Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!crash!pnet01!sreeb
From: sreeb@pnet01.cts.com (Ed Beers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: SLM804 woes
Message-ID: <3728@crash.cts.com>
Date: 17 Jan 89 03:16:16 GMT
Sender: news@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 25


 .
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:
>In article <13403@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
>> Atari seems to be *enforcing* their "upgrade policy" 
>
>Not necessarily.  Did it occur to you that not using those sockets could
>reduce the price of manufacture? You don't get "power without the price"
>unless you take every cost-cutting measure you can, especially in
>manufacture, where every $0.10 saved per board translates into big
>numbers on the bottom line.
>
>============================================
>Opinions expressed above do not necessarily	-- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
>reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.	  ...ames!atari!apratt

While I can appreciate the need to cut costs, I think most of use would be
willing to pay $5 extra for ram sockets.  After all, many ( most? ) of us with
520s paid atleast $50 for ram upgrade boards, piggy back soldering.  In this
case ware the only savings is in holes drilled it is almost inconcievable that
we customers would be unwilling to bare the expense.

UUCP: {cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc}!crash!pnet01!sreeb
ARPA: crash!pnet01!sreeb@nosc.mil
INET: sreeb@pnet01.cts.com