🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <507@sunfs3.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
>In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>>Sigh.  The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy
>>everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the
>>Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed.  That isn't
>>what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed;
>>it's what it *is*, though.

[lot's of stuff deleted about capabilities of machines old and new]

>Yes, Apple is making a nice profit, but no, they are not suddenly
>screwing you any worse than when you bought your first Macintosh, and
>it must have seemed a good enough deal to you then.

The flaw in this argument is that Apple sold the Macintosh as a
concept.  The machine for the rest of us. With that concept was the
promise of great software in the future.  Apple was selling a promise
and, rightly or wrongly, lots of us bought it. 

Think about how disappointed you will be if that new release of brand
xyz word processor you like and use will require virtual memory? Will
that happen? Probably not, in most cases. Hopefully software companies
won't be stupid enough to ignore all the installed pluses and se's.
The one certain thing is that you can't be sure anymore. The promise
is no longer there for the older machines.


----
Stephen Kurtzman        |    "You might be the largest Elizabeth, but
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu |     Elizabeth is still a good name to have if
                        |     you're a girl." -- the Roches