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

From: r. 'bear' stricklin <red_at_bears.org>
Date: Wed Apr 24 22:26:02 2002

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:

Richard, I have some bad news for you...

> In the early days, 1980 and earlier, people got their low-end computers, e.g.
> Commodore Pet, TRS-80, minimally equipped APPLE, etc, into the house under the
> guise of being able to do useful works with respect to the household ...
> generically referred to as "balancing the checkbook" but not limited to that.
> They were seldom used for that. They were tools for self-amusement/abuse,

Today, in 2002, people get their low-end computers, e.g. e-Machines,
Gateway, Dell, minimally equipped COMPAQ, etc, into the house under the
guise of being able to do useful works with respect to the household ...
generically referred to as "getting on the internet" but not limited to
that. They are often used for just that, but few people notice that it's
seldom anything close to 'useful'. They are tools for self-amusement/abuse.

These things are, functionally, computers, though they are really consumer
toys.

> Later on, a wide range of video toys became available. These enabled the
> kids, equipped with an old TV set and an RF modulator, to play various
> on-screen games which amused the kids for a few days or even a week. They
> were smuggled into the household under the guise of providing
> amusement/education for the kids. With the expenditure of vast sums of money,
> one ended up with pretty much what one would end up with following the path
> above, spending probably about the same amount of money, overall, yet they
> still really were toys.

A small array of video toys are available. They enable the kids, equipped
with an old TV set and an A/V cable, to play various on-screen games which
amuse them for a few days or even a week. They are brought openly into the
house (I guess at least this much has changed) under the guise of
providing amusement/education for the kids. With the expendiuture of vast
sums of money, one ended up with pretty much what one would end up with
following the path above, spending probably about the same amount of money
overall.

> If one wanted a computer, and didn't have to fool anyone about what it was, or
> why it was being acquired, one bought a computer. It cost about the same
> amount as the stuff in the two paragraps above, but it was integrated such
> that it would function from day 1 as a computer. Often it was an S-100 box,

I have worse news: today, it's called a Macintosh. Before you argue with
me, consider that nobody in their right mind would want to buy a computer
with less than 10% market penetration, without a pretty compelling reason.

I find that most Mac users I talk to have compelling reasons for owning
Macs. People that want a PC will buy a PC. People that want a Mac will buy
a Mac. People that want a computer will buy a PC (though IMO they would be
better served with Macs, but that's solely my own opinion and you're not
going to change it, so please don't try).

On another note, I concede that Byte is not the best price guide, but it's
the resource I had available. I'm still skeptical the difference was THAT
great.
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 22:26:02 BST