home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 1990-06-24 | 13.1 KB | 239 lines | [TEXT/GEOL] |
- Confidential / Need to know
- From: David Garr, Competitive Analysis
-
-
- NEW MACINTOSH SYSTEMS WIN IN BENCHMARKS
-
- A study by Ingram Laboratories indicates that the Macintosh delivers better
- price-performance than PCs running Windows 3.0. This link contains the latest
- benchmarks from Ingram, including the new Macintosh products introduced on
- October 15.
-
-
- ===============================================================================
- BEFORE YOU READ THIS
-
- The information in this link gives you a powerful promotional tool for use in
- positioning Macintosh against the competition. You can now respond directly to
- people who feel that Macintosh is underpowered, or who say that it does not
- compare favorably to PC clones in price/performance. However, like any
- powerful tool, this one can be misused. So please note the following:
-
- • DO NOT make price/performance the centerpiece of your argument for
- Macintosh. Measuring price/performance is a tricky and deceptive process, very
- open to manipulation by unscrupulous companies. Do not get sucked into the
- price-performance game played by the rest of the PC industry. Instead, take
- the high road and emphasize the unique features and capabilities of Macintosh.
- Use this price-performance information as a response to doubters -- not as your
- first point of attack.
-
- • DO NOT say that Macintosh systems are faster than IBM, Compaq, and PC
- clones. This is not supported by Ingram's results, since Ingram only
- benchmarked applications in graphical environments (Macintosh and Windows 3.0).
- PCs running character-based applications such as Lotus 1-2-3 are often faster
- than the Macintosh. You CAN say that Ingram found that Macintosh systems are
- generally faster than comparably configured IBM, Compaq, and PC clone systems
- running Windows 3.0.
-
- • BE AWARE that results can vary from benchmark to benchmark. We made these
- tests as fair as possible, but someone who tried to bias the process could
- probably design a benchmark in which Macintosh would lose. This is another
- reason not to get sucked into the benchmarking game.
-
- • REMEMBER that the key advantage of Macintosh is not its ability to do the
- same old PC tasks faster than other computers. The key advantage of Macintosh
- is that it does a lot of things no other personal computer can. This cannot be
- fully reflected in any numerical benchmark; it only shows up in the
- satisfaction and productivity of our customers. This is the thing you should
- emphasize the most: The results people get from Macintosh, not some numbers on
- a chart (no matter how nice they look).
- ===============================================================================
-
- _________________________________
- APPLE IS PRICE-PERFORMANCE LEADER
-
- A study by an independent third party indicates that Apple’s new products
- deliver better price-performance than even PC clones running Windows 3.0. In
- the study, the price-performance of Macintosh beat equivalent machines from IBM
- and Compaq running Windows 3.0, and the new Macintosh computers even exceeded
- the price-performance levels of PC clones.
-
- Performance benchmarks. The study was conducted by Ingram Laboratories, an
- independent PC-testing company. The entire Macintosh desktop product line was
- tested against PCs from IBM and Compaq running Windows 3.0. Seven programs
- were timed doing a variety of everyday tasks (see Appendix A for details). In
- the overall results, Macintosh computers were faster than equivalent computers
- from IBM and Compaq.
-
- Price-performance rating. A price-performance ratio was derived from Ingram's
- numbers. Because of Apple’s superior performance and lower prices, Macintosh
- computers ranked far ahead of their competitors in the IBM and Compaq lines.
- What’s more, when price-performance of PC clones was calculated, the new
- Macintosh products still came out ahead.
-
- New Macintosh computers rated highest. The new Macintosh Classic was the
- overall leader. It was followed, in order, by the other new Apple computers,
- the Macintosh LC and the Macintosh IIsi. The Macintosh LC and the Macintosh
- Classic both outperformed IBM and Compaq machines costing more than double
- their prices.
-
- The test results confirm that the Macintosh computer’s unified architecture
- produces better performance than a graphical interface grafted on top of
- old-style equipment. However, Apple doesn’t encourage customers to base a
- buying decision solely on the Macintosh price-performance advantage. People
- should look at the full range of a computer’s capabilities, and buy the one
- that can do the most for them, both today and in the future. Better
- price-performance is important, but the biggest advantage of Macintosh is that
- it does things other PCs can’t even try.
-
- Please link COMPETITION if you want more details on the benchmarks or the
- price-performance ratios.
-
- _________________
- THE BENCHMARKS...
-
- Ingram ran many different tests for seven applications: Powerpoint, Wingz,
- Excel, Word, PageMaker, Omnis, and HyperCard/Toolbook. Except for HyperCard,
- the applications tested are available in both Macintosh and Windows 3.0
- versions. The applications tested were selected because they were the only
- ones shipping at test time that run on both Windows 3.0 and Macintosh.
-
- Methodology. Ingram created a series of real-world tasks for each application,
- then measured the amount of time required to complete each one. The entire
- Macintosh desktop line was tested against Windows-compatible PCs from IBM and
- Compaq. The results were summarized by totaling the time each machine took to
- run all the tests for all the applications. Here are the results:
-
- Total Time (minutes) U.S. SRP†
- •Macintosh IIfx 8.1 $11,746
- Compaq 486/25 9.7 $15,067
- •Macintosh IIci 10.9 $ 8,196
- Compaq 386/33 11.4 $13,166
- •Macintosh IIcx 11.5 $ 8,445
- •Macintosh IIsi (w/FPU) 11.6 $ 5,146
- IBM Model 70 486 (25 MHz) 12.0 $13,504
- • Macintosh IIsi 13.4 $ 4,897
- Compaq 386/25e 15.3 $ 8,866
- IBM Model 70 386 (25 MHz) 15.4 $11,404
- •Macintosh SE/30 17.4 $ 4,498
- •Macintosh LC 17.6 $ 3,098
- Compaq 386/20e 17.8 $ 7,166
- IBM Model 70 386 (20 MHz) 19.7 $ 8,454
- IBM Model 70 386 (16 MHz) 24.6 $ 7,704
- Compaq 386s (386SX@16 MHz) 25.9 $ 4,267
- IBM Model 55SX (16 MHz) 28.7 $ 4,614
- •Macintosh Classic (2/40) 32.9 $ 1,499
- •Macintosh SE 33.6 $ 3,098
- IBM Model 50z (286@10 MHz) 37.1 $ 3,864
- Compaq 286e (12 MHz) 37.9 $ 4,667
- •Macintosh Plus 40.9 $ 2,498
- IBM PS/1 42.7 $ 2,149
- IBM Model 30-286 (10 MHz) 44.5 $ 3,464
-
- †Suggested retail prices in the US for fully-configured machines (includes
- mouse, Windows, etc). Prices are from Dataquest SpecCheck and International
- Data Corporation, and are as current as we could get them. However, some
- prices may have changed since this was written.
-
- Here are some key findings from Ingram’s overall results:
- • The Macintosh IIfx came in ahead of every other machine.
- • The Macintosh IIsi was more than 50% faster than the fastest 20 MHz 386 PC
- tested, and was almost as fast as a top-end 33 MHz 80386 machine.
- • The Macintosh LC was more than 45% faster than the fastest 16 MHz 386sx PC
- tested.
- • The Macintosh Classic was much faster than 286-based computers costing
- thousands of dollars more. It was about 30% faster than IBM’s PS/1. This is
- outstanding performance for an entry-level computer.
-
- In general, the tests show that Macintosh systems are faster than comparably
- configured PC compatibles running Windows 3. Apple encourages customers to try
- their own tests. Performance can vary depending on the configuration of a
- machine, the software being tested, and the tasks the user is performing.
-
- _________________
- PRICE-PERFORMANCE
-
- A price-performance ratio was calculated using the suggested retail price and
- Ingram’s benchmark results. Price-performance was also projected for several
- representative PC clones. The results indicate that the new Macintosh
- computers beat even low-end PC clones in price-performance.
- Price-performance
- SRP Time (minutes) ratio:
- •Macintosh Classic $1,499 32.9 20.28
- •Macintosh LC $3,098 17.6 18.33
- •Macintosh IIsi FPU $5,146 11.6 16.75
- •Macintosh IIsi plain $4,897 13.4 15.24
- Clone 386/33* $6,069 11.4 14.45
- Clone 386sx* $2,939 25.9 13.14
- •Macintosh SE/30 $4,498 17.4 12.78
- •Macintosh IIci $8,196 10.9 11.19
- IBM PS/1 $2,149 42.7 10.91
- •Macintosh IIfx $11,746 8.1 10.51
- •Macintosh IIcx $8,445 11.5 10.30
- •Macintosh Plus $2,498 40.9 9.79
- •Macintosh SE $3,098 33.5 9.64
- Clone 386/20* $5,876 17.8 9.56
- Compaq 386s-16 $4,267 25.9 9.05
- Clone 286/12* $2,944 37.9 8.96
- Clone 486/25* $12,109 9.7 8.51
- Clone 386/25* $8,081 15.2 8.14
- Compaq 386/20e $7,166 17.8 7.84
- IBM 55sx-16 $4,614 28.7 7.55
- Compaq 386/25 $8,866 15.2 7.42
- IBM 50z $3,864 37.1 6.98
- Compaq 386/33 $12,666 11.4 6.93
- Compaq 486/25 $15,067 9.7 6.84
- IBM 30-286 $3,464 44.5 6.49
- IBM 70-486 $13,504 12 6.17
- IBM 70 386-20 $8,454 19.7 6.00
- IBM 70 386-25 $11,404 15.4 5.69
- Compaq 286e $4,667 37.9 5.65
- IBM 70-386-16 $7,704 24.6 5.28
-
- *PC clones other than IBM and Compaq were NOT tested by Ingram. Instead,
- typical clone prices (supplied by the computer research firm Dataquest) were
- paired with Compaq’s performance to generate approximate clone
- price-performance ratings.
-
- Ingram's results indicate that Macintosh price-performance is at least
- equivalent to, if not better than, price-performance of PC clones running
- Windows.
-
- ________________________________________
- PUTTING THE BENCHMARKS IN PERSPECTIVE...
-
- The performance benchmarks demonstrate the sort of advantages produced by the
- unified architecture of Macintosh, in which the hardware and operating system
- are designed together, from the chips up. But the unified architecture also
- produces other advantages...
-
- • Because the architecture of Macintosh is modular, Macintosh customers get
- powerful new technology faster, without sacrificing ease of use. Examples of
- this are the SuperDrive disk drive that can read IBM, Macintosh, and Apple II
- disks; the Macintosh sound architecture that makes voice mail practical today;
- the Macintosh computer’s ability to treat multiple monitors as a single large
- screen; and the SCSI connector that lets you plug in peripherals without adding
- boards.
-
- • Because the Macintosh was designed for networking from the start, it's
- easier to set up a local area network to share files and printers. And
- connectivity to other computing environments (DEC, IBM, OSI, TCP/IP) is
- emphasized.
-
- • Because of Apple’s evangelism efforts and the interface tools built into
- Macintosh, Apple has a larger base of consistent graphically-based programs
- than the rest of the PC industry combined.
-
- • Because the Macintosh architecture was designed to grow, all Macintosh
- owners, even buyers of the original Macintosh 128, have a clear growth path to
- System 7 and beyond. By contrast, users of the DOS “standard” face a confusing
- migration to Windows and/or OS/2 — neither of which will run at acceptable
- speeds on most of the PC installed base, according to industry analysts.
-
- NOTE: If you use Ingram's benchmarks in a public document, Competitive
- Analysis must review it. Link the text to GARR1.
-
- ______________________
- We welcome your feedback. Please link us at COMPETITION.
-
-