Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!zodiac!joyce!sri-unix!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Can Amiga reach for the Sun?
Message-ID: <613@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 88 00:15:10 GMT
References: <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes:
>... does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a 
>Amiga 3000?
...
>Perhaps the Amiga 500 needs to be renamed, or the 2000.  A clear seperation
>must exist in order for the people to seperate game machine from 
>business system (no offense 500 owners!).  Business people do not want to
>buy a computer that has the same name on it as a machine that would be
>available at Toys-R-US.  They want a "elite" feeling.

This is just why there should be an A3000.  The businessperson will sure
get that warm, fuzzy "elite" feeling running a 25 MHz 68030.  Especially
since he or she can run the same programs his kids do on their A500 at
home.  And he or she can use the same programs at home as a work (if
more slowly).  I don't think it would be good for this machine to have a
different name; the name should say "the same, only better."  "Mac II"
is a good name in this way.

The only problem with the 2000/500 distinction is that the differences
don't seem all that convincing to the average businessperson.  After
looking at both, he or she might think "well, the 2000 doesn't seem all
that much flashier than the 500, and I know the 500 is a game machine*,
so maybe I should stick with a Mac."  Having a fast, sexy 3000 should
help that problem.

* Not my opinion, that of a mythical businessperson.  Don't flame me
  about this.

-Peter Schachte				"Clean water?  I'm for clean water."
pds@quintus.uucp				-George Bush
..!sun!quintus!pds