Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!liuida!isy!ingemar From: ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: The LC vs. IIsi Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 91 12:42:36 GMT References: <1991Jun5.175401.14345@sequent.com> <284EBD2C.17749@ics.uci.edu> Sender: news@isy.liu.se (Lord of the News) Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping Lines: 24 ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: >I think the >entire LC concept is a dead letter from the get-go. It is intended do >directly attack the K-6 market and to replace the Apple IIgs/IIe. While >it seems to do this just fine, it doesn't solve my problems or most users'. It seems like you have looked at the LC, asking yourself "Do I really get a Mac II for half the price?", and of course you didn't. If we look at the price ranges, the Classic replaced the Plus and the LC replaced the SE. (Note that Plus and Classic are not expandable, while SE and LC has one slot.) Quite a good replacement for an SE, I'd say. 3 times as fast, much larger screen (12" grayscale), can take max 10 megs instead of 4. Of course the IIsi is better, but it is much more expensive. There is a good reason why Apple didn't name the LC "IIlc". It just isn't a Mac II. It isn't priced as one, either. -- Ingemar Ragnemalm Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se