Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!sdcsvax!nosc!humu!uhccux!cs313s02
From: cs313s02@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s02)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A1000 -> A2000 upgrade offer, yet again...
Message-ID: <1011@uhccux.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Oct-87 05:50:51 EST
Article-I.D.: uhccux.1011
Posted: Tue Oct 27 05:50:51 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Oct-87 05:36:48 EST
References: <5596@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: cs313s02@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s02)
Organization: U. of Barbarians at Manoa.  Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lines: 103

In article <5596@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
><My five year old calculator has no upgrade policy.
>
>Do you have to rewire your house to use the new calculators?

     Nothing that drastic.  But my new calculator refuses to talk to
peripherals for my old calculator.  And the manufacturer doesn't buy
back my old calculator 8^>
 
><The price of buying electronics today is that they depreciate. Better 
><electronics will be available in the future at a better price.
>
>Ah, that's why my old system went for 6 years and three different
>CPUs, and *all* the old cards still worked on it. Nuts, the disk
>drives were from the system before that one.

     Funny nobody bashed Big Blue on that too.  I had to get rid of several
cards on my PeeCee when I upgraded to an AT.  The memory cards had to be
changes, so was the serial card, HD controller card, Floppy controller, 
and what-have-you...  And IBM didn't buy back my old PeeCee 8^).

>Yeah, it's a nice thing to do. About the same as the Apple upgrade for
>old Mac owners when the Fat Mac came out - except that upgrade didn't
>leave people stuck with old expansion products that wouldn't work on
>the new machine. People bitched about that, too. For about the same
>reasons - they didn't feel like it was really an option, as they'd be
>left out in the cold in the future if they failed to upgrade. But at
>least they didn't have to figure out what to do with old expansion
>products.

     If Commodore wanted me to pay $800 to upgrade A1000 from 128K to
512K, I would have shot them in the head.  You actually Apple's "upgrade"
as being more reasonable than CBM's?!?  Commodore didn't ask you to up-
grade from 128K to 512K, then to 1Meg, then to an SE (one more slow than
the Plus, which had ZERO), did they?  Of course Mac peripheral worked
from "upgrade" to upgrade, because nothing much is changed, other than
amount of memory present.  $1,000 is certainly a reasonable amount to
pay for more slots and same amound of memory as $1,000 spent on a Mac
doesn't get you even half as much.  And Apple didn't buy back people's
old Macs.  Hack, they don't even have an upgrade program from Mac to
Mac-IIs.  
 
><Perhaps a discussion of the inherent faults of innovation and
><improvement should be moved to comp.stone.age or net.electonics.tube
><or net.count.with.sticks.
>
>A discussion of innovation certainly don't belong in any newsgroup
>discussing machines designed by CBM.

     I agree that there's not that much innovation in the Amiga 2000. 
But neither are there in IBM's AT, all the zillion and one PC/clones,
all the Macs after the original skinny Mac (except the Mac II, of course),
or current crop of 386 machines.    
 
>Or can you show me something about the A2000 that's innovative? Not
>the CPU slot - been done before, several times. Not the IBM-PC &
><other stuff> in the same box - ditto. Not the 68020 upgrade on an
>Amiga - ditto. Not the possiblity of running <other stuff> tools and
>Unix at the same time - ditto. Not more CHIP ram; that's not an
>innovation, that's just more of an old thing.

     If there's not enough innovation to excite you, then just don't
take up the upgrade offer.  Wait for a 68020 machine to come out, and
see if that excites you.  If you're really happy with your current 
machine, then there's certainly no reason to upgrade.
 
><(Commodore wants another C64, and is capable of doing it with the
><A500... for better or worse)
>
>Yeah, CBM could well turn the A500 into another C64. Of course, the
>C64 was worth more as spare parts than as a computer. Best thing I
>ever did for some friends was wean them from the C64 to a real machine
>with a decent multi-tasking OS. And the entire system cost less than
>the A500 cpu retails for today.

     Well, if you don't believe that market penetration is important,
then there's certainly no reason trying to lure developers to work
on the Amiga, is there?  Although C-64 is a terrible machine, it is
very successful.  And there are people who are very satisfied with
it.  Commodore didn't even have an upgrade program for C-64 --> C-128.
They were kind enough to offer upgrade for the A2000, and they get
shot to pieces for doing so.  Perhaps we should make disposable 
computer: that way, nobody will complain about upgrades...  8=) 
 
>	<mike
 
>P.S. - one person expressed concern via email at seeing me (normally
>willing to defend the Amiga to the death) bashing at C/A. I'm not
>bashing at C/A. Amiga did a great thing. To bad the company died. I'm
>bashing at CBM. Different thing entirely.

     Concern?!?  Shock is more of the word I'm thinking of...
>--
>And then up spoke his own dear wife,			Mike Meyer
>Never heard to speak so free.				mwm@berkeley.edu
>"I'd rather a kiss from dead Matty's lips,		ucbvax!mwm
>Than you or your finery."				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET

-- 
Yuan Chang (currently using a stupid student account)
UUCP:      {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!cs313s02
ARPA:	   uhccux!cs313s02@nosc.MIL               "Wouldn't you like to 
INTERNET:  cs313s02@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU         be an A_m_i_g_o_i_d_ too?!?