DMG4449@RITVAX.BITNET (09/20/88)
After receiving a rather large number of varried responses, I have compiled replies to everyone's messages. It is also my understanding that someone is capturing all of these messages and sending them over to AppleLink as well. Brint Cooper (MIL%"abc@BRL.MIL") says: > 1. The Apple II is a well-established line with a large > software base, some from Apple, some from other commercial sources, some > from "public domain" or other non-profit sources. Apple aggressively > marketed its 8-bit machines to the education market from the beginning > of the IIe and perhaps earlier. I agree with you perfectly there. Apple has always (and is still continuing) put a special effort to sell the Apple //'s to the educational market. > 2. IBM has not been terribly successful in pushing Apple > out of the elementary school market. There are several reasons for > this: > a. The Apple machines are there and they do the job. > To reconfigure with IBM machines would cost money that local school > districts and individual PTA organizations do not have. I have several responses to this statement: 1. For the most part, the Apple's "do the job" but at the rate at which technology is advancing, they could become inadequate. Last year, I went to a private high school. We only had Apple //e's at our disposal. The Pascal packages availabe for it were too slow or inadequate. We were forced to buy CP/M cards so that we could run Borland's shoddy translation of Turbo Pascal on the no problem. This was very inconvenient and really inadequate. 2. Public schools -do- get LOTS of money, rememeber, every resident in a town pays school tax, regardless of whether they are sending their children to school. Whereas, in private schools, money is much more scarce, only several hundred people contribute to the cost of education. Most public schools can afford virtually any- thing, IBM, Macintosh, etc., but its the private schools that don't have the money. > b. The teachers (many of whom are "computer anxious") > have become comfortable with the Apple II environment. Yes- but very few of the true Apple // supporters (like many of the people here) are teachers. > c. As stated above, there is a large base of software > from many affordable sources. The base continues to grow. yup > 3. Thus, Apple is "here to stay" in the elementary > school systems of the country. NOT if they don't keep up with what education wants to see regarding computer capabilities. > Further, many parents want to give their children an extra head start in > school, so they buy for them a computer. And they buy the *same* > computer that they will use in school -- an Apple IIe or IIgs. This cycle could end if another machine appeals to the market better. Those same people seem to be wanting to buy their children a Macintosh before they go to college. Apple doesnt push the GS at the college level AT ALL, but they offer discounts for the Macintosh and really encourage college students to buy them. John A. (edu%"andromeda!arcaresse@galaxy.rutgers.edu") writes: > Seems as though they're killing the II, so that > that users will upgrade to the MAC line. If that was Apple's objective, they would have come out with a GS co-processor board by now for the Macintosh (which I know many Macintosh developers have been requesting!) Keith Rollin (Apple Technical Support -- keith@apple.com) writes: > Gee, what can I say. You wrote an excellent letter. It was calm, objective, > full of facts, and fairly accurate. Of course, there were lots of comments > born of ignorance of Apple's future products, but there is nothing either you > or I can do about that. Thank you keith, interestingly enough, a person whom I will quote later feels quite differently about my letter. I hear lots of rumors about future Apple products. Apple developers do leak that information, but theres lots of gossip, rumors, and changed plans it seems.... > On the whole though, you have an accurate picture. There are not as many > resources devoted to Apple II products as there are for Macintosh. There are > many reasons for this, not all of which I agree with or can easily swallow. > One of these reasons is that there are far more engineers who want to work for > the Macintosh than there are for the Apple II. We can barely keep the > programmer who is working on ProDOS 8 - no one wants to keep working in the > 8-bit world when there are other attractive ones available. Also, there is > a big push in Marketing to put the Macintosh into all environments; look for > the Macintoshes at AppleFest (oh, wait...you're in New York...). But you > get the idea. I sure do get the idea. This is the major point I'm trying to make. Apple marketting, etc. are giving us the short end of the stick! > But that isn't the sentiment of everyone here. There are plenty of people who > work with me in Apple II Developer Technical Support and Evangilism. We all > would love to see the Apple live forever. That's why I'm here. It isn't my > job to listen to USENET; I do it because I think Apple II users deserve all > the support I can possibly give them > Anyway, nuff for now. You can flame to me about Apple's policies all you want, > but don't expect any changes in what goes on in Marketing. I work in Developer > Technical Support; I take questions over electronic mail on how to program the > Apple II and try to answer them. There are over 8000 people at Apple, and my > voice is very small. But I *CAN* listen. Keith has a great attitude about this. If every one of those 8000 people had that attitude, the GS wouldn't be where it is right now (and the GS+ wouldnt be 12-18 months away...) I bet Apple doesn't even care that Keith spends time on Usenet talking to developers and other people. He probably does a lot of this on his own time. Joe (com%"craparotta%kyoa.DEC@decwrl.dec.com") writes: > Having had an Apple // since early 1981 I can AGREE with everthing you have > said!! It's really sad how this has happened. Apple had made a critical > mistake of forgetting WHO/WHAT got them where they ARE TODAY!! Plus the fact > that without the // line Apple is a ONE Computer Company. They are NOT that > good to stay alive like that. IBM,DEC they're not... John Terranova (EDU%"dogie!terranova%vms.macc.wisc.edu@CSD1.MILW.WISC.EDU") > 1) If Apple is abandoning (or trying to) the // line then why have people > like Keith been hired to offer tech support? Why is he so eager to let > people tell him their complaints so he can pass them on to the powers > that be. Yes, Apple has made mistakes, but it is necessary to look at > what they are doing right now, today, before passing judgement. It seems > that at Apple is trying to correct some of their old wrongs. Several responses: unless they totally dump the // line (which apparently they claim they aren't by the intro of the //c+ and the vague announcement of the GS+) they always need developer tech. support -- besides, some developers pay $1000/yr. to talk to people like Keith. Apple was lucky to get such a dedicated employee as Keith, they probably didn't really care. I still don't feel any better about Apple since the latest breaking news (which includes the large price increases on all apple products remember!) > 2) Apple has two separate computer lines. One of them has a history of > being an educational tool. How many of you (us) learned Applesoft BASIC > in school? Let's see a show of hands. After atleast 5 years of being > a school tool, many advanced computer users have a difficult time using > that same machine (or a derivative, thereof). Businesspeople, engineers, > scientists and so on see the Apple // being used a lot in schools and > have a tough time accepting it as a serious work-horse. No, it is not > logical reasoning, nor is it rational, but who ever claimed that people > are rational? Because of this bias these people who need high-power > computers block out the // mentally as a viable option. Apple in encouraging this stereotype by telling customers this and by not brining apple // enhancements out faster > I feel this is a major > deficiency with the // family - no good, inexpensive compilers There are some nice compilers coming out for the GS (TML, Orca, APW, etc.) and just think of how better they will be with a faster clock speed and/or 32 bit power. > I do not believe the claim that Apple is letting the // fade away. > Look at the trends: new employees to bolster the // and offer previously > non-existent tech support, development systems from Apple for the GS (APW) > that never existed for any previous //, more third party high-level languages > like C and Pascal. But Apple is NOT giving an equal amount of support to the // as to the mac thats the point! > PS Apple, now that I tried to build you up and defend you, I hope you > do not make me out to be a liar. Apple Marketing will make you a liar eventually I'm sure.. Jeremy G. Mereness (edu%"jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu") writes: > The Apple // has a huge amount of potential. It is not, as you seem to imply, a > machine that is limited in its capabilities or has reached its last limits. > Western Design Center has chips in the works that would make the // into a > parallel processing machine (the 65c825) as well as a 65c832. All of these are > compatible with the present gs and would continue the line and the > open-architectured environment of the // series. > Therefore, it becomes very frustrating to those of us who have the computers t o > see Apple restraining that potential because of a "Marketing Idea." As a > student in engineering, I do not credit the logic of breaking a machine's legs > to keep sales up. Agreed! A year and a half is too long to wait for this- its not necessary! > Further, how long will this "safe zone" work for Apple? True, Apple has the > education market in the bag. For now. They want to do the same for the > University market. But what will happen when educators want more power? When > the want their machines to interface with their administrative mainframes and > workstations? You say the GS+ will not excite anybody. If that is true, that i s > Apple's fault for deliberately downplaying the machine. But the GS+ will STAND > ON ITS FEET when compared to other contemporary machines, which is what can be > expected from Apple as a computer company. I think educators will begin to > think about this as the // line fals farther and farther behind. And IBM is no t > standgin still. They are inching their way into Apple's hold of the educator's > market. That hold wil surely decay, if it is not fed somehow. > I'm sorry about this, but I loathe people and companies who find a safe niche > and then rest on their laurels and do nothing until something inevitably kicks > them out I agree with this letter to the tee! Apple has sat around with the //, coming out with far less advances than have evolved with the Macintosh. They have to announce the GS+ now, or they are going to lose it. They have never pulled that stunt before, but they see now that if they don't show the // community that they are doing SOMETHING (even if it is light years away) they could lose their educational market as well as all of us! Russell C. Buyse (purdue!convex!buyse) writes: > How do I understand thee? Let me count the ways... > I understand thee in thy spelling, thy grammar, and thy reasoning... ****FLAME ON**** Every other person I have received a reply to regarding my message has spoken intelligently regardless of whether they had agreed or differed in opinion from me. Russell, you resort to counting my typographical errors (I'm really sorry, I type 75 WPM, and I have a bad habit of not running a spell checker or proofreading- everyone else, including Keith at Apple seemed to understand my message!) and you also resort to chalenging my sources (Computer Reseller News- award winning weekly reseller newspaper, as well as various registered and certified apple developers). Why would I lie? I don't have to sit here and play a game with you, but I will let your words be said and let everyone judge for themselves (though your opinion seems to vary with many people---including an Apple employee. Oh, by the way, Russell, I'll make sure to send all my mail to you so you can add your [sic] comments to all my spelling, grammar and (mostly) typos ****FLAME OFF**** ----------------------------------Original Flame----------------------------- > ...if it wasn't for the fact that the Apple // line >kept continuing to raise millions upon millions of dollars for them, they >would have just assumed dropped [sic] it alltogether [sic]. Why would *any* company continue to design, build, and support a product if it was *not* profitable for it (the company) to do so? It certainly is not wise to do so merely for old times' sake. (*Comment*) - If you remember, Apple was built from the garage of Woz, though everything that Apple Marketting and execuitives have done in the fast few years have worked against that community spirit that Woz has. He built the Apple's as low-cost powerful machines. > ...There has been a strong >rumor circulating for a long time that someone high at Apple (supposodly [sic] >Sculley) has wanted to stop the entire Apple // line. What the blazes is a "strong rumor"? Is that something like "insiders say", or "sources within ..."? It certainly is no more a reliable indicator that pure hearsay, which is what it is. Also, the fact that this rumor has been "circulating for a long time" does not lend credibility to it in any way, shape or form. (*COMMENT*) - I can't reveal my sources, just as a newspaper can't reveal theirs, but my sources were various, un-related, and "connected with Apple" >...Examples of apple's >less adequate support of the // series is the following: ProDOS was being >developed 1-2 years before it was released, and the project was killed >entirely at least several times (I had found a beta version of ProDOS >about a year before it was released, and it was about 80% complete). Apple II programmer's worth their salt know that ProDOS was an offshoot and subset of SOS (for the Apple III). It was originally an afterthought to bring ProDOS to the Apple II, presumably for the interim period between the then-present and the ultimate future of the Apple world shifting to the more powerful Apple III. Evidence of this 'temporary' operating system is present in the fact that ProDOS only accounted for 5 years in clock support; when 1988 came, older versions of ProDOS believed that it was (I believe) 1982. (*COMMENT*) - NOW LOOK WHO IS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. How do you know SOS wasn't an afterthought of one of the original attempts with ProDOS? I would say that ProDOS has evolved quite a bit more than SOS, if it was so similar, they might as well have updated it for the Apple /// (or a third party might have) but I don't see it. >Computer reseller magazines as well as other information sources have >confirmed the fact that Apple is pushing its dealers around - if they >don't push the Macintosh, they could get their Apple authorization taken >away. Computer reseller magazines, eh? Have you ever heard of quoting sources? What magazines, what columnists, what are their sources, and do any of these have a vested interest in reporting these alleged actions? And is it also possible that these dealers simply were not performing up to their agreed quotas, and FOR THAT REASON faced the possibility of losing their Apple dealership? (*COMMENT*) - Computer Reseller News mostly, I don't save back issues and you probably wouldn't have access to the magazine, and I don't have the will or the time to find where exactly the information was extracted from, but I assure you, it was printed. Re: Apple dealership - maybe thats a possibility, once again, an assumption you have made, but giving everything else that Apple has been known to do in the past few years, it seems quite possible that Apple has done this. >... This rumor has even extended to far [sic] as to the fact that Apple >reps went to talk to members of the ASCII group, a group of computer >reseleers [sic] that sell Apple products, but had just made an agreement >with Commodore to sell the Amiga. Wait! Is this a RUMOR, or, as you stated in only the sentence just prior, is this documented in some 'reseller magazines'? (*COMMENT*) - this was commented several weeks ago in CRN. Computer Resale has a whole network of information sources which you are obviously ignorant of (and condemning without even knowing about---they were probably quite a bit more informed than you are.) >Apple didn't want the Amiga to have any sort of prominant [sic] display >in the store, and made that perfectly clear. That tactic is definetely >[sic] immoral and unprofessional (though I'm sure anyone at Apple will >deny everything- they always do). Sources, sources! Where are your sources? Denials? What reason could Apple have to deny an allegation that is not even substantiated? I suppose that regardless of whether this allegation is true or not, a denial by Apple Computer, Inc. would constitute a cover up, and would implicitly prove that misdeeds were taking place! (*COMMENT*) - you certainly are getting off the subject now. The original point was that Apple was not treating the // line right. You are off on a tangent and really arent presenting any convincing evidence otherwise except your bias opinion and obcession with spelling, grammar, and MY information sources (at least I have some besides myself- unlike you) >...One thing I like about IBM is that at least >they tell you when they are planning to release new machines and the >specific features they will have. [sic] Apple plays this game of no >talking until the day something happens. This makes it harder for >someone to plan for the future. If you mean by this that IBM announces its products long before it delivers these products, I agree with you. In fact, the same complaint could be made of Apple Computer, Inc., with regard to the introduction of the Apple IIGS; the shortage of Ensoniq DOC chips caused the IIGS to be in short supply well into January of 1987 when the machine was announced in September of 1986 and originally scheduled to ship in volume in October of 1986. (*COMMENT*) - that was a production problem - the GS wasnt announced until it was available. The GS+ was announced earlier this week, but I bet that is part of the Apple Marketting strategy - watch- theres plenty of time for apple to "delay" the release of the GS+ too. >Until very recently, Claris didn't even care about the Apple // enough. A qualitative statement at best, since 'enough' is not defined in your text. I might also point out that the software offered by Apple Computer (before Claris) *mostly* consisted of Appleworks, and system disks. Now Claris has purchased StyleWare, and will be releasing Appleworks GS in October. Is this 'enough'? What exactly *is* enough? (*COMMENT*) - that is yet to be seen. It was far from enough previously >The technology now exists to make a much more powerful GS- in fact, the >technology exists to make a machine that will run all Macintosh and // >software (though it would cut into the Mac or // sales, and they wouldn't >want that to happen). Technically possible, yes. Expensive, yes. Practical, no. The technology exists to have a Cray-2 that runs Mac and Apple II software, but is it worth it? Is it affordable in the microcomputer marketplace? (*COMMENT*) - expensive- not necessarily, practical, probably (even for apple marketting). Your analogy is rediculous >With all the money and the rather high margins that both Apple and the >dealers make, they could at least provide some decent tech/upgrade service. Agreed! I find the technical knowledge of most of the dealers that I have had associations with to be terribly lacking and commonly miserable. >Apple has already had rather large margins...I am fully aware that >ram prices have jumped (just at about the time they offered the extra >256k in the gs!), but the ram prices are starting to gradually go down >again. They still make lots of money. Should a company take a financial squeeze on the chin solely because it can? Certainly low margins could increase sales, and certainly this would please some customers. But if you scalp your margins, you scalp yourself. And likewise you leave your customer hanging out to dry since you probably will not offer as much support for your product as your users will require (and demand). Just consider the relative merits of the support that Commodore and Atari have given to their machines every step of the way. I personally would not care to trade places with them. (*COMMENT*) - once again, I would like to remind you of the goals Woz had for apple and how they have deviated away from them. There are many criticisms that can be made of Apple Computer, Inc. and the way it has handled numerous different situations. However, you have hammered on a number of issues that lack merit, substantiation, or simply would not be prudent to pursue as company policy. (*COMMENT*) - quite a few other people have presented views that differ from yours. Could YOU be wrong? Every week I read at least 2 postings like yours that add nothing of value, nor add any *constructive* criticism to the policies at Apple Computer. Rather than crying out as an infant to "make it better", think about your arguments, consider your position and that of Apple, then try to contribute something of value to better the situation. I agree completely that the support the Apple II line in the past and the present is not up to the standards that it should be, though it is improving; as a professional computer scientist and software writer, I find this abhorrent. As a consumer and as an Apple II owner, I find the marketing of the Apple IIe and particularly the Apple IIGS to be questionably aimed and dubiously pursued. It is in our interest to amend those policies which are faulty, and to build support where it is currently lacking. It is my goal to have an Apple II that can fulfill the needs that it can best serve while still retaining the inestimable quality of being an Apple II. -Russell Buyse. (*COMMENT*) - well...Russell, you seem to be in the minority. Quite a few people felt this issue was important and relivant enough to continue this long with it. -----------------------------------------end message------------------------- Larry W. Virden (EDU%"osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU") writes: > If > _I_ were a president of a computer corp and wanted to drop a micro line, > I doubt that at the same time I would be pumping the amount of $$ into > new research and development that Scully is spending (not just promising!) > on the apple II - I mean, after the departure of Jobs, we got a IIe SCSI, > a IIe Appletalk, a IIe CD-ROM interface card - all in 2 years! This is > MUCH more than we got in 5 yrs before! How much MORE support of the II > do you want to see? How about 3 or 4 major updates of Prodos 8 in the > last 2 years - you got it (bug fixes/updates). How about Updates to > Basic.System? System Disk 3.2 has them - first updates in about 5 or mroe > years! You DONT waste money fixing software for machines that you are > dropping completely! You sell off inventory. In fact, as you will hear > today if you are at AppleFest, Apple is ramping UP production of the IIgs > line, since they are outselling their production of the machine, and > are ramping up selling of the IIc+ or whatever they are going to call it. For the most part, the enhancements Apple has made to its line are rather standard to the industry- IBM has quite a bitof networking, CD-ROM interfacing, and very economical hard drives (much more widely in use!). Its obvious that Apple isn't dropping the line NOW, but they still aren't giving it enough attention! > On the other hand, Look at MacBasic which was developed and I believe even > to the SHRINKWRAP stage for the MAc and was dropped! Look at the numerous > laptop versions of the Mac that have started and been dropped! EVERY > _good_ computer supplier has projects which they start and stop - LOTS of > them. I program for a living. I could not count the number of times I > have 'started' a project and been forced due to shifting priorities to > move off it, to cancel, reschedule, recancel, etc. the projct. That is > the facts of life in a fast moving environment. I agree with you - but this is just another example of many that I have used, even if you were to remove this consideration, it doesnt change the situation much! -->When Apple had marketted all of its software, it had much more for the Mac- -->intosh than the Apple //. Until very recently, Claris didn't even care > Are you sure? That isnt how _I_ remember it. I remember seeing > things like Appleworks, Apple Access II, Instant Pascal, Apple Pascal 1.3, > Apple Business programs, etc Quite a bit of software - most of which > disappeared I will agree after Claris... sigh. But EVERY business is > capable of making numerous mistakes - how about promises of an OS which > just keep getting delayed, over and over - no, not the GS/os - something > called OS/2 ... Really- most of those programs were lousy. Instant Pascal was rediculously slow and toyish, ProTERM or even many of the PD terminal programs make Aple Access // look like a joke, Apple Pascal 1.3 is MUCH too slow, and Claris has not developed anything for the GS- they bought another company that has. Lets not get into OS/2- wait and see what happens with it... > Let's not blame Apple for the decisions made by a now separate group . Though > Apple may have SOME say in what claris does, they are legally a separate > entity, out from under the 'reins' of the Apple II supports at Apple. And > there are several in the higher ranks of Apple. I've heard a RUMOR (yes, a RUMOR) that Apple was considering buying Claris (or was it APDA) back. Even still, Claris merely followed apple's lead! > Why should apple flood the distribution channels with a stop gap measure of > SD 3.2 when SD 4.0 was to be announced during the 3rd week of Sept? What > kind of company would we have accused them of being then? Instead, back in > May/June, they began to give to commercial developers the beta version of > SD 3.2 so that the 8 bit software could be tested and more bugs, etc identifie d. > Next it was released to the development community in July via APDA - the > only official channel for such releases. It was NEVER intended for the > general populace, since 4.0 was designed to have the fancy manuals, etc and > REAL users complain if they have to buy 2 upgrades in a single year. All I can say is that they should have AT LEAST informed their dealers as to the situation. There has been confusion across the country about this, and quite a bit on the net! > Apple Legal Evangelists seem to be much more tigher fisted in the Apple > II line than in the Mac line. Gee, I wonder why... :-) > Note that I doubt that it costs too much more than $200 for the Mac+ or maybe > even the Mac SE - ALL Apple's CPUs are 'over priced'... And they JUST RAISED THE PRICES UP TO 35%! > What IS it that you want from Apple. It sounds like you want, for free, > Apple to continue to make and sell every computer that they ever sold. Do > you expect this from EVERY manufacturer? I sure cannot go out and buy a > 1935 model refrigerator - or a 1965 - or a 1985! Wow, I guess I should > really get upset that if I bought a refrigerator in 1985, and if the > manufacturer doesnt continue to sell that model along with the 86, 87 88 and > the new 89 models... No, I want apple to dump the //e, //c, //c+ (a joke- what a lousy attempt to cut into the laser 128ex, not even an expansion slot!). I want apple to continue to develop their apple // line and support it at least to the same extent as the macintosh if not more! > Well, you asked for opinions. Above are some of mine. Note that on other > days, my opinions and yours sound more alike :-). What it boils down to > is that there are emotional responses to corporate entities. The > larger the entity, the less 'humane' it feels. What I would suggest is > that all of us attempt to make human, rational contact with at least one > Apple employee. Discuss our likes and dislikes in a one on one, non > confrational environment. Laugh some, cry some, spill our guts some. > Dont expect to find out what is coming down the pike, but expect to get > back into touch with the old Apple in some ways - the human side of Apple. > Don't get discouraged when the black hats occasionally show up to try to > tie our 'Nelly' to the railroad tracks. There are quite a few Apple II > supporters at Apple, and if we give these folks our support, and help, > we can perhaps make more of a difference than just belly-aching. > How about a surprising approach by this group at this time? How about > a discussion of the POSITIVE steps that Apple owners could take to achieve > their desire to see the Apple II sold as a fully functional computer, rather > than the little brother of education that many think of it? > I will start the ball rolling: > 1. Buy Apple stock and attend stock holder meetings. First and foremost, > Apple has to be committed to those who 'own' the company. So, if you want > change in a company, put your $$ where your mouth is - but LOTS of stock and > then VOTE! I'm a college student. I can't afford to buy Apple stock and won't be able to for quite some time... > 2. Write positive suggestions for change to Apple officers and copy the > Apple magazines. DONT do this if all you are going to do is gripe - I > dont personally want to read a lot more baseless griping in the A+s, etc. > of the world. > now it is your turns! Sounds like a good idea. Send any suggestions my way, I'll be glad to compile them and send them via certified mail to Apple! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK- there we have it. Everyone who has written a pertinent letter regarding this issue to me has had a chance to speak, and I have had a chance to comment on it. I welcome any further discussion of this, all I ask is that we keep flames to a minimum (by not writing messages like Russell did). Please keep the ball rolling. I'm watching, listening, and waiting... Sincerely, Daniel Box # 1026 Daniel M. Greenberg 25 Andrews Memorial Drive Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 Computer Engineering Technology '92 BITNET : DMG4449@RITVAX INTERNET : dmg4449%ritvax.bitnet@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU UUCP : {psuvax1,mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!dmg4449 Compuserve : 71641,1311 GEnie: D.GREENBERG2 PHONENET : [716] 475-4295 <between 9am-10pm please!> "The answer is 42." "I hate quotations." (Deep Thought) (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (09/21/88)
In article <8809192113.aa03477@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> DMG4449@RITVAX.BITNET writes: > Most public schools can afford virtually any-thing, IBM, Macintosh, > etc., but its the private schools that don't have the money. This hasn't been my experience, but private schools aren't as prevalent where I grew up. The tuition-charging private school in my area has a Knowledge Navigator prototype, while the public schools I attended are still struggling with C-64's. Public schools in Ohio are generally funded through property tax revenues, and depending on your area's demographics, these are difficult or impossible to increase. If you have a big industrial base, then revenues are easier to come by, since the valuation is usually greater.