palegray@reed.UUCP (Prometheus Hawthorne) (09/22/87)
[If there is such a thing as the Line Eater, why are you reading this?] I have a Tandy 2000. The programs I have for it, plus the very attractive design of it, make it a very nice computer to have. Being that the graphics are excellent, even by todays higher standards, there are many graphics intensive programs that make it look very cool. Before I go to classes in the mornings I leave it in displaying a map of the earth, satellite orbits, with technical phrases scrolling by in Russian. You have to do something when you take Russian and orbital mechanics. In aiming it at architects and their offices, they came out with an array of neat ergonomical products for it. Like a floor stand and monitor pedestal. The only products that would fit that they don't carry, are a drafting board and a sitting stool. But then again, most architects probably have them already. So, I'm pleased. And yet, to my memory, comp.sys.tandy has never had a single article posted that even mentioned the machine. Now it has.
paradis@encore.UUCP (Jim Paradis) (09/23/87)
In article <7279@reed.UUCP> palegray@reed.UUCP (Prometheus Hawthorne) writes: > I have a Tandy 2000. The programs I have for it, plus the very >attractive design of it, make it a very nice computer to have. I agree. It's a wonderful machine. I used to own one. In fact, I was the first kid on my block to own one (got it 2/14/84). I also got rid of it eventually. Why? Simple: I couldn't stand Tandy's cavalier approach to supporting the machine. Not only did it have a proprietary bus architecture and was hardware-incompatible with just about everything in existance, but Tandy did NOTHING to encourage third-party development for the machine! As a result, you were stuck with Tandy's meager-and-wildly-overpriced selection of hardware and software expansion options or nothing at all. Not only that, but I eventually had it with dealing with Tandy salespeople. If I wanted to do something that was not part of one of Tandy's prepackaged solutions, they were lost. You ask them a question on item availability or pricing, and the first (and only) thing they do is pick up the same glossy catalogue that you and I get and look it up. I'm educated, and I don't need anyone to read the catalogue to me, thank you! Anyhow, I now have a chop-suey PClone with a 12 MHz baby-286 motherboard, and I couldn't be happier... +----------------+ Jim Paradis linus--+ +--+-------------+ | Encore Computer Corp. necntc--| | | E N C O R E | | 257 Cedar Hill St. ihnp4--+-encore!paradis | +-------------+--+ Marlboro MA 01752 decvax--| +----------------+ (617) 460-0500 talcott--+ You don't honestly think ENCORE is responsible for this??!!
talmage@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (09/23/87)
I take it then that you are pleased with your 2000.
I also own a 2000, and am glad to see that someone else on this planet
owns one. Its graphics are excellent, and it's overall design is
very powerful (although I haven't seen that many programs which can
use all of its features).
The only problem I find with my 2000 is the inability to get software
which actually works on it (short of writing my own).
If anyone out there has some public domain 2000 programs, please mail me.
Thanks.
Steve Talmage ( talmage@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4,seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!uiucuxe!talmage )zog@laidbak.UUCP (09/25/87)
>> I have a Tandy 2000. The programs I have for it, plus the very >>attractive design of it, make it a very nice computer to have. > ... > >I also got rid of it eventually. Why? Simple: I couldn't stand Tandy's >cavalier approach to supporting the machine. Not only did it have a >proprietary bus architecture and was hardware-incompatible with just about >everything in existance, but Tandy did NOTHING to encourage third-party >development for the machine! As a result, you were stuck with Tandy's >meager-and-wildly-overpriced selection of hardware and software expansion >options or nothing at all. Part of the problem was that the Tandy 2000 was one of the first (if not the first) of the PC+ machines. The thing was that since this machine pre-dated the AT, there was no precedent as far as going beyond the basic PC architecture. Too bad being "MSDOS compatible" wasn't enough. Soon after the release of this machine, the AT set the standard as the next generation. It did have some good points though, it had some really good graphics capability (back when IBM had only the CGA). Unfortunatly, the standard that Tandy chose wasn't to be a standard either. The software price was also a thorn. I don't think it was so much overpriced, it just wasn't available anywhere for a substantial discount. Therefore you were forced to pay publishers list price (does anyone really pay $695 for 123 for a regular PC). I think they learned from their mistakes with the current PC lineup. There seems to be a push to stay much closer to the standard now than ever before. Christian G. Herzog ihnp4!laidbak!zog