Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!wookumz.ai.mit.edu!rjc From: rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: not good news Message-ID: <11421@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: 17 Oct 90 17:45:46 GMT References: <33589@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <11393@life.ai.mit.edu> <28856@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: None Lines: 31 In article <28856@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >In article <11393@life.ai.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>Whether a computer can display 256 colors out of 16million or not, does >>not determine its success. > >Woah, now. It is also not completely irrelevant. It *will* determine the >success of a computer within certain niches. In responding to a closed mind, >please do not also close yours -- see a following post.... My statement means 'just because a computer has color does not mean it will be an overall success instantly.' Certainly its a factor, but don't you think other factors come into play like CPU SPEED, Memory, Price, Disk Storage, Software Quality, Interface, Environment, support, documentation. Color is only one of these. Not everyone needs color. I myself am quite happy with my monochrome (2 color) Shell. If I was into video, I'm sure I'd own a 33mhz A2000 with Turbosilver, Deluxe Paint, cando etc. But I don't. I'm a programmer, and all I need in my 2 color screen, multitasking, good tools, and my fast scrolling configurable editor. (I chose DME) Marc has been touting color as the ONLY attribute that makes the Macs sell. (256 icons, 16millions, and other bells and whistles.) >David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu >"Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/