Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!brianw From: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: the whole apple II line. Summary: Position of IBM or PC Message-ID: <7841@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 26 Sep 89 06:19:02 GMT References: <8909250518.AA28930@trout.nosc.mil> Reply-To: brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 59 In article <8909250518.AA28930@trout.nosc.mil> philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) writes: >Network Comment: to #5363 by microsoft!brianw@uunet.uu.net > >[...] It's only a matter of time until >IBM produces a home/educational computer with good sound capabilities. You don't know just how right you are... >At that point the GS would be in real trouble.Its graphics'/text >capabilities are poor,8 bit bus,no support,... To tell you the honest truth, I don't believe that I'll be able to hang on to my investment in Apple II technology forever. But at the moment, between my programming experience, peripheral investment and personal chioce, the IIgs looks like my next machine (why do I always think I'm hearing laughter? :-) Then again, the PC's can't forever build on their old 8 bit 8088, either! I just wish that some company would come out with a machine that I could be CERTAIN that I want TODAY. >.Statistics are difficult >to interpret. I highly doubt the marketshare numbers you have quoted. >Most of the ones I have seen paint a very different picture and show >IBM having the top spots in retail sales.So I would be very interested >in the methods used in arriving at this data. Something doesn't make >sense. > >Philip McDunnough I had doubts, too, but I'm a sucker and I trust the printed word: Look in Computer Reseller News, Feb 13, 1989 in your local library. That issue had the Oct - Nov figures compiled from 1988. While you are there, check the more recent issues for the Jan - Apr numbers (I don't remember the exact issue for those 1989 figures). As for IBM having the top sales figures - that may be 'PC compatibles', but certainly not IBM brand. I was careful to quote whether UNIT or DOLLAR market shares were being listed. In the stats I saw, IBM didn't have more than Apple in either dollars or units (that's counting the Mac, of course). BTW, IBM also suffers from the lack of competitive performance features in their current models. A couple of the PS/2's do not support MCA, and several will not run OS/2 - either because their 8086 is incapable, or the machine has problems. The Model 25 and 30 are 8 MHz 8086 machines (the 1 MHz Apple II could beat a 4.77 MHz PC, so what is 8 MHz?), the Model 50 and 60 PS/2s are 10 MHz 80286's, and only the 70 and 80 sport a 386. Only a handful of IBM's PS/2s run at 20 MHz, with Compaq and Zenith zipping along at 33 MHz these days. No wonder IBM has less than 15% of the unit shares when you count all their current products. It's very likely that your sources are reporting PC compatibles, which is valid in a way because they will run the same software for the most part. If you count all the various MS-DOS compatible x86 manufacturers, you get a massive total, which happens to be the driving force behind the company which pays my bills :-) Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP