🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <71@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes:
>It's clear to me anyway, that Atari's management has lost faith in the
>ST line's ability to compete in the long term with the IBM clone market.
>That would explain their reluctance to spend the money to finish the job
>they started: provide documentation, software, firmware, and hardware
>inhancements.

I would take this one step farther and say that it is clear to me, that
Atari's management has no faith in Atari Corp.'s ability to compete in
the long term with the entire US computer market, especially the business
market.

They can't compete now with even the real IBM PS-2 market, leave alone the
low-end clones.  IBM has a better VAR program, is more cost effective
(from a business stand-point), and you get the name with it!  You would
have to be a stubborn fool (like me) to use the Atari name on a business
product, when you could have IBM at the same cost (and far less in the long
run).

If somebody wants an Atari-based multiuser system, we'll sell it.  But when
they look at a our IBM PS-2, or Compaq 386 based system for about the same
price, guess which one they chose?

I'm not saying that the PS-2 is a better machine (I still hate that damned
intel chip)... but you gotta sell'em what they want to buy (and if it's
easier, why not?).
-- 
David Beckemeyer			| "To understand ranch lingo all yuh
Beckemeyer Development Tools		| have to do is to know in advance what
478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610	| the other feller means an' then pay
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david 	| no attention to what he says"