Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!ISM780!patrick
From: patrick@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: "Valid" AMIGA info.
Message-ID: <31000002@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 23:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780.31000002
Posted: Fri Jun 14 23:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 01:21:01 EDT
References: <1655@amdahl.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:amdahl:-165500:ISM780:31000002:000:1147
Nf-From: ISM780!patrick    Jun 14 23:59:00 1985


Sounds wonderful.  (In fact, it sounds amazing.) Is it for  real?
As  a  Commodore  user  of  many years' standing I am alternately
amazed at their capacity to provide powerful  hardware  at  cheap
prices,  and horrified at their tendency to cripple that hardware
by non-existent operating systems, a refusal  to  adhere  to  any
kind  of  standards, and (on the 64) snail-slow disk speeds.  The
64 is only 20% of the price of an Apple, has the  same  processor
and  more  powerful  graphics/sound  capabilities,  yet for 'real
programming' the Apple is the only choice.  How can Commodore get 
it so right, and yet be so wrong at the same time?  

My 64 sits languishing in the corner of the room, as it drives me 
nuts every time I turn it on.   (Compared  with  UNIX  on  a  VAX
Commodore 'DOS' doesn't quite match up.  I can't even display the 
contents  of  an ASCII file [ASCII - what's that?], for *** sake.
I like to hack, but I'm not that much of a masochist.) If half of 
what you say is true, I may  abandon  my  resolve  never  to  buy
Commodore again.  (But, will they screw it up once more?)

Patrick Curran (decvax!cca!ima!patrick)