🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep5.163800.18684@tamsun.tamu.edu> lusty@lusty.tamu.edu (Lusty  
Wench) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.153807.17981@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  
(Jim De Arras) writes:
> >
> >He can't do anything about it, Philips TV's look just as bad.  It's an issue  
of  
> >phosphers.  Sony has the best, the best red in specific.
> >
> >Jim
> 
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  Here you have a guy in
> management who is not only open to suggestions but who is even
> *anxious* to hear specific ways in which they can improve their 
> product, and all you can do is say "forget it, you don't stand a 
> chance".  I guess it's more fun to complain about why something 
> is a piece of junk than it is to offer constructive suggestions 
> on how it can be made better.
> 
> 
> Lusty Wench

Perhaps I was too abrupt in my reply.  The difference between Sony and Philips'  
colo[u]r CRTs is historic, and a matter of pride to BOTH companies.   Philips  
thinks their phospers look better than Sony's.  I used to work in broadcasting,  
and we used Philips's cameras (actually Norelco) at the time, and were very  
pleased with the image quality, but only on US or Sony monitors.  Philips could  
never sell us a monitor.

I applaud any effort to provide constructive feedback, and don't mean to sound  
like a complainer.  But to my perspective, this issue was 'resolved' a decade  
ago, and I just don't see Philips changing their mind now over a complaint from  
NeXT users.  But by all means, give it a go!