Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!dxb132 Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 4 May 1991 20:22:53 EDT From: Message-ID: <91124.202253DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.marketplace Subject: Re: Educational Prices References: <1991May2.235841.27994@athena.mit.edu> <1991May3.004839.20833@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <285@nos850.UUCP> <1991May4.195627.4389@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> In article <1991May4.195627.4389@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) says: > The 2500 costs more because it has so much expansion. There you go again with your unfounded "expansion slots are expensive" theory. :-) Look, you can get AT motherboards with heaps of slots for $80. For case/power supply add $100. That's quantity one from some small clone outfit. There are a few valid reasons for not having expansion: 1. It makes the computer smaller. But if you add things, it makes the computer bigger again (like the 64 with lots of peripherals). 2. It is easier to design and doesn't have support headaches of "card X doesn't work with card Y in my computer". Also known as laziness. 3. The computer is so cheap that it makes a big difference. Slots would be an expensive (relatively) addition to the ZX81. 4. It is fashionable. And anyway, the 3000 is probably more expandible than the 2000, all things considered. -- Dan Babcock