Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!rutgers!ub.d.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!moreno
From: moreno@cs.umn.edu (Andres Moreno)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug18.002536.11173@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 18 Aug 90 00:25:36 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 24

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear
>that that is not a valid comparison.  If you want to compare, you have to do
>Apple to IBM.

I have not followed this debate in this group, but I do agree that it gets
boring after a while discussing the particular merits of one's machine based
on merit. I intend to buy a new machine to replace my atari (yes, there are
atari/amiga wars as well) and I don't understand why I should consider my 
purchase based on IBM list prices whey I can buy the same machine with the
same chips, for a *much* more reasonable price.

Yes, you'll respond, but you pays for the R/D? You and me, but not just by
buying Apple, but by buying Xerox, AT&T, by paying professors, etc. For the
record, when was the last time that Apple had *great* technology for the
average Joe? If my memory serves me right, it was the Mac, and then, the 
technology was developed by people at Xerox. (Not to diminish Apple's role,
it takes both a great idea, and the commitment to follow thru.)

IN OTHER WORDS, I WILL NOT FINANCE ANYBODY'S R/D ABOVE MY CURRENT SUPPORT,
WHICH ALL THINGS SAID, I DEEM ENOUGH.

regards, Andres F. Moreno