🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12174475176.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) writes:
>
>     There are several ways you can build and market a computer
>to replace (or compete with) some other computer:
>(1) build a better machine and charge more
>(2) build a better machine and charge the same
>(3) build a better machine and charge less
>(4) build an equivalent machine and charge less
>(5) build an inferior machine and charge less
>
	So, what do you think is the classification of ST ???
	If #5, in comparison to what ??? There is something
	called price/performance ratio, and ST is well placed
	with that respect.
>
>This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but
>not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a
>serious application is going to want the machine to be on the
>market for some time so his software product would be saleable.

	Are you saying that if there is 5,000,000 ST's out there,
	than a developer will ignore it simply because it somehow
	appears to be a throwaway computer because of its cost ??
	How about the market forces exerted by a product like ST ??
	Or did atari make a mistake by not pricing their hardware
	in some inflated fashion ?? And just what is a throwaway
	computer ?? C64 ?? Apple ][ ?? Perhaps our stance from
	VAXinated ivory towers does not quite mesh with what
	that 13-year-old thinks of "throwaway" computers. I have
	a feeling that how the ordinary folk think about a computer
	is much more important than how this entire net thinks about
	a computer.
Oz
	


-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.