Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:9042 alt.religion.computers:2389 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!cy5 From: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Mac clones (was Re: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11) Message-ID: <1991Mar5.154844.17339@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 5 Mar 91 15:48:44 GMT References: <1991Feb24.073634.11556@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News) Reply-To: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) Organization: Columbia University Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > > 3) Stop suing people over look and feel. If Apple doesn't stop doing this, > the Mac look and feel will die. Can you think of any reason why a big > corporate buyer would go for the Mac front-end, when he could go for > one of the clones and have full Mac compatibility combined with the > SAA standard front-end he has on all his other machines (Motif, > Windows, Presentation Manager)? Yes, I can think of one reason. No corporate buyer ever lost his job because he decided to buy IBM. Similarly, Apple is a safe purchasing decision. Sure, the clones are cheaper and would save the company a lot of money but is it worth losing you job if something goes wrong.? Conway Yee, N2JWQ yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu (preferred) 231 S. Melville St. cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above) Philadelphia, Pa 19139 yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov (rarely checked) (215) 386-1312