Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qumix.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!qumix!len From: l...@qumix.UUCP (Leonard Labar) Newsgroups: fa.info-mac,net.micro.mac Subject: Is the Mac becoming obsolete? Message-ID: <340@qumix.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 20:26:57 EST Article-I.D.: qumix.340 Posted: Sun Feb 17 20:26:57 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 01:42:43 EST Distribution: net Organization: Qume Corp., San Jose, CA Lines: 14 The following views expressed are my own and do not necessarily make sense. Since I bought my skinny, colorless mac a lot of new stuff has been coming out or rumored to be coming. Now it seems, the going price for my used mac is slightly less than $1200 if I believe the classifieds. Now my question is this, does anyone have advice on whether we should sell our macs, upgrade (throw good money after bad), or wait till the competition catches up and then take more of a loss by selling then, or love it and keep it as it is. I prefer the last but I'm concerned. It seems that this GEM based stuff I hear about is slightly inferior to what the mac runs. However, I haven't seen the commodore amiga yet or the atari one. Spare me the highly detailed technical stuff but what do the pros and cons look like on the balance sheet?
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qumix.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!qumix!len From: l...@qumix.UUCP (Leonard Labar) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Response summary to "Is the Mac becoming obsolete?" Message-ID: <358@qumix.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 04:21:54 EST Article-I.D.: qumix.358 Posted: Fri Feb 22 04:21:54 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 14:34:22 EST Distribution: net Organization: Qume Corp., San Jose, CA Lines: 27 Since some of you requested feedback I am posting my interpretation of the responses to my earlier message. First of all, about 30 or so self-appointed watchdogs barked rather loudly at my posting directly to fa.info-mac. Hence the answer to that question "why two mac nets?" became obvious. Fa means "from arpanet". This net was created out of a need to express what was not getting through on fa.info-mac. That net is supposedly moderated now, predictions are that this one would be also. Secondly, it seems the current standardization on formats is binhex version 4. Tohex and fromhex are obsolete by default. There is other stuff floating around but it doesn't seem popular yet. Thirdly, the Mac is not obsolete YET. The latest article I read shows both the Atari and Commodore pc's using 68000's. The rationale for keeping a Mac currently is that they will be 6-12 months away from getting any decent software on the market (These opinions don't neccessarily reflect those of my employer or myself during saner moments). HOWEVER, assuming one should take a gamble and decide to keep one's Mac: 1. I would recommend doing the Jan. '85 Dr. Dobbs upgrade to 512k for $200. 2. Getting the internal hard disk upgrade known as turbo-mac. 3. If the price ever drops, buying a copy of "Jazz". THAT should prolong its' life for another year if you can stand to be without color. I've heard those x-rays aren't too good on the eyes anyway. When someone comes out with a 32032 based machine with decent software to run on it you can kiss all these products goodbye. If I were IBM I would be thinking of it.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Glacier.ARPA Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!reid From: r...@Glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: obsolete? so what. Obsolete computers sell. Message-ID: <4150@Glacier.ARPA> Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 23:04:56 EST Article-I.D.: Glacier.4150 Posted: Sat Feb 23 23:04:56 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 14:31:47 EST Distribution: net Organization: Stanford University, Computer Systems Lab Lines: 16 The IBM PC was obsolete the day it was announced, but that didn't prevent IBM from selling millions of them. The Mac will in some sense be obsolete in a year or two, but so what? So what that the Mac has about the same functionality as the Xerox Alto had in 1976? That doesn't change its value. The point is, the Mac does what it does very well, it does it cheaply, it generates lots of nice software (have you seen Quartet or ConcertWare?), and lots of people have them. I don't want color; if you gave me a color computer I would sell it and buy a black and white version. I should point out that I also own a 1964 Chevrolet pickup truck. While it is terribly obsolete, somebody borrows it from me almost every weekend because it outperforms their BMW at certain tasks. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford r...@SU-Glacier.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Glacier.ARPA Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!reid From: r...@Glacier.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: obsolescence: what gives Mac its value? Message-ID: <4295@Glacier.ARPA> Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 18:14:30 EST Article-I.D.: Glacier.4295 Posted: Tue Feb 26 18:14:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:45:14 EST Distribution: net Organization: Stanford University, Computer Systems Lab Lines: 64 Anybody who thinks that the presence of this or that wonderful new computer is going to seriously impact the value of a Mac does not understand where that value comes from. I know of at least 10 companies that make and sell small personal computers that are better than the Mac. Not very many of them are as cheap as the Mac, but some are. I won't bore you with details, but even though they are somehow better than the Mac--a faster processor or a multitasking operating system or a bigger screen and/or color, or a custom IC for handling graphics, better communication capabilities, or what have you--the Mac still has more value. Furthermore, the Mac will continue to have that value long after most of those companies have gone the way of all flash. There was one company right here in Silicon Valley, whose name I can't remember right now, that brought out a computer quite like the Amiga about a year ago. It had custom VLSI chips for handling color graphics, it had such advanced graphics capabilities that you could almost do color animation on it, and it had a very promising operating system. As far as I know the company is now out of business, and I have never known anybody who bought one of those computers, because although it was wonderful it was not valuable. The Mac is valuable because it is a very good engineering compromise. There are a thousand variables in the design and marketing of a computer, and the computer company must make decisions about all of them. If the computer is too good it will be too expensive and nobody will buy it and therefore nobody will write software for it. If the computer is too crummy nobody will be able to write software for it. If the operating system is too advanced nobody will understand how to use it; if the operating system is too moronic nobody will want to use it. And so forth. Apple has done a magnificent job of engineering a computer to fit right smack squarely into the middle of current low-cost high-technology demand, of writing an operating system for that computer that gets most of the compromises right, of designing a network interface for it that does the right things (more or less) and getting it out on time, of coordinating efforts by 3rd-party software houses, OEM peripheral vendors, textbook writers, retail stores, graphic designers, college professors, and so forth. I am quite confident that on February 26, 1990, five years from today, I will still be getting useful work done on my Macintosh, and that there will still be reasons why I am reluctant to switch from it to the then-favorite computer. I am equally confident that on February 26, 1995, ten years from today, that there will be quite a number of people worldwide who are still getting useful work done with their Macintoshes. I probably will have moved up by then. This is why I am not worried about this or that new computer having much impact on the value of my Mac. While the Mac is not perfect, not state-of-the-art, not as good as it could have been, it probably would not have been as successful if it had been better. The Mac has succeeded in raising the consciousnesses of a whole generation of Americans about what computers can do; until the Mac came along, most people thought that the IBM PC was a good computer. Now they know better. If the Mac had been 40% "better", or 50% "better", it might not have had the impact that it has had, and therefore it might have been a failure even though it was "better". If you read the history of computer design and computer sales and computer company failures, you will see this happening over and over and over again. The best computers are not the ones that are most technologically advanced, they are the ones that are suffiently advanced to be worth switching to, but not so advanced as to be cut off from the (changing) mainstream of technology. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford r...@SU-Glacier.ARPA