🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd like to hear some arguments convincing me to stay with a sinking
ship, Atari.

In 1986 I bought a top-of-the-line, leading edge piece of hardware, a
1040STf with a colour monitor.  Seven years later, this computer is far
too slow for the things I do (even for _programming_; forget DTP,
animation, and rendering).  It's a dead-end for the things I _want_ to
do when I graduate (human interface design, learning research, human
factors research, etc), and the things I do now in the real world
(technical writing).  It's still servicable as a word processor for
school and it (eventually) gets the job done for some of my other
interests (programming).  And I've got some fun games.  :-)

I'd like to know why I should buy a TT or Falcon030 (but I would never
consider the current model... too limited, too much of a hassle to set
up properly on my desk, too expensive for what you get) instead of
buying a nice new Mac IIci or IIvx or IIvi or whatever I can get a good
deal on.  You can't give me arguments like, "I don't like the
interface!" (after all, I've been using Spectre for about two years
now), or "I don't like Apple's lawyer squad!".  I want real, useful,
_convincing_ arguments.  And yes, I'm already aware that there aren't
really any decent games for the Mac...  That's changing though, and I
don't usually play that many games (other than NetHack/Omega).

Let 'er rip folks.  If I'm going to have to replace all of my software
anyway, I'd rather do it with _quality_ software with a decent
interface.  Right now, a '486 system with OS/2 on it is looking _very_,
_very_ attractive.

-- 
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca