"Francisco J. Huerta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The entire "evaluation" you conducted was flawed, since you
>>"evaluated" PowerBooks using PC users.
>
>Then you missed the whole point of the evaluation.. I wanted to have
>a hybrid network at my office. I wanted to give Macs to people at the
>web design department; these people have used PCs all their lives. I
>really, truly wanted to give Macs a chance; I figured, if Macs are as
>good as people say they are, everyone will want to switch.
Exactly my point... you "evaluated" Macs using people who "have used PCs
all their lives." It's a well-established fact, in any industry, that
people dislike doing things differently than they are accustomed to. So
I'm not surprised in the least that your users didn't like Macs. A valid
evaluation would be to give people who have never used a computer both
platforms.
>Seriously, the techie guy at Apple that was assigned to us accepted
>that Macs had fallen way behind in their GUI, and that just lately
>they begun catching up with Windows. Don't blame me, they were the
>ones who accepted it.
LOL... fallen way behind in their GUI? Most Mac users, and most objective
Windows users even, would dispute that assertion. Windows is WAY better
than it used to be, but even now it is finally getting UI features that
other OS's (Mac, Be) have had for years. It's comparable to the Mac for
new users. But far ahead?
>True. That's one of the reasons we didn't buy the Macs after all;
>people wanted to work, not to learn a new system.
Which makes sense.
>The other major reason was that we have been let down way too many
>times by Apple in the past. We still have 28 Macs lying around that
>Apple couldn't and wouldn't fix (Apple Mexico, that is). Just the
>facts.
You're not the first. Apple has a history of poor relations with large
accounts.
>With a few PC apps? Sorry, but I could only find Macromedia and some
>Office stuff. Our database won't run on Apple (Progress). Our ASP
>won't run on a Mac (Citrix). Nor the clients for those apps. Sun and
>Windows NT will. This is enterprise stuff, not the apps you would run
>on your home-home office.
And for you, that makes complete sense. But for the average person, the
average business, your assertion, which you made generally, that Macs are
incompatible is simply not valid. In your case, you're using very
specific software that most businesses will never use.
Chad Gombosi wrote:
>Well the wierd thing here is that you must have been buying these G3s
>when they were rather old because there has never been a G3 with a
>list price of less than $1000 US from Apple, this price would have
>had to have been from a retailer with a good mark down sale.
There have actually been three models of iMac that have/had a MSRP of
under $1,000. Most vendors sold them for less, or included free RAM or
printers.
>Basicly right now a top of the line G4 will run you about $3000 (no
>monitor). It's hard to spend that much on a PC if you tried, without
>getting RAID arrays and high-end server cases with multiple power
>supplies, quad proccessors etc.
But you're talking top of the line... who actually buys top of the line?
An iMac is $899, and a really nice G4 runs from $1699 to $3499... and
that $3499 model is a full multimedia authoring machine with capabilities
that no production PC on the planet can do.
It's actually very easy to spend $3,000 on a brand-name PC if you include
the same features. The fact is that nowadays, there is very little
hardware cost difference between Macs and similarly equipped brand-name
PCs (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, etc.), especially if you avoid the Apple
Store. As someone else mentioned, you can always go cheaper by buying
no-name PCs or custom-built machines. But that's a fringe market. People
who do that will never buy a Mac, or even a Dell or Gateway.
OK, I think we've officially gone way off-topic now ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
