Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug18.170128.26394@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 18 Aug 90 17:01:28 GMT
References: <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3941@husc6.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 28

As quoted from <3941@husc6.harvard.edu> by siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel):
+---------------
| In article <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
| >
| >This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail
| >others.  Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz
| >486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal.  Okay, a fast 386 can be
| 
| 	Uh, no, they only just recently came out with a RISC machine which
| blows the pants off most every iAPX86 machine... :-) And it fits on the
| desktop, too...
+---------------

Sun and DG (among others) didn't have fast desktop RISC machines first?
That'll sure surprise them --- and me, since I got to play with an AV300
before IBM announced the RS/6000.  A *released* machine, not a pre-release
alpha or beta.

Besides, by changing the argument to RISC boxes, you've left the original
subject.  Of course, you're free to start a discussion on your new thread, if
you wish, but you can't use it to justify or denigrate arguments about
comparing Apples to PClones.

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			    VHF/UHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220, 2m, 440
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		    Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    America OnLine: KB8JRR