From: pietrzak@sparc7.cs.uiuc.edu (John Pietrzak)
Subject: Re: Mac OS vs. TOS (was Re: Falcon Graphics
Summary: Welcome Back Chris!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:21:14 GMT

Welcome back Chris!  I just new you would come back some day to lead
all of us ungodly minor-brand-pc minions into the light of the 
large-market-share computers. :) I just can't let your amazing list
of facts and figures go without some humble commentary of my own.

In article <1992Sep8.131121.3800@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.031117.11123@actrix.gen.nz>, James.Hampton@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>  
>> The 68030 in the Classic II is crippled with a 16-bit bus.  If you
>> also think a tiny mono monitor is some kind of bonus then you must
>> be into S&M.
>
>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.
>At computer stores in NYC, they cannot keep Mac Classic II's on
>the shelves, while Atari products gather dust.

Wow, that's incredible.  You know, I didn't know that.  In fact, I'm going
to trash my current machine and run out and buy a Classic II, just because
everyone else is too.  I hadn't realized just how important it was that
so many people were buying lowly Mac LCs and Classic IIs.  Oh, btw, could
you tell us again why you don't own an LC or a Classic?

>> An analyst such as you shouldn't have any problem adding up the 
>> few extras included in the Falcon.
[... long, long, list :) ...]

>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?

You're right, I don't want/need those features.  I spend most of my time
in front of a vt100 emulator, I certainly don't want graphics or sound, I
wouldn't know what to do with them. :) It's also true that I'd prefer to
buy machines from a company which sues the rest of the industry regularly,
or from one which never seems to keep up with the hardware abilities of the
clone makers, rather than one with a shady track record.

>Besides, you can buy a 486-box with all of the features you
>describe except the DSP (I don't know much about DSP...sorry)

(you can get DSP on an 80x86 box too, at a price)

>running OS/2 (pre-emptive multitasking) for less than US$2000.
>And you won't have to worry about where you'll find software
>for your machine, or video boards, or sound cards, or...you
>get the picture.

Hmm, have you ever used OS/2, Chris?  Know anybody who does?  Know any
amazing software written for it?  (Other than WordPerfect, that is. :)
Let us also consider that on the Falcon, you get DSP, pre-emptive 
multitasking, software, video, and sound for less than US$1000.  Funny 
how that looks against your 486-box.
 
>What am I driving at?  The Falcon may or may not be a good
>machine for the money, but you can buy comparable hardware
>from other more reliable manufacturers with better support
>track records, and a large installed base of software for
>roughly the same amount of money.  Whether that other pc
>is of the Intel flavor or Motorola flavor depends on the
>whims of the buyer.

Hmm, at first I thought you were giving a comparison between the Classic II
and the Falcon.  But, let's forget that.

Fact: the falcon is aimed at a specific niche in the market (the low-end 
   hardware/games people, if such still exist).
Fact: the falcon, at the rumored prices (I still believe the cost will rise),
   costs less than most of the more general-purpose pcs when given 
   similar hardware.
Fact: people who desire a higher level of support, speed, or software base
   will NOT want this machine.

For people who fall into the fact 3 category, your above thesis applies.
However, for those who don't, your above thesis is incorrect.  You will
find, I believe, that further arguments between Atari fans and your
Big-Name-Brand-Is-Better belief will be relatively pointless, since most
of us don't care about fact 3.  (This is, of course, my opinion.)

Thanks

John