phil@eos.UUCP (Phil Stone) (12/21/88)
In article <420@solaria.csun.edu> ecphssrw@solaria.csun.edu (Stephen R. Walton) writes: >In article <Dec.18.20.38.03.1988.3117@topaz.rutgers.edu> >armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: >>Regarding the 'killing off' of 1000's: >>TRUE! There are many 1000 owners out there who will not fork over the >>$$ for a 2000! > >Yes, but it also seems to be true that not many 1000 owners want to >upgrade their existing machine either, judging by the underwhelming >suppport ASDG got for their 2000-and-1 quasi-announcement.* I fear >that the truth is, if you want significant expandability, you'll have >to get a 2000. > And yes, I put my money where my mouth is: I took the $$ I saved >last summer for an A1000 hard disk and replaced it with a 2000 instead. >I'm not sorry, though I'm still hard-disk-less. Perhaps some of us want to upgrade, but don't view a computer as something that must reside permanently in one particular piece of real estate. I would love to have most of the features of the 2000, but can't imagine traveling with it, which is a very important requirement for me. As I received little feedback to my questions about 2000 portability (luggability?) I must conclude that *nobody* moves the damn thing from the first place it is set down. Before I am flamed for asking for the moon, let me just point out that portables, to say nothing of the tremendously successful laptops, have been an important part of the success of IBM/compatibles, and the technology exists to make this possible. Doesn't anybody else desire power *and* portability? BTW, why did you direct followups to alt.flame? That hardly seems called for in this case. Phil Stone (phil@eos.arc.nasa.gov OR phil@eos.UUCP)