Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: Toy Computers
Message-ID: <297@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 19:00:39 EST
Article-I.D.: yetti.297
Posted: Mon Jan 13 19:00:39 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 21:08:29 EST
References: <godden%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> <12174433790.8.MRC@PANDA>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 47
Summary: 

In article <12174433790.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) writes:
>     This is very reminiscant of the Atari user's groups of the
>early 80's, which insisted Atari was doing everything splendidly
>and the few people who argued otherwise were lonely voices in the
>wilderness.
>
	I do not think so. Time and time again, majority turned out to be
	RIGHT, and those lonely voices were wrong. This may prove to be 
	such a case. 

>     A serious concern -- that selling the ST in toy stores at
>toy store prices will lead to the overwhelming preponderance of
>ST software being toy software ..
	Who writes the so-called "Toy Software" ??  Highschool
	hackers ?? Neighborhood cabbies, Aunt Gwendolyn ??
	And why is it such a serious concern ??? Is there some
	sort of a class difference between programs written by
	those of us lucky enough to have VAXen spread out in our
	machine room, and those written by a highschool nerd in
	his basement C64 ?? Remember that highschool nerd who
	broke into Lawrence-Livermore Labs ?? Did you know
	the JOVE was originally written in Lincoln-Sudbury
	highschool ?? But you perhaps know that professional
	programmers could churn out just as much crap as any other
	non-professional programmer (such as the cabbie) with the
	difference that the former is probably more dangerous.
	If lotsa kids get their hands onto an ST instead of a
	retarded C64, I am sure we will see more imaginative stuff,
	not TOY SOFTWARE.
>
>     There is a difference between a cheap and an inexpensive
>computer.  The ST was promoted as being inexpensive, but it sure
>looks like it really is just another cheap computer.
>
	Ah.. this must be the standard "class" oriented thinking.
	If it does not cost you your left arm, and it is not sold
	by an obnoxious salesman, it cannot be all that good.

	Think about it: your VT220 costs more than an atari ST.
	and it is not even programmable. :-)

OZ
-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.