 
1    Apple   1,123  9.5%   857     9.2%     31%
2    Compaq  1,050  8.9%   902     9.7%     16%
3    IBM       916  7.7%   839     9.0%      9%
4    Pack.
     Bell      802  6.8%   621     6.6%     29%
5    HP        501  4.2%   189     2.0%    165%
6    Dell      427  3.6%   286     3.1%     50%
7    NEC       402  3.4%   233     2.5%     72%
8    Acer      400  3.4%   296     3.2%     35%
9    Gateway   311  2.6%   228     2.4%     36%
10   Fujitsu
     /ICL      283  2.4%   110     1.2%    157%
 
     Total
     Market 11,831 100.0% 9,342  100.0%     27%
 
Shipments are branded shipments and exclude OEM sales
for all vendors.  Data for all vendors are reported
for calendar periods.

--------------------------

As you can see, the market as a whole gained 27% but Apple gained *31%*.
That, of course, means they are *gaining* market share.

>The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple. 
>According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
>Windows 3.x/95. 

"Experts?" I'm not sure who your "experts" are, but according to the
Sept/95 WebCrawler survey of approx. 45,000 web servers, Macs were indeed
the #2 most popular server platform.

-- 
Don Andrachuk
DEA Systems

Issa El-Hazin wrote:
> >>
> >>Apple has a 63% share of the US commercial publishing market.
> >>Apple has a 26% share of the US corporate publishing market.
> >>Apple has a 50% share of the US chemical, pharmaceutical,
> >>biotechnology, scentific, and engineeering markets.
> 
> Sounds high to me. I know PCes have been steeling market share from
> Apple in the publishing/graphic market in the last few years.
> The total number of Macs that are in the publishing market is lower
> than the total number of PCes in the same market. I believe this has
> been the case since 94.

> >>Macintosh is the number one Web authoring platform.
> >>
> >>Apple achieved status as the number two Internet server vendor in
> >>two months time.
> 
> The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple.
> According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and
> Windows 3.x/95.

you really need to get out more.  anyone who thinks pcs have even a 
foothold in publishing has never attended a Seybold conference.  anyone 
who thinks the mac is behind nt and windoze in web serving has never 
heard of quarterdeck.  try again after you do some research okay? :)

Ernest Kim <e.kim@dotsonline.com> wrote:
: >>
: > Try Apple vs (Compaq + IBM + GW200 + Dell + Micron + Packard Bell +
: > a 1000+ other PC cloners.)
: >

: Probably for the same reason you wouldnt compare:

:   Ford vs (GM + Honda + Toyota + VW + ...)

: when looking at a single company's performance and standings.<<

: Cars and computers don't make for much of an analogy, at least not 
: when you're talking about the Mac vs. PCs.  The problem is that Macs 
: run the MacOS which does not run apps written for that other OS 
: which owns about 80% of the market.  

: Ford, GM, Honda, et al all run on the same gas so that is not an 
: accurate comparison.  Imagine Ford's cars required a special 
: gasoline that no other cars could use, then you'd have a better 
: analogy.

Actually, your analogy isn't any better.  You run _applications_ on your 
computer.  You use your car for transportation.  Those are the primary 
purposes of each.  The OS of a computer would be like the engine of the 
car - even though the car's engine is hardware and the OS software, 
they're still comparable.

Anyway - the purpose of your car is to take you somewhere.  Some cars can 
go 4-wheeling, while others can't.  Some computers can run application X, 
while others can't.  If you want an analogy between cars and computers, 
this is a better place have it (though it will slop down a bit into the 
hardware - i.e. some cars can carry more people, some computers can run 
more programs at one time due to RAM, etc - something more configurable 
in a computer than in a car...)

Then again, some people compare the engines in their cars, or the 
suspension - so I guess thats why people compare the OS or processors in 
their computers :)  

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Rugen                                __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
jrugen@primenet.com                      /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
Motorola GSTG                           /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <4e5nsb$1n56@seminole.gate.net> cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) writes:

   : Again, Apple vs. a single PC vendor. How about Mac's vs. all PCes?

   How about it?  Apple isn't really competing against every PC manufacturer 
   in the world.  It's just competing for enough market share to make money 
   and pay for R&D.  Now, if the PC makers had some sort of pact where they 
   would bail each other out when they got into financial straits, you might 
   have a point, but when PC vendors like Packard Bell, AST, and the others 
   are struggling just to stay afloat, you're better off *not* comparing 
   them to Apple.

There are essentially two markets for <$5000 desktop machines at
present: the PC architecture and the Mac architecture.  This
segmentation occurs because the two classes of machines are not
hardware and software interoperable with each other.  There is some
inter-segment competition because the machines can both do many of the
same things, but most people want either a Mac or a PC.

The PC market is very fragmented in terms of vendors: there are a lot
of them competing against each other.  The Macintosh market is very
different: Apple owns the lion's share (until very recently, they
owned the entire market).

Few people buy PC's by brand name.  The various brands are similar
enough to one another (they all run the same software and essentially
all can share peripherals).  The choice between PC and Mac is
fundamental; the choice between Gateway and Dell isn't.  With Macs,
until recently your only choice was to buy from Apple.  Due to its
proprietary control over the OS, you essentially couldn't buy a
machine that ran Macintosh software without buying it from Apple.
Apple had a monopoly over the Mac market (certainly a horizontal
monopoly over the hardware).

Comparing Apple with Packard Bell or AST or Compaq or any other
individual PC vendor is silly -- they are in very different positions
within their respective market segments.  Apple isn't competing
against Compaq per se.  They're competing against the entire PC market
as a whole.
-- 
Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net>           http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Member of the League for Programming Freedom  -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
Tall Clubs International  --  tci-request@aptinc.com or 1-800-521-2512

In article <4e8ror$ji1@sundog.tiac.net>, rlk@sunspot.tiac.net (Robert
Krawitz) wrote:

> There are essentially two markets for <$5000 desktop machines at
> present: the PC architecture and the Mac architecture.  This
> segmentation occurs because the two classes of machines are not
> hardware and software interoperable with each other.  There is some
> inter-segment competition because the machines can both do many of the
> same things, but most people want either a Mac or a PC.
> 

There are essentially two markets for <$30,000 vehicles at present: the
car and the truck. This segmentation occurs becuase the two classes of
vehicles are not interchangeable. There is some inter-segment competition
because the machines can both do many of the same things, but most people
want either a car or a truck.

> Few people buy PC's by brand name.  The various brands are similar
> enough to one another (they all run the same software and essentially
> all can share peripherals).  The choice between PC and Mac is
> fundamental; the choice between Gateway and Dell isn't.  With Macs,

Few people buy cars by brand name.  The various brands are similar enough
to one another (they all run the same fuel and essentially all can share
parts).  The choice between a car and a truck is fundamental; the choice
between a Ford and a GMC truck isn't.

> Comparing Apple with Packard Bell or AST or Compaq or any other
> individual PC vendor is silly -- they are in very different positions
> within their respective market segments.  Apple isn't competing
> against Compaq per se.  They're competing against the entire PC market
> as a whole.

Comparing GMC with Ford or Dodge or Toyota or any other individual vehicle
manufacturer is silly -- they are in very different positions within their
respective market segments. GMC isn't competing with Ford per se. They're
competing against the entire car market as a whole.

uh huh. sure. I guess that makes GMC small potatoes. They'll probably get
bought out by Sun Microsystems. I guess since electric razor maufacturers
compete with disposable razor manufacturers, Norelco will go out of
business any day now.

You obviously are speaking from an advocacy point-of-view and *not* a
market theory point of view...


Mark

cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) writes:

>Issa El-Hazin (issa@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>
>Now- here's something interesting...

>: |  Issa El-Hazin  (issa@unomaha.edu)     ||  Phone: (402) 554-3483     |
>: |  University of Nebraska at Omaha       ||    Fax: (402) 554-2722     |
>: |  Education and Technology Coordinator  ||     issa@unomaha.edu       |

>Let me guess.  you're a long-time PC user and fanatic, and you've been 
>reduced to dealing with us lowly Macintosh users.  Now you're upset, so 
>you have to go out on the Internet and complain about Apple in the hopes 
>that a big part of your job will be eliminated.

>Or are you one of those empire-builders who wants more PCs in your 
>department so you can hire a lot more support staff than you can 
>currently justify?

Don't make this into a personal childish thing, but FYI, you're wrong 
on both counts. I've been a Mac (and a PC) user for a long time. To 
elaborate on this, I have a PM 7500/100 as well as another older Mac. 
I also manage two big Macintosh networks, 3 HiTech/MM classrooms based 
on Macs (each room has a VCR, Laser Disc Player, a large screen Barco 
projector, HiVi stereo and speakers, video and still digital cameras, 
and a color scanner), a good sized Macintosh Lab (with 30 PowerMacs +
5 68k Macs) with lots of toys, and a Mac Authoring Lab. (I setup most 
of the this myself.) Also, a little over a year ago, I used to consult, 
train, support, and teach various things that related to the Mac.

My Mac users (~ 2/5 of my total users, which are mostly Ph.D.'s) think 
that I'm giving them the best thing since the wheel invention (that's 
one reason, I guess, I was awarded employee of the month a couple of 
months back.)

In short, what I'm trying to get to (before you come back with something 
like: I must be incompetent with Macs) that I do know my way around the 
Mac's OS and its' SW/HW. With all that said, I will still tell you that 
a well configured Mac sucks compared to a well configured PC. It's my 
personal and technical opinion that I live by. I can do [almost] 
everything better,faster, and cheeper with my PC [loaded P5-100] than 
I can with the best Mac. I lived through this many times to believe 
otherwise.
 
I wouldn't mind keeping what I said about the Mac to my self as long as 
Mac users will do the same. By the way, it's no secret, I [think] I do 
dislike Mac's (mostly due to its' brain washed/dead users--but that is 
another story.) With all honesty, I think Apple should be patted on the 
back for what they have done so far, but I think it's time for Apple to 
re-consider its' future market; at least so that it will give its' loyal 
users a chance at life. Other than competition, I don't think there is 
need for Apple anymore--Apple can specialize in something not as broad 
as they are doing now (with MS/Intel, 10% of the market, and GUI OSes 
out there from everybody, Apple has little chance.) IMHO, Apple has to 
reinvent itself, and it has to keep on doing that every so many years 
to stay alive. An "okey" GUI is not enough anymore.

What I dislike more is when we get some Mac consultant to teach our Mac 
users about the latest and greatest the Mac has to offer and they start 
with knocking the "DOS" world for half an hour (just the same way they
see it in Mac rags.) What sucks more is finding that this is the mentality 
of most Mac users. After talking with the so called consultants, I usually 
find them to be not just ignorant in the PC world, but also in the Mac 
world (they know how to use a program or two, but that's about it. No 
hardware, software, or other basic computer knowledge.) Can you say, "the
blind leading the blind."

Another main concern for me, is economics. We are running on ~1/2 a budget 
by supporting Macs and PCes (2 copies of the same programs, 2 networks, 2 
kind of support and training, 2 authoring labs, etc.) It would be much more 
cost effective by standardizing on one platform. PCes being the standard
and allowing us to do whatever we need, get my pick. I believe, at least,
90% of all Mac users will be better off by going with a PC. Not that I love 
MS or Intel, but that's life. Apple could've been the one, but it didn't. 
If IBM (or somebody else) didn't save their a** a couple of years ago, they 
would've been in much more trouble today. Now, Apple is starting to go 
through the same thing as it did a couple of years ago. Who's going to save 
their a** this time? Why live with this; end your pain. Oh, I forgot. You 
thingies think you're the choosen ones and the PC side is the dark side/force. 
You must fight it at any cost. Grow up a little and stop annoying us. You 
want to use Macs, then go to a Mac group and let us live in peace here. 
When I need to read about Apple and its' Mac (which I do), I know where to 
find the appropriate groups. One last thing, do you want the same thing
that happened in the home electronic market to happen in the computer
industry? If so, then support Apple and watch your hard earned cash
go to Japan--If you catch my drift.

Regards,

Issa


(P.S., My boss agrees with me that we should start replacing our dying
Mac's with PCes. Right now, it's a matter of coming up with a plan 
on how to do this. So, any tips from out there are most welcomed.)


>-- 
>Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
>cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
--
 ====================================================================== 
|  Issa El-Hazin  (issa@unomaha.edu)     ||  Phone: (402) 554-3483     |
|  University of Nebraska at Omaha       ||    Fax: (402) 554-2722     |
|  Education and Technology Coordinator  ||     issa@unomaha.edu       |

dea@astral.magic.ca (Don Andrachuk) writes:

>In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
>El-Hazin) wrote:

>>These figures are for selected quarters. How about for a whole year!
>>
>>Last time I checked, the industry's overall growth rate is around 25%, 
>>I beleive. If Apple only gained 20%, then they are losing market share.

> You believe wrong. The latest available numbers are for Q3/95:


I don't think so. Nobody is discussing a single quarter here (Q3 95). 
The 20% is for the whole 95-96 business year. Check Apple's home page 
for confirmations.

I see you have the same mentality as a gambling addict. By that I mean, 
if a gambling addict lost $100,000 in one year but one $5,000 during the 
same year, he/she will see that they are ahead $5,000.

Anyway, the original poster is the one that reported the 20% (which
is correct according to Apple.) I was pointing out this figure is 
not that great when compared to the whole computer industry.

Yeah, Q3 was very good for Apple, but I think it's time to move on
to the latest data.


>--------------------------

>Source: International Data Corporation, Personal
>Systems Group, Q4 1995.
> 
>Table 3 - Top 10 Worldwide Desktop PC Vendors,
>Q3 1995 (Thousands of Units)
> 
>             Q3/95  %      Q3/94   %        Yr/Yr
>Rank Vendor  Ship.  Share  Ship.   Share    Growth
> 
>1    Apple   1,123  9.5%   857     9.2%     31%
>2    Compaq  1,050  8.9%   902     9.7%     16%
>3    IBM       916  7.7%   839     9.0%      9%
>4    Pack.
>     Bell      802  6.8%   621     6.6%     29%
>5    HP        501  4.2%   189     2.0%    165%
>6    Dell      427  3.6%   286     3.1%     50%
>7    NEC       402  3.4%   233     2.5%     72%
>8    Acer      400  3.4%   296     3.2%     35%
>9    Gateway   311  2.6%   228     2.4%     36%
>10   Fujitsu
>     /ICL      283  2.4%   110     1.2%    157%
> 
>     Total
>     Market 11,831 100.0% 9,342  100.0%     27%
> 
>Shipments are branded shipments and exclude OEM sales
>for all vendors.  Data for all vendors are reported
>for calendar periods.

>--------------------------

>As you can see, the market as a whole gained 27% but Apple gained *31%*.
>That, of course, means they are *gaining* market share.

>>The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple. 
>>According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
>>Windows 3.x/95. 

>"Experts?" I'm not sure who your "experts" are, but according to the
>Sept/95 WebCrawler survey of approx. 45,000 web servers, Macs were indeed
>the #2 most popular server platform.


I read what I wrote above in two different computer magazines during
the last month or so. As a matter of fact, these two magazines worte 
that even though Apple claims that the Mac is the number 2 most popular
WWW server, the studies showes that the Mac is fourth. (Or something
along these lines.)

Don't ask me where I read the above (it was in reliable magazines as
far as I recall.) On average, I read about 30 computer magazines a
month, so that's why I'm not going to try tracing these articles.

May be somebody else can give pointers. 


>-- 
>Don Andrachuk
>DEA Systems


--
 ====================================================================== 
|  Issa El-Hazin  (issa@unomaha.edu)     ||  Phone: (402) 554-3483     |
|  University of Nebraska at Omaha       ||    Fax: (402) 554-2722     |
|  Education and Technology Coordinator  ||     issa@unomaha.edu       |

In article <4ebd3k$gln@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>,
Issa El-Hazin <issa@cwis.unomaha.edu> wrote:

> [snip]

Here's a simple question for you, since you mentioned that
your P5-100 outdoes the best Mac that you've seen in your lab.

What are the Macintosh and PC models in your lab ?  When did
your lab make its last Macintosh purchase ? When did your lab
make its last PC purchase ?

-arun gupta

In article <dea-2401962132090001@sigil10.magic.ca>,
Don Andrachuk <dea@astral.magic.ca> wrote:
>
>>The Mac is Number two in the Web server market according to Apple. 
>>According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
>>Windows 3.x/95. 
>
>"Experts?" I'm not sure who your "experts" are, but according to the
>Sept/95 WebCrawler survey of approx. 45,000 web servers, Macs were indeed
>the #2 most popular server platform.

On the Web, September '95 was a long time ago.

At the time of the WebCrawler surve, UNIX based servers dominated.  MacOS 
based servers were a distant second.  Most of the UNIX servers were using 
free server software.  Most of the Mac servers were using 
WebStar/MacHTTP.  

Apple and Starnine have claimed that WebStar/MacHTTP 
were the most popular commercial servers based on this data, since they 
did make up a larger market share than the netscape servers (the other 
leading commercial server software).  This assumes that most of the mac 
HTTP sites had paid their shareware fees, which seems unlikely to me.

More recent numbers (www.netcraft.co.uk) have shown that netscape has been 
making inroads, along with Apache (a free UNIX web server based on the 
NCSA servers).  At the same time, NT based servers have increaced their 
overall representation.

At the same time, the Mac based servers have lost ground.

The upshot is, no matter what the MacOS current position is among web, it 
trails UNIX and is loosing ground over all while NT based servers gain share.

If someone has numbers that suggest otherwise, I would be interested in a 
reference.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Erik A. Speckman         Seattle, Washington       Good Brain Doesn't Suck
especkma@reed.edu                                     especkma@halcyon.com
     "The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's"

In article <3106AD33.6E0D@dotsonline.com>, e.kim@dotsonline.com wrote:

> Ford, GM, Honda, et al all run on the same gas so that is not an 
> accurate comparison.  Imagine Ford's cars required a special 
> gasoline that no other cars could use, then you'd have a better 
> analogy.

thats not a valid analogy either. For that to work, the Mac would have to
require a different type of electricity (DC, or 220V, or something).

A better analogy might be that Ford's cars have more ergonomic and easier
to use dash boards...

Mark

In article <4ebd3k$gln@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>
issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:

((Snip))

> When I need to read about Apple and its' Mac (which I do), I know where to 
> find the appropriate groups. One last thing, do you want the same thing
> that happened in the home electronic market to happen in the computer
> industry? If so, then support Apple and watch your hard earned cash
> go to Japan--If you catch my drift.


   Without debating the merits of your argument (i.e., that the Mac
   is an inefficient & obsolete platform), I would point out that the
   strongest virtue of the Mac has always been its ease of use.  For
the
   great mass of computer-illiterate users, the Mac has provided an
   intuitive and transparent GUI, and a set of hardware options that
are
   very easy to configure.  In regard to abstract, hierarchical
   directory structures, DOS and MacOS aren't all that different... 
   except that the average person can learn MacOS on the fly, whereas 
   learning DOS can be like learning Latin (at least for the
uninitiated).

   Perhaps Windows 95 will eventually level the playing field...  But
   as someone who has spent hours on the phone with apologetic
technical
   support people, I can tell you that Windows 95 is in no sense a
   transparent operating system.  Rumors of software and device-driver
   compatability have been greatly exaggerated.

                                            mdg

In article <4ebd3k$gln@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
El-Hazin) wrote:

> In short, what I'm trying to get to (before you come back with something 
> like: I must be incompetent with Macs) that I do know my way around the 
> Mac's OS and its' SW/HW.

You would have had *some* credibility if you hadn't spouted so *many* fact
errors in your last post...

(-: Now your opinions carry about the same weight as Microsoft got as Mac
software developers. :-)

Welcome to my kill file. Godbye.

-- 
Bernt 'Bug' Budde, ITS  Bernt.Budde@its.uu.se

In article <4egq0v$onu@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
El-Hazin) wrote:

> I read what I wrote above in two different computer magazines during
> the last month or so. As a matter of fact, these two magazines worte 
> that even though Apple claims that the Mac is the number 2 most popular
> WWW server, the studies showes that the Mac is fourth. (Or something
> along these lines.)
> 
> Don't ask me where I read the above (it was in reliable magazines as
> far as I recall.) On average, I read about 30 computer magazines a
> month, so that's why I'm not going to try tracing these articles.
> 

Accroding to the 4th GVU WWW survey, the Mac's server programs (MHTTP and
it's spin off Webstar comand 11.38% of the WWW server market. This places
those programs combined at 4th place in the market. However, the server
programs that place higher all run on unix machines. This is where apple
gets there figures on being the #2 WWW server platform.

The results of the survey are at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/

In article <marke-2601961039200001@204.236.25.80>,
Mark Eaton <marke@nwlink.com> wrote:
)In article <4e8ror$ji1@sundog.tiac.net>, rlk@sunspot.tiac.net (Robert
)Krawitz) wrote:
)
)> Few people buy PC's by brand name.  The various brands are similar
)> enough to one another (they all run the same software and essentially
)> all can share peripherals).  The choice between PC and Mac is
)> fundamental; the choice between Gateway and Dell isn't.  With Macs,
)
)Few people buy cars by brand name.  The various brands are similar enough
)to one another (they all run the same fuel and essentially all can share
)parts).  The choice between a car and a truck is fundamental; the choice
)between a Ford and a GMC truck isn't.

Here your analogy breaks down.  There are lots of brands of cars *and* lots
of brands of trucks.  There are lots of brands of PC clones and very few
brands of Macs.  Once there are lots of Mac clones, the analogy will be
stronger, although still not very strong; there's no car or truck maker
that has anywhere near the brand loyalty the Mac does, and the car and
truck markets aren't growing like the PC markets are.
 -Tom

In article <4ehp9i$5em@remus.reed.edu>, especkma@reed.edu (Erik A.
Speckman) wrote:

> The upshot is, no matter what the MacOS current position is among web, it 
> trails UNIX and is loosing ground over all while NT based servers gain share.
> 
> If someone has numbers that suggest otherwise, I would be interested in a 
> reference.

Since you're the one who is making this claim, maybe you'd like to present
figures? The original poster gave some sources and you didn't like them.
Why should anyone believe your opinion over published sources?

WinNT?? They're going nowhere. OS/2 sold more copies in December than
WinNT sold all year.

-- 
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.

Don Andrachuk (dea@astral.magic.ca) wrote:
> In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
> El-Hazin) wrote:

> >According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
> >Windows 3.x/95.                       ^^^ 

Isn't this last place??

In article <4f3sg2$eug@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, harperc@jove.acs.unt.edu
(Harper Raymond Carr) wrote:

>Don Andrachuk (dea@astral.magic.ca) wrote:
>> In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
>> El-Hazin) wrote:
>
>> >According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
>> >Windows 3.x/95.                       ^^^ 
>
>Isn't this last place??

4th in what ranking? Not installed base or sales.
-- 
Philip Machanick
Computer Science Department, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa
philip@cs.wits.ac.za  27(11)716-3309 fax 339-7965

In article <marke-2601961039200001@204.236.25.80>,
Mark Eaton <marke@nwlink.com> wrote:
>In article <4e8ror$ji1@sundog.tiac.net>, rlk@sunspot.tiac.net (Robert
>Krawitz) wrote:
>
>> There are essentially two markets for <$5000 desktop machines at
>> present: the PC architecture and the Mac architecture.  This
>> segmentation occurs because the two classes of machines are not
>> hardware and software interoperable with each other.  There is some
>> inter-segment competition because the machines can both do many of the
>> same things, but most people want either a Mac or a PC.
>> 
>
>There are essentially two markets for <$30,000 vehicles at present: the
>car and the truck. This segmentation occurs becuase the two classes of
>vehicles are not interchangeable. 

...and here is where your analogy breaks down.

You cannot compare the Mac vs. the PC by using a car/truck analogy,
because there are multiple manufacturers for both the car as a
category and the truck as a category, whereas there is only one
manufacturer of the Mac as a category: Apple.  This will soon change,
but it'll take some time before we start to see some significant
effects from it.

There are further differences that make your analogy flawed.  The
primary one is that in terms of functionality, the Mac and the PC are
approximately the same (they are both capable of doing the same thing,
what differs is *how* they do it).  Trucks have significantly
different capabilities than cars do, and this tends to segment that
market a bit more.  They also have different performance
characteristics, whereas Macs and PCs have roughly the same
performance characteristics (even if the PCs lag a little).


-- 
Kevin Brown                                     kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
            This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
                        Any questions?

In article <kevinbDMCMJG.B3K@netcom.com>, kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin
Brown) wrote:

> whereas there is only one
> manufacturer of the Mac as a category: Apple.  This will soon change,
> but it'll take some time before we start to see some significant
> effects from it.

... and the Power Computing machine on his desk suddenly disappeared! doh!

Philip Machanick wrote:
> 
> In article <4f3sg2$eug@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, harperc@jove.acs.unt.edu
> (Harper Raymond Carr) wrote:
> 
> >Don Andrachuk (dea@astral.magic.ca) wrote:
> >> In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
> >> El-Hazin) wrote:
> >
> >> >According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and
> >> >Windows 3.x/95.                       ^^^
> >
> >Isn't this last place??
> 
> 4th in what ranking? Not installed base or sales.
> --
> Philip Machanick
> Computer Science Department, University of the Witwatersrand
> 2050 Wits, South Africa
> philip@cs.wits.ac.za  27(11)716-3309 fax 339-7965

I'd be curious about what "Experts" we're referring to here.  Recent
user-based tests by PC World came up with a very different ordering:

1)  Mac 7.5
2)  Windows 95
3)  OS/2 Warp
4)  Windows NT

Basis of test was a group of experienced small computer users with a
background on one particular machine.  The users were then required
to setup and install a machine using each OS, with the exception of
whichever they regularly used.  After machine was up, they had s/w
to install, and a set of tasks to complete.  Wanted to avoid the 
"This is great and easy because I use it all the time." phenomenon.
The gap between the Mac & Windows 95 wasn't great, but was there.
The only reason NT came in last was the clunky 3.1 type interface;
no one seems to have liked it.  Of the tested OS's, the _ONLY_ one
that none of the users managed to crash running mainline applications
was NT.

Good thing they didn't give them Linux, too.  Installation might 
have been ok on the PC's, not yet quite here on the Mac.  Setting up
& getting tasks completed for non-unix types would have probably been
humorous. 8^)



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rick Forrister               | Hobby: Collecting, Preserving &  |
| <rickf@glacier.jpl.nasa.gov  | Distributing Linux printcaps.    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Machanick (philip@cs.uct.ac.za) wrote:
: (Harper Raymond Carr) wrote:
: >Don Andrachuk (dea@astral.magic.ca) wrote:
: >> In article <4drq9g$4l7@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa
: >> El-Hazin) wrote:
: >> >According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
: >> >Windows 3.x/95.                       ^^^ 
: >Isn't this last place??
: 
: 4th in what ranking? Not installed base or sales.

When will people ever learn to read a thread before posting? This particular
thread was about WEB servers......

Bernie

In article <4fgkd8$mhj@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Bernd Meyer <bmeyer@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Philip Machanick (philip@cs.uct.ac.za) wrote:

>someone once wrote:

>: >> >According to the exprts, Apple rankes 4th - behind Unix, NT, and 
>: >> >Windows 3.x/95.                       ^^^ 
>: >Isn't this last place??
>: 
>: 4th in what ranking? Not installed base or sales.
>
>When will people ever learn to read a thread before posting? This particular
>thread was about WEB servers......

If it's about Web servers, then the order is Unix, Mac, then windows 
and windows nt.

Unix systems accounted for about 69% of the servers, macs about 17%,
and windows/windows nt combined for about 14% - windows nt was at 4%. 
There are trace amounts of other systems...

--
Joe Sloan		Happily running Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris & Irix
jjs@amanslife.com