Richard Erlacher wrote:
> What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a TV for output, and the MAC
> didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I suppose, use TV output, but it
> could do it at resolution much better than 640x200, and had a full range of
> colors at a time when the MAC and PC didn't.
I don't remember much about the Amiga but TV video was a big aspect
because
community channels would often use them for display devices. Local
football
team plays sunday... girlguides are selling cookies... place your
message
here. What I really remember is that dumb bouncing ball demo.
What I remember about the Mac was it only had 128k memory,since I had
a Dr Dobbs magazine on upgrading one to 512k.
> First of all, within any market segment, investment in improved technology
> increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market segments,
> however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
> than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
> generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge" systems
> by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of the
> PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II. The
> PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped uVaxII
> cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what you
> had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the power
> cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
> PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
> expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government clients,
> since there would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
That is true but at one time DEC was competitive with technology and
price,
then the suits took over.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
Received on Thu Jan 24 2002 - 23:18:33 GMT