Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed Apr 24 20:52:15 2002

Whatever debate there may be about the qualification of a piece of DEC
hardware as a computer, the price alone was sufficient to remove any suspicion
that it was a toy.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc_at_mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)


> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > >
> > An easy way to spot a product intended for the toy market as opposed to
one
> > intended to be seen as a computer, is that the disk drive interface is
> > external.
>
> Jeez, Dick. I can't believe you dragged me back into this. Where did
> you find that little tidbit of inductive logic?
>
> You're calling the entire DECstation 5000/2xx line "products intended
> for the toy market as opposed to one intended to be seen as a computer",
> since they have no internal mass storage. Do I think that was a great
> design? No. Did _anyone_ _ever_ mistake them for a toy? Get a grip.
> No matter whether or not you _like_ those DECstations, or a score of
> other application-oriented computers that had external-storage-only
> designs, that statement is just ludicrous.
>
> Given the price of storage in the timeframe you're discussing, the
> capacity to share disks and drives between computers without dismantling
> the machine was a very good idea.
>
>
> An easy way to spot a Microsoft/Intel patsy is his tendency to present
> his own [generally incredibly narrow] viewpoint as immutable fact.
>
> Doc
>
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 20:52:15 BST