Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pro-exchange.cts.com!rich
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: GS/OS V3.0 & New GS
Message-ID: <8908221327.AA11556@trout.nosc.mil>
Date: 21 Aug 89 09:53:10 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

Comment to message from: kirk@pro-realm.cts.com (Kirk Kamberg)

I'm a bit confused about the logic behind your message.  You state that you
have a IIGS and you list several capabilities that the machine "should" have,
or which you consider essential.  You then mention some other computers which
have those capabilities, including the Macintosh.  Since there happen to be
both a Macintosh and a IIGS in this room, I just checked the identification
labels on both machines.  It appears that both models were marketed by a
company named "Apple Computer", from which I conclude that Apple, like many
other companies, has more than one model in it's product line.

Now, what confuses me is this... if Apple Computer markets a model with the
features you want, but you chose to purchase a different Apple model which
does not have those features, how does *your* purchasing decision become a
"design inadequacy" on the part of Apple Computer?

Then, to add insult to injury, you mention that you also own an Amiga that has
the capabilities you want, but CBM (Commodore) is a highly supportive company
and is not guilty of "design inadequacy", even though they, like Apple, also
market a model that does not include those features.

Somehow, I can't escape the nagging feeling that the "inadequacy" may be at
the "consumption" end of the product chain, rather than the "production" end.

Rich Sims

UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!rich
ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil
INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com