Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewse!macduff
From: macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Portable Mac vs STACY
Summary: I really shouldn't but...
Message-ID: <1627@cbnewse.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 89 22:13:44 GMT
References: <2122@kodak.UUCP> <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> <10032@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Rabbit Corps
Lines: 39

In article <10032@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
> In article <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes:
> >I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under $2,000
> >while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine??
> >
> >The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD display??
> >Does anyone have techincal specifications for the two LCD displays being used??
> >Is the Atari LCD display slower to redraw than the Mac display?? I know that the
> >ST has a higher resolution (640x400 VS. 535x352). since, the ST has higher res
> >then the Mac SE anyway.
> Dunno 'bout the rest of the stuff you mention, but the specs I saw said
> that the Mac portable will have a 640x400 LCD screen. I'm inclined to
> believe that they're using identical display technology. They just don't
> call it the same because Apple likes to lead the public to believe that
> everything they do is new, innovative, and original... As long as the world
> doesn't see anything else comparable, then Apple doesn't have any trouble
> charging whatever the hell they feel like. If the STacy doesn't flood the
> US market soon, it'll never get a chance, because most people are too willing
> to swallow the Apple PR junk.

I shouldn't do this (don't want to start a flame war here...), but no, the
screen *is* something totally new, and has been heralded as the *best* display
on a portable around.  We Apple-junkies really don't like paying an arm and a
leg, and love to point out the cheaper competition, but even the MS-DOS super-
popular portables can't compare screen-wise.

And it's IBM that creates the new names for old stuff (e.g. "pel" and "fixed card"
for "pixel" and "hard disk"...), not Apple. The NuBUS is more standard than NeXTs
on the Macs.  There's a different card in the Portable because it uses a different
CPU than an SE/30 (their slots are the same size) and because of the power
constraints.  Different machines, with different power capabilities.  It was a
better move.

Is it too expensive? You betcha. The biggest gripe is the memory: the *most* 
expensive memory chips are required (Static DRAMS), and of course, come a year,
you're gonna NEED that expensive RAM to run the new system software.

Roger
(whose just bored and decided to distribute some truth...)