Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!husc6!ogccse!blake!max!scott
From: scott@max.acs.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: 80 columns Card for the C64
Message-ID: <6210@max.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 89 02:32:57 GMT
References: <6064@max.acs.washington.edu> <6072@max.acs.washington.edu> <7522@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
Lines: 82

In article <7522@microsoft.UUCP>, kentsu@microsoft.UUCP (Kent Sullivan) writes:
> I don't believe any letter-writing campaigns will help reinstate production
> of the BI-80, or any other Batteries Included product--they have long been
> out of business.  Electronic Arts bought up all of their stock and has since
> closed out much of it (including Paperclip 64E).                        
 
However, still someone if not BI itself must have the right to the
schematic of the hardware. And he/she/they could always reintroduce
that piece of the hardware if there is a market for it. And it would   
impact alot if we tell them personally, that there is such a market.
 
And talking about letter-writing campaings, in the latest issue of
Compute! Gazzette (Octorber issue!....yes, I know, now is only August),
there is a letter-writing campaing started by a large user group, HUG,
to the Commodore industry, to fight off possible rumor of the drop of
the C64. And they are asking everyone to join in the campain.
For more information look at the NEWS section of the October issue of
Compute! Gazette.
 
> I'm not sure where the
> address in CA for BI came from, but I don't think it is reliable.
 
The adress was gotten from September 1984 issue of Compute! Gazette
from the very same ad advertizing the BI-80 card. However, Kent was
somewhat correct. In looking at later issue of the magazine the
US address changed, but the Canadian address remained constant.
So, here is the Canadian address for those who would like to send
them a mail in regards to the BI-80 card.
 
     Batteries Included
     186 Queen St. West           (* sorry if I have caused you *)
     Toronto, Ontario             (* some inconvenience.        *)
     M5V 1Z1 Canada
     (416) 596-1405
 
I truely believe that comments mailed by the public has a big
impact on companies. It is a myth that businesses just simply
throws away mails that they receive from the public. Their
business is depended on the public likes and dislikes. And thus  
they can not affort to read all from people who at least know
their product and has an opinion about it.
 
> As to the need for an 80-column display for the C-64: there really is none.
> I believe Ray Moody could confirm that maybe six of the hundreds of people
> that have asked for Kermit from Dr. Evil Labs were doing so for use with a
> BI-80.
 
The Kermit terminal program was introduce well after the BI-80
card was discontinued. Moreover, in the documentation that
accompanies the Kermit program, it states that finding a BI-80
card today is very difficult even used ones, which is true.
With such drawback, it is obious to think that people didn't
inquired about the BI-80 card not because they were disinterested,
but because they lost all hope of finding one.
Moreover, not everyone who has a BI-80 card knows that there are
programs like Kermit. I found out about the Kermit terminal
program only this year, almost a year after version 2.1 was
released. And I am sure there are alot more people who hasn't
hear of Kermit yet.
 
> The card was almost prohibitively expensive when available new, and
> its cost would certainly be no lower these days.  The board size was large
> enough that a custom case had to be manufactured--$$.  For the value, it is
> much more effective to buy a C-128D (or used C-128!) to get 80 columns.
 
When the C64 was first introduced in costed around $250 (at least the
price I remember), now it is around $130, almost a 50% reduction.
And this reduction has not only happen to the C64 but to all it
periperals too (as matter of fact, to entire electronic industry)
some more than other of course. And I am sure that the 80 columns
cards would have dropped in price to a more attractive and affortable
level. And the board size would have shrinked too.  :)
 
>
> Kent Sullivan
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> of my employer.
 
Sincerely,
Scott K. Stephen