🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5JAN93.09425752@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> csullogg@cc4.crl.aecl.ca  
writes:
>...
>As for Darek being level headed and right, that's a crock. Read
>my previous post describing how I am right in my assessment
>of upgrading an Atari vs a PC. Darek is making his comments in
>light of today's environment; not with the historical picture
>in mind.
>
>Why do you think he was an Atari enthusiast at one time? Could
>it be the Atari had a user freindly operating system and a great
>price when the alternative was an XT with DOS 2? Darek is
>way off base in his arguments because it focuses on today's
>market. Remember, I was referring to the last 7 years of the
>market place.

What you fail to realize is that, in making decisions about purchases in  
today's market, it is _only_ today's market that matters.

Your argument that because STs _used_ to be cheaper than PCs means they  
are better today is like saying that, because the Cray YMP was the fastest  
computer for the money five years ago still implies that it is the best  
choice today, which simply is not true.

Markets evolve, so what is cheapest today is not what was cheapest five  
years ago.  Indeed, the XT->AT->386->486 route was not a good one for PC  
owners, but the 486 onward should be OK.  Video modes are unlikely to  
improve much (except adding colors), and most of the PC hardware is  
stable.  I forsee minor upgrades of PCs to be rather easy in the future.  

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that PC operating systems are  
crap.  Use that as your argument to promote the ST.

In short, your arguments are far from convincing.
--
William Magro                                       NeXTMail welcome
wmagro@uiuc.edu