Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!orbit!pnet51!paulr
From: paulr@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Raulerson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <3063@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 19 Aug 90 01:05:01 GMT
Sender: root@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 15

I don't believe that being forced to compare Apple products only to IBM
products has *ever* been made a "clear" priority.  For one thing, hardly
anyone *buys* pure IBM products.  For another, why would you *want* to, except
to make Apples profiteering a bit easier to stomach? 

IMHO, Macs are purely *wonderful* machines, but Apple has had too much
practice overpricing 'em and putting the shaft to early buyers.  I have a
512K machine here, with 130mb od fas SCSI disk on it and 4 megabyes.  Total
cost of upgrading that machine to the stated capablity was *less* than the
Apple approved upgrades of drive/rom and motherboard replacement. (*sigh*)


UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!paulr
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!paulr@nosc.mil
INET: paulr@pnet51.orb.mn.org