Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: In favor of skinny Macs.
Message-ID: <820@peora.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 08:28:04 EST
Article-I.D.: peora.820
Posted: Mon Apr 15 08:28:04 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Apr-85 01:23:12 EST
References: <476@qumix.UUCP> <440@crystal.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 21

>  ... for a $160 price difference at a local electronics store (I've
>  seen 256K RAMS in the $8 range) you have the extra memory at retail
>  prices.... [thus] for a small increment in cost (under $100 if you
>  upgrade your mac by yourself RIGHT NOW), you get a much more flexible
>  machine.

No, this economic analysis is not in keeping with what we've heard on the
net.  A long time ago I asked the question, "will Apple service Macintoshes
that have been `fattened' by the DDJ method?" Out of all the readers of the
net, only ONE replied; and his reply was, "No." Thus you are really
deferring the cost of the upgrade until the time the machine fails, at
which time the price you have to pay is whatever Apple charges to sell you
a whole new board (rather than a trade-in).  And, in fact, we don't know
that that will happen; they may refuse to do so, and you'll have to buy a
new machine.  Thus it appears that the original argument still holds, and
it is still cost-effective to buy a 128K machine.
-- 
Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642