NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/st/20929

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca!semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca!cherborth
From: [e-mail] (Chris Herborth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: InterZONE Design
Subject: Re: Why Atari can't succeed in the United States
References: <[e-mail]> <)>   <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:19:00 EST
Lines: 22

In <[e-mail]>, Annius Groenink writes:
> Nonsense.  Why didn't the Mac replace the IBM then?  I don't think you can
> say Apple 'blew it'.  Anyway, I don't believe any of the stories of 'Atari not
> being able to compete'.  Those stories have always been there.  There is no
> reason why Atari couldn't go on at the same profile: a small market and not
> very competitive prices, but the only machine below UNIX that you can call a
> decent choice for architecture and style, not money.

The Mac didn't take off for several reasons:

1) You were paying much more for less powerful hardware.
2) Mutant disk structure... only recently has DOS/whatever conversions
   become important and actually usable.
3) Apple was _very_ slow in getting hard drives working with Macs.  There
   were a few 3rd party products but they were _very_ slow (over the
   serial port!) and _very_ expensive.  By then, most PCs came with hard
   drives at apparently no extra cost to the consumer.

--
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
[e-mail]