Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:11321 comp.sys.mac.system:5766
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!jcav
From: jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john  cavallino)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: A Classic Dead End?
Keywords: Classic,System 7.0
Message-ID: <1991May20.183007.15582@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 20 May 91 18:30:07 GMT
References: <53050@apple.Apple.COM> <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 39

In article <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>In article <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john  cavallino) writes:
>>>I'm sorry, but I didn't see a shred of reasonability in your argument.
>>>The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly
>>>inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System
>>>7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room
>>>for the Finder, DAs, and background printing.
>>I'm glad Apple makes the Classic and sells so many of them.  I was just
>>musing about how this could have been an opportunity to move the installed
>>base rapidly toward the world of color and 68020+ processors, which is
>>where it is going anyway.
>
>	The market aint gonna move anywhere until it wants to.  The reason
>why Apple is making the Classic is that the market wants that particular
>product.  No amount of prodding by Apple is going to force the market
>where it doesn't want to go.
>
>	Otherwise, the lowball winner would have been the LC and not
>the Classic.

The Classic sells because it is >cheap<, not because it is more powerful
or "better" than the LC.  If the LC were as cheap, it would sell as well
or better.  Whether or not the margin of profit would have then been adequate
is something I am not learned enough to judge.

>>I'm sorry, but I still think my arguments contain one or two shreds of
>>reasonability.  :-)
>
>	The market doesn't agree with you.

See above.  Also, you latched onto the more blue-sky sections of what I
said, ignoring the quite reasonable propositions about RAM capacity and
processor clock speed.

-- 
John Cavallino                      |     EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Hospitals     |    USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145
Office of Facilities Management     |            Chicago, IL  60637
B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900