Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:7087 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:8054
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!stone
From: stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Glenn Stone)
Subject: Re: The whole story on Gateway (was Re: Gateway 2000)
Message-ID: <1991Mar31.223127.12766@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Glenn Stone)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1991Mar26.065227.16558@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Mar27.132658.25149@cbfsb.att.com> <1991Mar27.162821.2498@cs.mcgill.ca>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1991 22:31:27 GMT

In article <1991Mar27.162821.2498@cs.mcgill.ca> storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes:

>One simple point to be made here is that despite all the yabbering that is
>going on about Gateway 2000, there are happy customers, and as seen here,
>unhappy customers.
>
>I know some three people with Gateway 2000 machines and they wouldn't trade
>them for anything in the world.

Can we get a bit more systematic about this?  There are three of us here
who are thinking about buying Gateway 2000 386 systems, and we would
love to hear some reports from owners.  Email and I'll summarize to the
net.  

Thanks --


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Glenn Davis Stone                BITNET stone@cunixc
  Columbia University            INTERNET stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------