lbg@gitpyr.UUCP (Lee B Grey) (03/13/86)
In article <125@tetra.UUCP>, rupp@tetra.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: > In article <361@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > As for the PC Jr., I think that is the exception which proves the rule > (whatever that means). IBM did NOT have an automatic lock on the > low-end home market. IBM had to compete on something approaching even > terms with Apple, Commodore, and Atari. Which means that the Jr. had to > succeed on its own merits. The potential buyer, mostly not people > caught up in the IBM syndrome, looked at the Jr. and asked, "What have > you got to offer?" The Jr., obviously deliberately crippled by its > manufacturer, failed. I have a PCjr, and I'm quite impressed with it. It's like having a PC at a third of the price. You only give up one-stroke function keys and DMA (no typing while the disk is being used). I think it's a hell of a deal. I wouldn't want to do serious development on it (that's what my Amiga is for!), but it's great for word processing, running Managing Your Money, playing the occassional game, hacking, etc. I think it is very interesting to see IBM running PCjr commercials, after they stopped making them. Maybe it'll make a come-back! Lee