Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calma.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!calma!radzy From: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: IBM RT: first impressions Message-ID: <154@calma.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 12:11:46 EST Article-I.D.: calma.154 Posted: Thu Feb 13 12:11:46 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 02:34:44 EST References: <1400012@orstcs.UUCP> <6382@utzoo.UUCP> <151@calma.UUCP> <361@utastro.UUCP> Reply-To: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) Followup-To: net.micro Organization: GE/Calma Co., R&D Systems Engineering, Milpitas, CA Lines: 34 >> -- me > -- nather@utastro (Ed Nather) >> Certain people, >> many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, >> would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. > >Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). When I made the original posting, I had in mind businesses, not individuals (most individuals aren't "in the position to make purchasing decisionS", but only a single purchase). When you talk about the PCJr, there are 2 things to keep in mind: 1. It was *not* primarily intended for businesses. 2. Its main competition *as far as businesses go* is the PC (Sr :-). Since the competition for the PCJr also had the IBM label on the front, then technical merit comes into the picture, and of course the Jr loses. >But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that >don't fit. We call that "scientific." When you examine someone else's theory and find data that don't fit what *you think* the theory means (assuming that the theory was explained in language, rather than with math), then it might be a good idea to reconsider what the theory really is. My apologies for not making myself clear enough the first time around. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy