Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Amiga Custom Chips - why hasn't C= made them faster? Message-ID: <1991Apr18.113054.16692@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX References: <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> <1991Apr16.015953.22600@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr17.073837.2647@news.iastate.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1991 11:30:54 GMT In article <1991Apr17.073837.2647@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: > In article <1991Apr16.015953.22600@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: > >[ bunch of useless figures ] > >Looks like you included the inital R&D for the Amiga, and left that out for > >the Sun. Plus, I believe the margin on a Sun is a bit higher than for an > >Amiga. How about listing R&D as % of net, or something at least *vaguely* > >rational? > I *DID* list R&D as a percentage of net sales. How about net profits? (net sales, what a concept. net sales == total sales == gross sales == ...) The last time someone used the meaningless term "net sales" on me, it was a software publisher trying to con me out of royalties. I can only assume your motives are similar. > I have included the tables again, in a slightly edited fashion for > people like you who cannot recognize synonyms in economics terms. How about including them again, with some better data for people like me who recognise waffling when they see it? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .