Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!sun-barr!olivea!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!bard
From: bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: not good news
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.081610.18164@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 90 08:16:10 GMT
References: <33589@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Academic Information Resources, Stanford University
Lines: 64

In article <33589@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
>
>   The new MACs are definately trouble for Commodore.

	Perhaps.  Judging by 8 months of your articles, however, you are
*no* market analyst.  Just sit back and see what happens.

>The original
>MAC II was trouble for Commodore, and it cost over three times more than a
>similar Amiga system.

	This did not stop Commodore from selling 2 million machines, Marc.
The first million sold in a shorter amount of time than the first million
Macs did.

>...It is the
>Amiga that is the more expensive one now, and unless something drastic
>is done soon, the Amiga is in big trouble.  Commodore did not exactly
>succeed against the MAC II when it cost more than the Amiga.  Commodore
>will NOT succeed against the MAC II now that it costs less.

	Hm.  You've got some pretty gross generalizations here, Marc.  The
new machines are in no way similar to a Mac II.  They will have an entirely
different market.  Institutions probably will not want them due to their
unexpandibility.  Individuals may or may not want them, depending on how
much exposure the Amiga gets in turn.  It is the better machine, hardware-
wise.  More expansion and *FASTER* at the comparable price.  Software is 
getting there.  I find the Amiga community (and we should NEVER overlook
this) much more supportive than the Mac community, at least locally and on
the net.
>
>   This situation reminds me of the John Deer commercials in which a
>bunch of company employees are touting the capabilities of John Deer
>tractors, blah, blah, blah...

Ah, yes.  Indeed.  Completely analogous, that.

>... What is Commodore going to
>do about it?  Like the pathetic company, they will probably try some
>hacks to improve their products, like non-standard video hardware with
>clunky new OS hacks to attempt to get it to work with a few programs.
>This won't stand up well, though, against the MAC which has totally
>standardized, superior video, with an OS that has had device-independent
>video from day one.  "What are we going to do about it?"  Go out of
>business, I guess.

	I don't think that's true at all.  The folks at Commodore know 
damn well what they are doing, and they've been pretty busy of late.  They
certainly aren't standing around scratching their collective heads.

	Marc, you can bet credits to navybeans that NO ONE at Commodore is
going to listen to your advice if you couch it in sniveling, contemptuous
language.  You clearly are not delivering anything constructive in your posts.
Sociologically, you are a textbook case;  it may be fun to do a study on you.
>
>                               -MB-

I hope your maniacal need for attention has been, in part at least, satisfied 
by this posting.

Dave Hopper      |      ///  Yesterday, CS.           | Academic Info Resources
                 |     ///    Today, Anthropology.    | Mac & UNIX Consultant
bard@jessica.    | \\\///                             | "Somebody get me a job
   Stanford.EDU  |  \XX/ Tomorrow... bleeding ulcers. | with a computer I LIKE"