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