Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!mordor!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!decwrl!labrea!navajo!billw
From: billw@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (William E. Westfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: Mac vs. Amiga
Message-ID: <1336@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Fri, 23-Jan-87 16:25:03 EST
Article-I.D.: navajo.1336
Posted: Fri Jan 23 16:25:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Jan-87 09:37:23 EST
References: <8701210852.AA06243@violet.berkeley.edu> <1525@lsuc.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 14

In article <1525@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>      It may be *safer* to buy the machines where the "excitement" is because
> that's where the most creativity tends to be.  In fact, in retrospect, this
> may be the one thing that has been consistent.  Look back on the history of
> all the big selling computers and you will find that each one of them had this
> "excitement" when they hit the market.  There has *never* been a sleeper
> which has turned out in the long run to be a success.  Never?  Well, maybe
> the Radio Shack Color Computer.  I can't think of any other exception.

Ahh, but there have been lots of computers that generated "excitment"
when first introduced, but did NOT succeed:  the Lisa, the Apple ///,
and the coleco ADAM, to mention a few.

BillW