From: mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Mac OS vs. TOS (was Re: Falcon Graphics
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:38:37 GMT
Organization: SPC Community Access System

In article <1992Sep8.204415.22154@actrix.gen.nz>, James.Hampton@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.131121.3800@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>> > The pick of the wizard of Wall street is a Mac Classic II?  Sounds
>> > like the wizard turned himself into a clown!
>> 
>> Hehe, that is always the first sign that a rebuttal has no substance...
>> when the person resorts to namecalling.  Nice try.
> 
> Hehe, rebutting someone with no substance requires no substance.  If
> someone with your pretensions adorns himself with clown examples and 
> argument then I should describe what you are: a clown.

Listen, I would love to debate with you, but please leave the
juvenile namecalling behind.  If you have a point, make it.  I
thought my first post was clear.  Rather than rebut the substance
you choose to make insults.  I think that says a lot about the
quality of your argument.

>> No, it is not "my pick".  At work I use a MacIIfx and a Quadra 900
>> and at home I use a 486-33 (soon to be 66mhz).  However, I can tell
>> you (and any knowledgable salesperson will tell you) that the Mac
>> Classic II and the Mac LC (a lowly 68020 machine) probably sold more
>> units in the last 3 months than Atari sold in the last 2 years.
> 
> Make up your mind Mr. Bojangles.  You "picked" an example of something
> you wanted us to compare with the Falcon.  Now instead you deny it
> was your "pick" and want to shift your argument to a comparison of
> sales?  So if your friendly narcotics dealer said that he sold more
> crack cocaine than the corner drug store sold aspirin, cocaine must
> be a better product?  Stick with your original argument of comparing
> Mac Classic IIs with the Falcon and _defend_ it.  Unless you can't.

What are you talking about?  Where have I said that the Mac is
better than the Falcon?  I don't have to defend the Mac Classic II.
It is a very sucessful product (Apple can't build them fast enough!).
I am just pointing out that there are other alternatives that a
comparable to the Falcon in features for roughtly equivalent
amounts of money.  What do I need to defend?

>> At computer stores in NYC, they cannot keep Mac Classic II's on
>> the shelves, while Atari products gather dust.
> 
> Notice how this clown shifts his argument to Apple marketing and 
> sales?  And how he neglects to mention whether Atari Falcons would
> gather dust when people could compare them with Classic IIs.  We
> are waiting for you to _defend_ the merits of the Classic II
> against the Falcon.  Stop playing games and wasting our time.

Marketing and sales.  That is what kills Atari's products, not
the technical features (though the TT was an incredibly hacked
up machine).  As I said, I don't have to defend the Classic.
I think its sales figures do that nicely.  You should know by
now that a technical niceties are not what sell computers.

> 
>> > [My request to add up features of the Falcon]
>> 
>> Perhaps, you're average computer buyer doesn't want/need these
>> features or is unwilling to buy into a company with a shady
>> track record to get them?
> 
> Thanks for being the mouthpiece for the masses.  Unwilling to
> buy from a company with a shady track record?  Who's buying
> millions of cheap quality clones from mail-order companies with
> names similar to Fast Eddies Clone and Car Repair Shop?  Clowns
> like you, that's who.

I think this is irrelevant.  The PC compatible market is such
that commodity pricing is starting to take effect.  The only
way manufacturers can distinguish themselves is through
price/support since almost all the machines have pretty much
the same basic features.  There is really no reason not to
buy from one of these companies, especially if you do a little
research and learn about who you're dealing with.  As far as
people who buy from companies with shady records, where does
that leave you?  If my PC breaks, I have literally thousands
of places that I can go to get it repaired and tens of
thousands of places to go for parts (so I don't get gouged
on the parts prices).  Can you make that claim?

> As for buying from Atari, millions of recent Lynx buyers
> _disprove_ your claim.  And if they find the Falcon just as
> _unique_, they'll probably buy it too.  Understand?

I agree with you on this one point.  The Lynx has found
a market.  Atari should stick to things they are good
at - making/marketing products like the Lynx if they want to be
a profitable company.

>> Besides, you can buy a 486-box with [blah blah...].. you
>> get the picture.
> 
> Only the picture of Red Skelton with you.  Now your "pick"
> is a 486?  Your original pick of the Classic II wasn't so
> good or something?  Will you defend the 486 pick as well?

No, I don't think so.  I am just illustrating the point that
there are several different alternatives to the Falcon which
a buyer can get for equivalent amounts of money and expect
better hardware/software support.  You can make all the
insults you want, but you cannot change reality.

>  
>> What am I driving at?  The Falcon may or may not be a good
>>  [blah blah...]
>   
>> > Take a week and report back what the extras would cost us.  Thanks
>> > for helping us ignorant folks out.
>>  
>> Chris
> 
> We're still waiting for the report.

I have no intention of doing such a thing.  I think I have made my
argument quite clear.

Cheers,

Chris

p.s. Perhaps, if the assorted Falcon apostles will stop crossposting,
     I can return to mac/pc groups and enjoy the increased S/N ratio
     and leave all these Atari people in peace with their computer
     choice...