Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!isishq!f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG!izot From: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: A better C128 term (was Re: DesTerm gripes) Message-ID: <2385.2474E388@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Date: 19 May 89 14:00:26 GMT Sender: ufgate@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.25) Organization: FidoNet node 1:221/171 - Izot's Swamp, Kitchener ON Lines: 39 > From: fred@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Bowen) > Message-ID: <6917@cbmvax.UUCP> > >In article <2372.24724227@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Geoffrey Welsh writes: > >If Commodore drops the c64, I think Atari or Japan Inc. will fill the void > >with a similarly priced clone and clean up. I dunno how you (or your software) got the idea that I wrote that. I know that C64 sales volume is still too high to merit cutting it off completely, although I have noted declining development support from many third-party vendors. What worries me is the C128. While certainly a far more useful (computing-wise) machine than its predecessor, it is between a rock and a hard place: its price puts it too close to the PClones for comfort. In Europe, the 128d was introduced to lower the cost (and, therefore, the user price) of a C128 system and side-step the PClone problem for a while... it does not seem to have had that effect here in North America. I would like to see Commodore produce a C128-derived system that would offer the more "needed" features (80-column screen, fast serial bus, 128K memory) and drop the ones not often used around here (Z-80 & CP/M). Since the system exists and works, R&D costs should be low. The overall price should come down a bit, meaning that it would not be compared directly to PClone systems, and its uses would not be as restricted as the C64's. Or is Commodore not interested in preserving the C128, given that the PClones poised to take over its market completely include a couple of Commodore models? Geoff -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG