Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!att!mtune!rkh
From: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: MacWeek pans the Apple II
Message-ID: <7964@mtune.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 89 13:47:50 GMT
References: <8903182055.aa02142@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> <9106@claris.com>
Reply-To: rkh@mtune.UUCP (Robert Halloran)
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 20

In article <9106@claris.com> krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) writes:
>The rumor was that MacWeek is going to publish an article/editorial/story
>on the obsolescence of the Apple II.  This would mean, naturaly, that at
>least one indicator of the Mac community thinks the II >should< be killed
>off.

The last article in MacWeek about the imminent demise of the ][ was quoting
someone from an 'educational consortium', NOT anyone from Apple!  I agree
with the net's sentiments that the Apple ][ isn't receiving enough backing
for a system with 4.5 million installed units, but quotes from people on the
outside badmouthing the system aren't necessarily echoing the sentiments at
Cupertino, are they? (I hope)

						Bob Halloran
=========================================================================
UUCP: att!mtune!rkh				Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM
USPS: 17 Lakeland Dr, Port Monmouth NJ 07758	DDD: 201-495-6621 eve ET
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.
Quote: "Well, if it wasn't Buckaroo Banzai, I'd say 'commit the man.'"
		 - where else?