🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <581@runx.OZ> James Tiberius Kirk@runx.OZ (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <764@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>>In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes:
>
>    Now, are these same people going to have money to spend on a program you
>    have written? I doubt it. If they don't have US$300 to spend on an upgrade
>    they don't have money to spend on software.
>
>    I am *NOT* saying "Get a ROM/Drive Upgrade or Else!", I am in no position
>    to make such demands.
>
>    The point I was making was that if an individual doesn't have the money
>    to spend on a ROM/Drive Upgrade, he obviously hasn't the money to buy
>    software, and is therefore out of the market for that software.
>
>    There is a considerable body of software which appeals to individuals
>    and *NOT* corporations. So, if you can write a better program using
>    128K ROMs than 64K ROMs, and your program targets affluent individuals,
>    then I say "Go ahead and ignore the 64K ROM machines!".
>
>    Apple has gone out of its way to make the upgrades affordable. If there
>    are people who cannot get any of the upgrades, that's OK. But pampering
>    to 64K ROM users who haven't got the money to buy the software seems a
>    little more than odd.
>
>    Features like window zooming are easy to case out - HOWEVER, there are
>    many other routines in the 128K ROMs that cannot be. You can always
>    write some workaround code if you want, but this 64K ROM implementation
>    is likely to be inferior to the 128K ROM one.


	One problem with the above. If I had the choice between buying a good
piece of software OR getting a drive upgrade I'd get the software.

	Just because people can't justify the expense of the drive
doesn't mean they can't justify software.
-- 
	Nick Zentena

	zen@utcs {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}

	I don't need no stinking signature