The Mac was outsold from 1984 to 1990...
Edwin
http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
ROTFLMAO
Chance Furlong
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> By the Commodore C64!
>
> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
>
> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
Why did you not post this in comp.sys.cbm?
Edwin
"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:T-Bone-AB687E....@news.giganews.com...
Would that have made your pain any less?
Steve Mackay
Maybe this is why :)
http://gizmodo.com/5435561/my-second-imac-is-busted-too
MuahMan
OUCH! This deserves it's own thread. I'll take care of it.
MuahMan
Heh. Apple beaten down by Donkey Kong.
Chance Furlong
Edwin
"Steve Mackay" <mackay...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hhb7r5$im7$1...@news.albasani.net...
LOL
Thanks, Steve.
Edwin
The pain of the shame you feel for Apple.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Tell us, Edwin:
Which company is still in business selling computers?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Edwin
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-638AE...@news.shawcable.com...
> In article <XE8_m.11613$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> ... by the Commodore C64!
>>
>> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
>>
>> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO
>
> Tell us, Edwin:
Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
> Which company is still in business selling computers?
Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
> "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix
> with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin
> on Mac OS X)
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
> on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
I must have hurt you pretty badly for you to hold a grudge all these years,
as evidenced by your collection of out of context snips. I wonder if you
intend to have all of that engraved on your tombstone one day. :-D
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-638AE...@news.shawcable.com...
> > In article <XE8_m.11613$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ... by the Commodore C64!
> >>
> >> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
> >>
> >> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO
> >
> > Tell us, Edwin:
>
> Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
What schizophrenia would that be?
>
> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
>
> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell and
Commodore got out of the business.
Now will you answer my question?
>
> > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
> > "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix
> > with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin
> > on Mac OS X)
> > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> > 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
> > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
>
> I must have hurt you pretty badly for you to hold a grudge all these years,
> as evidenced by your collection of out of context snips. I wonder if you
> intend to have all of that engraved on your tombstone one day. :-D
LOL
--
Tim Murray
Apple did beat Commodore. Look at the chart.
KDT
How many computers did Dell sell between 1985 - 1990? IBM? HP?
Compaq?
You do realize that Apple sold *three* lines of computers during that
time period, don't you?
Tommy the Troll
Wow, Jeremy used to be an active CSMA participant. That article was
born of posts he made here trying to straighten out all the wild
claims of both sides.
Quadibloc
> ... by the Commodore C64!
> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
Macintosh.
Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
this is supposed to be a surprise?
And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?
John Savard
Lloyd Parsons
<0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
and so did the Atari 400/800/1200
But both companies were dropping prices so fast trying to kill the other
off, they basically drove each other out.
Edwin
> In article <7ka_m.127907$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-638AE...@news.shawcable.com...
>> > In article <XE8_m.11613$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>,
>> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ... by the Commodore C64!
>> >>
>> >> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
>> >>
>> >> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
>> >> PC?
>> >>
>> >> ROTFLMAO
>> >
>> > Tell us, Edwin:
>>
>> Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
>
> What schizophrenia would that be?
Normal people don't refer to themselves as "us," Alan.
>>
>> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
>>
>> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
>
> Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell and
> Commodore got out of the business.
You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling Apple's
24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology past
1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
> Now will you answer my question?
Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing how to
compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore were
still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
Edwin
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:hhbi8c$5pm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It only took six years for 24 bit and 32 bit Macs to "beat" 8 bit Commodore
machines? It had nothing to do with being unable to sell 1970's technology
past 1990? LOL
Look at the chart indeed. Apple went from having its arse handed to it by
Commodore to having its arse handed to it by PC makers. LOL
Apple has always been and always will be nothing but a niche player, nothing
but an "also ran."
Edwin
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
"I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
Macintosh."
I can't see that either, but who cares? I'm comparing computer sales to
computer sales, not pocket calculator sales to computer sales.
"Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
this is supposed to be a surprise?"
It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
"And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?"
The chart screams "NO" at you!
Edwin
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-AE95...@port80.individual.net...
> In article
> <0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 1:36 pm, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > ... by the Commodore C64!
>>
>> > If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
>> > PC?
>>
>> I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
>> computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
>> Macintosh.
>>
>> Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
>> this is supposed to be a surprise?
>>
>> And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?
>>
>> John Savard
>
> and so did the Atari 400/800/1200
Neither Atari nor Commodore outsold the PC makers between 1984 and 1990.
Have somebody teach you how to read a chart.
> But both companies were dropping prices so fast trying to kill the other
> off, they basically drove each other out.
Stop revising history! Atari had nothing to do with the demise of the
Commodore 64, which is still sold as the Commodore One! Whoa, aren't you
surprised? Reality kicks Lloyd in the arse again! LOL
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Bullshit Edwin. Apple, Atari and Commodore were all locked in with
competing 6502 based computers. Apple took the high road and survived.
Atari and Commodore took each other on to see who could drop prices
faster and literally drove each other out of the game.
The Atari ST series and the Commodore Amiga were the last gasps of dying
companies.
The Commodore One, while maybe the same as the Commodore 64 are not
produced by the same company at all. It is a small company trying to
make a buck on technology that is very far out of date. I suppose to
get those last few geeks that loved that box's last few bucks.
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Yet in all that arse handing, Apple is still around, still very
profitable and growing again.
From then until now, most of the others that were so big and good are
gone or gone from the PC business. The few that are still in are
struggling to make good profits from the PC business.
Back in the day, my personal preference was Atari. Faster than both the
IBM and Apple, and sure as hell priced better, it was the mfg I liked
the best.
One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
IOW, Commodore couldn't handle the business side of business and failed
horribly.
IF doesn't mean squat!
Edwin
How is that different from what I wrote?
> IF doesn't mean squat!
Does thinking that soothe the pain of the Mac being outsold by the Commodore
64?
Edwin
> In article <Mko0n.2135$Sk4...@newsfe10.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhbi8c$5pm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >> ... by the Commodore C64!
>> >>
>> >> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
>> >>
>> >> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
>> >> PC?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Apple did beat Commodore. Look at the chart.
>>
>> It only took six years for 24 bit and 32 bit Macs to "beat" 8 bit
>> Commodore
>> machines? It had nothing to do with being unable to sell 1970's
>> technology
>> past 1990? LOL
>>
>> Look at the chart indeed. Apple went from having its arse handed to it
>> by
>> Commodore to having its arse handed to it by PC makers. LOL
>>
>> Apple has always been and always will be nothing but a niche player,
>> nothing
>> but an "also ran."
>
> Yet in all that arse handing, Apple is still around, still very
> profitable and growing again.
Apple only "grows" when the market in general expands, but their reletively
small niche never rises above 4%.
> From then until now, most of the others that were so big and good are
> gone or gone from the PC business. The few that are still in are
> struggling to make good profits from the PC business.
Yet the market is still dominated by PCs running Windows, and Apple is, as
always, an "also ran."
> Back in the day, my personal preference was Atari. Faster than both the
> IBM and Apple, and sure as hell priced better, it was the mfg I liked
> the best.
Thanks for proving my point.
> One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
> drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
> paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
I never experienced such a thing with my C64.
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
That is worldwide and pretty specious of you to use that number. The US
share is much higher. And when compared to any individual wintel mfg,
it is a very nice number, call it niche if you will, it is a profitable
niche.
> > From then until now, most of the others that were so big and good are
> > gone or gone from the PC business. The few that are still in are
> > struggling to make good profits from the PC business.
>
> Yet the market is still dominated by PCs running Windows, and Apple is, as
> always, an "also ran."
>
> > Back in the day, my personal preference was Atari. Faster than both the
> > IBM and Apple, and sure as hell priced better, it was the mfg I liked
> > the best.
>
> Thanks for proving my point.
>
Proving what point?
> > One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
> > drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
> > paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
>
> I never experienced such a thing with my C64.
Then you never tried it, or did try it after Commodore fixed the problem.
It is a fact, it is funny and is just one of the foibles of those 6502
computers.
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
there was no pain as at that time I didn't care what Apple nor Commodore
did. I didn't like either. Apple 'cause it was grossly overpriced and
Commodore because I didn't think it was any better than the Atari 6502
boxes. And they keyboard on the C64 was complete mush compared to just
about any other keyboard out there.
Edwin
Thanks for warning everybody your next words were going to be BS.
> Apple, Atari and Commodore were all locked in with
> competing 6502 based computers.
No, the Commodore was based on the 6510. That's why it could address 512
MB, with bank switching.
> Apple took the high road and survived.
Apple was in a high priced elitist niche even before IBM brought out the PC.
Adobe had more to do with Apple's survival than Apple did itself!
> Atari and Commodore took each other on to see who could drop prices
> faster and literally drove each other out of the game.
The price war was started by Texas Instruments, not Atari or Commodore, and
TI was its victim, not either Atari or Commodore. Both went out of
business for more complex reasons than your simplistic attempts at revising
history try to claim.
> The Atari ST series and the Commodore Amiga were the last gasps of dying
> companies.
The Atari ST was no match for the Amiga, and Commmodore's failure was due to
officers of the company who ran it into the ground for their own personal
gain.
> The Commodore One, while maybe the same as the Commodore 64 are not
> produced by the same company at all.
The point is the Commodore 64 was not put out of the market by Apple. The
Commodore One is not the same as the C64, it's backwards compatible with it.
> It is a small company trying to
> make a buck on technology that is very far out of date. I suppose to
> get those last few geeks that loved that box's last few bucks.
Could be. How many companies are selling products based on the 1984 Mac?
Isn't it funny how an 8 bit, $200 C64 had color and a stereo sound
synthesizer while the $2000 1984 Mac was black and white (not even
grayscale) with mono sound? Even in the early days before the IBM PC the
Mac was a crappy deal. LOL
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
same chip more memory, still 6502 code.
> > Apple took the high road and survived.
>
> Apple was in a high priced elitist niche even before IBM brought out the PC.
> Adobe had more to do with Apple's survival than Apple did itself!
>
and Visicalc
> > Atari and Commodore took each other on to see who could drop prices
> > faster and literally drove each other out of the game.
>
> The price war was started by Texas Instruments, not Atari or Commodore, and
> TI was its victim, not either Atari or Commodore. Both went out of
> business for more complex reasons than your simplistic attempts at revising
> history try to claim.
>
TI certainly did do some price dropping! But Atari and Commodore were
in it strongly too. They both had the opportunity to compete agains
Apple in the higher end and chose not to. At the time, that turned out
to be the wrong move, imo.
> > The Atari ST series and the Commodore Amiga were the last gasps of dying
> > companies.
>
> The Atari ST was no match for the Amiga, and Commmodore's failure was due to
> officers of the company who ran it into the ground for their own personal
> gain.
>
In audio the ST was more than a match for the Amiga. And was expected
to get better if they had been able to get the 'Amy' chip in there.
Alas, it wasn't to be, as Atari died before they could get it to silicon.
And unfortunately for the audio market, Amy never saw the light of day.
> > The Commodore One, while maybe the same as the Commodore 64 are not
> > produced by the same company at all.
>
> The point is the Commodore 64 was not put out of the market by Apple. The
> Commodore One is not the same as the C64, it's backwards compatible with it.
>
> > It is a small company trying to
> > make a buck on technology that is very far out of date. I suppose to
> > get those last few geeks that loved that box's last few bucks.
>
> Could be. How many companies are selling products based on the 1984 Mac?
> Isn't it funny how an 8 bit, $200 C64 had color and a stereo sound
> synthesizer while the $2000 1984 Mac was black and white (not even
> grayscale) with mono sound? Even in the early days before the IBM PC the
> Mac was a crappy deal. LOL
In the scheme of things, who really cares who is making an 8 bit home
computer today? There isn't enough of a market for a company to really
do well. And it doesn't matter which 8 bit you pick, they are all old
and obsolete.
Compared to the IBM PC, Apple was not a crappy deal. The IBM PC had
only one real saving grace to it, it had the IBM name which gave it
instant acceptance, even though it was one of the poorest machines out
there. Slow, buggy, overpriced were all good adjectives to describe it.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-C0513...@news.shawcable.com...
> > In article <7ka_m.127907$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-638AE...@news.shawcable.com...
> >> > In article <XE8_m.11613$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>,
> >> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ... by the Commodore C64!
> >> >>
> >> >> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
> >> >>
> >> >> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
> >> >> PC?
> >> >>
> >> >> ROTFLMAO
> >> >
> >> > Tell us, Edwin:
> >>
> >> Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
> >
> > What schizophrenia would that be?
>
> Normal people don't refer to themselves as "us," Alan.
1. This is called a news*group*, Edwin. Hence, more people than I will
be reading what you post.
2. Like many people, you make the ignorant mistake of misunderstanding
what schizophrenia is.
>
> >>
> >> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
> >>
> >> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
> >
> > Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell and
> > Commodore got out of the business.
>
> You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling Apple's
> 24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology past
> 1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
I count still being in the business a victory, yes.
>
> > Now will you answer my question?
>
> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing how to
> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore were
> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
LOL
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
LOL
>
> > From then until now, most of the others that were so big and good are
> > gone or gone from the PC business. The few that are still in are
> > struggling to make good profits from the PC business.
>
> Yet the market is still dominated by PCs running Windows, and Apple is, as
> always, an "also ran."
LOL
>
> > Back in the day, my personal preference was Atari. Faster than both the
> > IBM and Apple, and sure as hell priced better, it was the mfg I liked
> > the best.
>
> Thanks for proving my point.
>
> > One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
> > drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
> > paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
>
> I never experienced such a thing with my C64.
LOL
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 1:36 pm, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > ... by the Commodore C64!
>
> > If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the PC?
>
> "I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
> computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
> Macintosh."
>
> I can't see that either, but who cares? I'm comparing computer sales to
> computer sales, not pocket calculator sales to computer sales.
>
> "Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
> this is supposed to be a surprise?"
>
> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
How well is that "lesson" proving to have worked for Commodore? How much
money are they making selling computers today?
>
> "And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?"
>
> The chart screams "NO" at you!
--
KDT
> "Tim Murray" <no-s...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
So is Dell doing better than Apple these days? What about Lenovo?
Toshiba?
Edwin
> In article <Eco0n.2034$5m....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-C0513...@news.shawcable.com...
>> > In article <7ka_m.127907$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
>> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:alangbaker-638AE...@news.shawcable.com...
>> >> > In article <XE8_m.11613$yM1....@newsfe11.iad>,
>> >> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> ... by the Commodore C64!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> PC?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ROTFLMAO
>> >> >
>> >> > Tell us, Edwin:
>> >>
>> >> Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
>> >
>> > What schizophrenia would that be?
>>
>> Normal people don't refer to themselves as "us," Alan.
>
> 1. This is called a news*group*, Edwin.
When did you find out?
> Hence, more people than I will
> be reading what you post.
You'll still only be speaking for yourself, regardless of how many people
read the group.
> 2. Like many people, you make the ignorant mistake of misunderstanding
> what schizophrenia is.
According to the little voices inside your head.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
>> >>
>> >> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
>> >
>> > Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell and
>> > Commodore got out of the business.
>>
>> You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling
>> Apple's
>> 24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology
>> past
>> 1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> I count still being in the business a victory, yes.
Either what I wrote above is beyond your comprehension, or you really enjoy
making a fool out of yourself.
>>
>> > Now will you answer my question?
>>
>> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing how
>> to
>> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore
>> were
>> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
>
> LOL
Yet another time when words failed you.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Whether I speak for one or more than one, if you post something you are
telling it to the *group*, not just to me. Hence "us".
>
> > 2. Like many people, you make the ignorant mistake of misunderstanding
> > what schizophrenia is.
>
> According to the little voices inside your head.
LOL
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
> >> >
> >> > Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell and
> >> > Commodore got out of the business.
> >>
> >> You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling
> >> Apple's
> >> 24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology
> >> past
> >> 1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> > I count still being in the business a victory, yes.
>
> Either what I wrote above is beyond your comprehension, or you really enjoy
> making a fool out of yourself.
LOL
>
> >>
> >> > Now will you answer my question?
> >>
> >> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing how
> >> to
> >> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore
> >> were
> >> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
> >
> > LOL
>
> Yet another time when words failed you.
LOL
Edwin
If "specious" means "accurate, honest, and truthful." How many non-US
readers of this group do you suppose appreciate your idea that only US Mac
sales count?
> The US share is much higher.
Even if every one of Apple's sales were inside the US, it would still be a
small fraction of the number of PCs sold in the US.
> And when compared to any individual wintel mfg,
> it is a very nice number, call it niche if you will, it is a profitable
> niche.
I pick my computers according how much value I get out of them for the
money. You, OTOH, seem willing to sacrifice your personal fortune for the
greater glory of Apple, Inc.
>> > From then until now, most of the others that were so big and good are
>> > gone or gone from the PC business. The few that are still in are
>> > struggling to make good profits from the PC business.
>>
>> Yet the market is still dominated by PCs running Windows, and Apple is,
>> as
>> always, an "also ran."
Note: no answer.
>> > Back in the day, my personal preference was Atari. Faster than both
>> > the
>> > IBM and Apple, and sure as hell priced better, it was the mfg I liked
>> > the best.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>
> Proving what point?
You should well know.
>> > One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
>> > drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
>> > paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
>>
>> I never experienced such a thing with my C64.
>
> Then you never tried it,
I definetly formated disks on my C64!
> or did try it after Commodore fixed the problem.
Or you're just repeating something you were told without knowing if it were
true or not.
> It is a fact, it is funny and is just one of the foibles of those 6502
> computers.
The C64 was a 6510 computer, not a 6502.
Edwin
"KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7796a0df-be11-491a...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a computer
than I can get from Apple, Inc. That's why they outsell Apple. Both
individually and collectively.
Quadibloc
> How well is that "lesson" proving to have worked for Commodore? How much
> money are they making selling computers today?
Funny, though, how most of the computers being sold today are really
cheap made-in-China PC clones. So cheap that IBM decided to get out of
the business rather than tarnish its reputation for quality.
So maybe selling the computers people buy the most is not a stable
business to be in for the long haul, but cheaper computers of a
different kind are still being preferred to the Apple Macintosh.
But I suppose it is a valid counterargument to those who wish Apple
would make computers for the rest of us. So the rest of us will just
have to buy the cheap IBM clones, and leave the Macintosh to the
wealthy who can afford to buy only the very best.
John Savard
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
But as businesses, Edwin: are they doing better than Apple selling
computers?
Tim Murray
> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing how to
> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore were
> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
In 2000, Gateway purchased Commodore along with its trademark. I guess they
couldn't make a go of it either.
Tim Murray
> It only took six years for 24 bit and 32 bit Macs to "beat" 8 bit Commodore
> machines? It had nothing to do with being unable to sell 1970's technology
> past 1990? LOL
>
> Look at the chart indeed. Apple went from having its arse handed to it by
> Commodore to having its arse handed to it by PC makers. LOL
And whose arse is still in business, selling more and more product and making
an decent income at the same time?
> Apple has always been and always will be nothing but a niche player, nothing
> but an "also ran."
They're not doing half bad for an also-ran.
Lloyd Parsons
<eba3a25e-d9ab-427b...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
That's not a good argument.
either keep the Mac longer, thereby bringing the total cost over time
more in line with what you want
or
Sell the Mac used for a premium over a similarly equipped and aged
wintel box.
Bottom line is that the cost of a Mac isn't all that far away from
wintel boxes. And if you only count the quality wintel boxes, then the
prices are nearly the same.
Lloyd Parsons
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > One remembered thing about the C64. At one time the external floppy
> >> > drive would report it formatted fine, even when the media was just a
> >> > paper plate. I still chuckle about that a bit.
> >>
> >> I never experienced such a thing with my C64.
> >
> > Then you never tried it,
>
> I definetly formated disks on my C64!
>
> > or did try it after Commodore fixed the problem.
>
> Or you're just repeating something you were told without knowing if it were
> true or not.
No, in this case I had one at the time. I read the article about it and
tried it with a small paper plate. The C64 and its external drive
indicated that it had completed the format with no errors.
I thought it funny, still do.
Then I sold the C64, couldn't stand the keyboard.
Tim Murray
> "Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
> this is supposed to be a surprise?"
>
> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
>
Apple learned it quite well. They learned that cutting margin to the
thickness of the skin on your teeth and hoping to make it up on volume is not
the way to go.
Tim Murray
> Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a computer
> than I can get from Apple, Inc.
And I can get a better deal on the ham sandwiches at 7-Eleven than on those
at Honeybaked.
Snit
> If "specious" means "accurate, honest, and truthful."
It does not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> Apple has always been and always will be nothing but a niche player, nothing
>> but an "also ran."
>>
> "So is Dell doing better than Apple these days? What about Lenovo? Toshiba?"
>
> Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a computer
> than I can get from Apple, Inc. That's why they outsell Apple. Both
> individually and collectively.
Point to a computer that would serve my needs better than a iMac and do so
at a lower price. Do not forget to explain why you think whatever machine
you find would so so. Good luck!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
You never speak for anybody but yourself on this group.
> if you post something you are
> telling it to the *group*,
When did you find this out?
> not just to me. Hence "us".
Hence you still never speak for the group so your use of the word "us"
refers to all the little voices inside your head.
>>
>> > 2. Like many people, you make the ignorant mistake of misunderstanding
>> > what schizophrenia is.
>>
>> According to the little voices inside your head.
>
> LOL
Tacit agreement.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
>> >> >
>> >> > Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell
>> >> > and
>> >> > Commodore got out of the business.
>> >>
>> >> You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling
>> >> Apple's
>> >> 24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology
>> >> past
>> >> 1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >
>> > I count still being in the business a victory, yes.
>>
>> Either what I wrote above is beyond your comprehension, or you really
>> enjoy
>> making a fool out of yourself.
>
> LOL
So it's both? I suspected as much.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Now will you answer my question?
>> >>
>> >> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing
>> >> how
>> >> to
>> >> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore
>> >> were
>> >> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
>> >
>> > LOL
>>
>> Yet another time when words failed you.
>
> LOL
Tom is right. You are a real lightweight.
Want to mention Pixar again?
Edwin
Gateway didn't know what they were getting into when they bought Commodore.
They bought it for the patents Commodore held, not to resurrect the Amiga.
Edwin
Reread above your question.
Edwin
What does that have to do with computers?
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
>> It only took six years for 24 bit and 32 bit Macs to "beat" 8 bit
>> Commodore
>> machines? It had nothing to do with being unable to sell 1970's
>> technology
>> past 1990? LOL
>>
>> Look at the chart indeed. Apple went from having its arse handed to it
>> by
>> Commodore to having its arse handed to it by PC makers. LOL
>
> And whose arse is still in business, selling more and more product and
> making
> an decent income at the same time?
Microsoft.
>> Apple has always been and always will be nothing but a niche player,
>> nothing
>> but an "also ran."
>
> They're not doing half bad for an also-ran.
They're a footnote in computing history.
Edwin
> In article <4ro0n.1579$ZB2...@newsfe13.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 28, 1:36 pm, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > ... by the Commodore C64!
>>
>> > If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
>> > PC?
>>
>> "I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
>> computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
>> Macintosh."
>>
>> I can't see that either, but who cares? I'm comparing computer sales to
>> computer sales, not pocket calculator sales to computer sales.
>>
>> "Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
>> this is supposed to be a surprise?"
>>
>> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
>
> How well is that "lesson" proving to have worked for Commodore?
Great. They outsold the Mac for six years, and the PC makers who learned
Commodore's lesson continue to outsell Apple.
> How much money are they making selling computers today?
LOL
>>
>> "And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?"
>>
>> The chart screams "NO" at you!
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
> "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix
> with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin
> on Mac OS X)
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
> on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Alan Baker makes up quotes to show his emotional pain.
Edwin
The year has changed but your tired old lies are still the same.
Edwin
They deciding milking as much money as they can out of their rabid fans is
the way to go.
Alan Baker
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
What patents did Commodore hold that they were interested in? What is
the source for this?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
LOL
>
> > if you post something you are
> > telling it to the *group*,
>
> When did you find this out?
LOL
>
> > not just to me. Hence "us".
>
> Hence you still never speak for the group so your use of the word "us"
> refers to all the little voices inside your head.
LOL
>
> >>
> >> > 2. Like many people, you make the ignorant mistake of misunderstanding
> >> > what schizophrenia is.
> >>
> >> According to the little voices inside your head.
> >
> > LOL
>
> Tacit agreement.
I'll be sure to tell you that when you use it.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Which company is still in business selling computers?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why should I answer you question when you didn't answer mine?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Apple beat the C64 in the most important way: it continued to sell
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > Commodore got out of the business.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean after six years of 8 bit Commodore 64 computers outselling
> >> >> Apple's
> >> >> 24 and 32 bit Macs, Commodore couldn't keep selling 1970's technology
> >> >> past
> >> >> 1990? And you count that as a "victory" for Apple? ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >
> >> > I count still being in the business a victory, yes.
> >>
> >> Either what I wrote above is beyond your comprehension, or you really
> >> enjoy
> >> making a fool out of yourself.
> >
> > LOL
>
> So it's both? I suspected as much.
LOL
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Now will you answer my question?
> >> >>
> >> >> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing
> >> >> how
> >> >> to
> >> >> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore
> >> >> were
> >> >> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
> >> >
> >> > LOL
> >>
> >> Yet another time when words failed you.
> >
> > LOL
>
> Tom is right. You are a real lightweight.
>
LOL
> Want to mention Pixar again?
--
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-4A52E...@news.shawcable.com...
> > In article <4ro0n.1579$ZB2...@newsfe13.iad>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 28, 1:36 pm, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > ... by the Commodore C64!
> >>
> >> > If Apple couldn't beat the C64 how the hell could they ever beat the
> >> > PC?
> >>
> >> "I'm sure that more pocket calculators are sold than Macintosh
> >> computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
> >> Macintosh."
> >>
> >> I can't see that either, but who cares? I'm comparing computer sales to
> >> computer sales, not pocket calculator sales to computer sales.
> >>
> >> "Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
> >> this is supposed to be a surprise?"
> >>
> >> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
> >
> > How well is that "lesson" proving to have worked for Commodore?
>
> Great. They outsold the Mac for six years, and the PC makers who learned
> Commodore's lesson continue to outsell Apple.
So the goal of Commodore was to outsell Apple, and not... ...say...
...actually stay in business?
>
> > How much money are they making selling computers today?
>
> LOL
What does that mean according to you?
>
> >>
> >> "And didn't the Commodore 64 outsell the IBM PC too during those years?"
> >>
> >> The chart screams "NO" at you!
> >
> > --
> > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
> > "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix
> > with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin
> > on Mac OS X)
> > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> > 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
> > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
>
> Alan Baker makes up quotes to show his emotional pain.
I made up none of those quotes, Edwin. They are all your words. Verbatim.
Edwin
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C7679E51.5C8E0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Edwin stated in post Ahr0n.1105$YP1...@newsfe15.iad on 1/4/10 12:26 PM:
>
>> If "specious" means "accurate, honest, and truthful."
>
> It does not.
Context forever eludes the creature that calls itself "Snit."
Edwin
For the answer to your question.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
They are one of the pioneers and everyone inside and outside the
industry watches what they do closely. Some "footnote".
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
That when you define "getting a better deal" as "will cost less to buy",
you're missing the mark.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
The answer to my question is not in my question.
>
> Want to mention Pixar again?
Why would I?
Snit
There is no context where it has that meaning... at least none relevant to
the conversation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> Edwin wrote:
>>> Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a computer
>>> than I can get from Apple, Inc.
>>>
>> And I can get a better deal on the ham sandwiches at 7-Eleven than on those
>> at Honeybaked.
>
> What does that have to do with computers?
Given the context, it is amazing you could not figure that out!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
>>>
>>
>> Apple learned it quite well. They learned that cutting margin to the
>> thickness of the skin on your teeth and hoping to make it up on volume is not
>> the way to go.
>>
> They deciding milking as much money as they can out of their rabid fans is the
> way to go.
Why do you think the group of "rabid fans" has been growing so quickly over
the last few years?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
Snit is the poster boy of Mac purchasers.
When people see you with a Mac, they think "so you're just like Snit."
Snit
Please, Edwin, try to use reasoning and logic and make a point - not just
spew bizarre insults and nonsense. Thanks!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
I don't think that. Your mind reader act is a dismal failure.
Edwin
I had no problem figuring out sandwiches have nothing to do with computers.
You're projecting your limitations again.
Snit
Ah, so the many people who are buying Macs are not, in your view, part of
the "rabid fans" you talked about. Thanks for clearing that up.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
Thanks for proving me correct.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Really?
Even if Apple's market share hasn't grown that much, the number of Macs
they've sold has risen quite a lot. That means that the number of people
buying Macs has grown.
Snit
>
You failed to find a machine that would serve me better. Not surprising at
all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
alangbaker-38B03...@news.shawcable.com on 1/4/10 2:28 PM:
> In article <C1t0n.3949$XU....@newsfe03.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C767A8BC.5C940%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> Edwin stated in post 9As0n.9678$Sh7....@newsfe25.iad on 1/4/10 1:54 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple learned it quite well. They learned that cutting margin to the
>>>>> thickness of the skin on your teeth and hoping to make it up on volume is
>>>>> not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>> They deciding milking as much money as they can out of their rabid fans is
>>>> the way to go.
>>>>
>>> Why do you think the group of "rabid fans" has been growing so quickly over
>>> the last few years?
>>>
>> I don't think that. Your mind reader act is a dismal failure.
>>
> Really?
>
> Even if Apple's market share hasn't grown that much, the number of Macs
> they've sold has risen quite a lot. That means that the number of people
> buying Macs has grown.
Edwin is struggling to make a point. And failing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
See: you fail to make points - you just spew insults. Oh well, you do not
react well to your inability to follow simple context.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C767A83C.5C93E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Edwin stated in post 7Ns0n.2135$rL7...@newsfe23.iad on 1/4/10 2:08 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C7679E51.5C8E0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> Edwin stated in post Ahr0n.1105$YP1...@newsfe15.iad on 1/4/10 12:26 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> If "specious" means "accurate, honest, and truthful."
>>>>
>>>> It does not.
>>>
>>> Context forever eludes the creature that calls itself "Snit."
>>>
>>>
>> There is no context where it has that meaning... at least none relevant to
>> the conversation.
>
> Thanks for proving me correct.
>
>
See: you do not even try to make points of any value... you just make
meaningless claims you cannot support.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
No, it's not. Now reread what I told you to do above.
>>
>> Want to mention Pixar again?
>
> Why would I?
For the same reason you've been mentioning for years.
Edwin
> In article <Sqs0n.1153$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhtid5$u0c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >> Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a
>> >> computer
>> >> than I can get from Apple, Inc.
>> >
>> > And I can get a better deal on the ham sandwiches at 7-Eleven than on
>> > those
>> > at Honeybaked.
>>
>> What does that have to do with computers?
>
> That when you define "getting a better deal" as "will cost less to buy",
> you're missing the mark.
Then it's a good thing that's not what I'm doing. I'm right on the mark.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
There's nothing there that answers my question, but I'll break it down
for you.
1. How is success as a business measured?
>
> >>
> >> Want to mention Pixar again?
> >
> > Why would I?
>
> For the same reason you've been mentioning for years.
Because it amuses me to do so from time to time? Because I love watching
you squirm because you paint yourself into corners and then blame
everyone but yourself for it?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
That is precisely what you're doing.
Snit
>>>>> Dell, Lenovo, or Toshiba, all will give me a much better deal on a
>>>>> computer than I can get from Apple, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>> And I can get a better deal on the ham sandwiches at 7-Eleven than on those
>>>> at Honeybaked.
>>>>
>>> What does that have to do with computers?
>>>
>> That when you define "getting a better deal" as "will cost less to buy",
>> you're missing the mark.
>>
> Then it's a good thing that's not what I'm doing. I'm right on the mark.
I asked you to find a computer that would serve me better than an iMac and
cost the same or less.
You failed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
That's one of the myths that make Maccies a laughing stock.
> Some "footnote".
In the Big Book of MacZealot Insane Ramblings.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
LOL
>
> > Some "footnote".
>
> In the Big Book of MacZealot Insane Ramblings.
So in a book of "Insane Ramblings" Apple is a footnote. I'm glad we got
that straight.
Snit
Care to speculate how many news agencies will ignore Apple's announcement
later this month? I bet the number of agencies will be very, very small.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
> In article <txs0n.12530$Wl3....@newsfe11.iad>,>> news:alangbaker-4A52E...@news.shawcable.com...
>> > In article <4ro0n.1579$ZB2...@newsfe13.iad>,
>> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:0143b2e2-47f6-4c97...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > PC?
>> >>
>> >> computers too, but I fail to see how _that_ is a criticism of the
>> >> Macintosh."
>> >>
>> >> I can't see that either, but who cares? I'm comparing computer sales
>> >> to
>> >> computer sales, not pocket calculator sales to computer sales.
>> >>
>> >> "Since *way* more people could afford a Commodore 64 than a Macintosh,
>> >> this is supposed to be a surprise?"
>> >>
>> >> It's a lesson neither Apple nor its rabid supporters ever learned.
>> >
>>
>> Great. They outsold the Mac for six years, and the PC makers who
>> learned
>> Commodore's lesson continue to outsell Apple.
>
> So the goal of Commodore was to outsell Apple, and not... ...say...
> ...actually stay in business?
Why ask me that? Is this "Answer Stupid Questions from Alan Baker Day?"
>>
>> > How much money are they making selling computers today?
>>
>> LOL
>
> What does that mean according to you?
LOL
Snit
>>>> How well is that "lesson" proving to have worked for Commodore?
>>>
>>> Great. They outsold the Mac for six years, and the PC makers who
>>> learned
>>> Commodore's lesson continue to outsell Apple.
>>
>> So the goal of Commodore was to outsell Apple, and not... ...say...
>> ...actually stay in business?
>
> Why ask me that? Is this "Answer Stupid Questions from Alan Baker Day?"
Context escapes Edwin again... he simply cannot understand what he reads.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
wrote:
Why not answer it? It would have taken fewer words.
>
> >>
> >> > How much money are they making selling computers today?
> >>
> >> LOL
> >
> > What does that mean according to you?
>
> LOL
LOL
Edwin
> In article <Yos0n.12548$w21....@newsfe17.iad>,>> news:hhtg8o$fp8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >> Commodore went out of business due to mismanagement and not knowing
>> >> how
>> >> to
>> >> compete against the PC. Apple was a lucky bystander. If Commodore
>> >> were
>> >> still in business, they would still be kicking Apple's arse! LOL
>> >
>> > In 2000, Gateway purchased Commodore along with its trademark. I guess
>> > they
>> > couldn't make a go of it either.
>>
>> Gateway didn't know what they were getting into when they bought
>> Commodore.
>> They bought it for the patents Commodore held, not to resurrect the
>> Amiga.
>
> What patents did Commodore hold that they were interested in? What is
> the source for this?
LOL
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Don't know, huh? Yeah. We know.
Edwin
Because it's not.
> It would have taken fewer words.
LOL
There's your kind of "answer."
>>
>> >>
>> >> > How much money are they making selling computers today?
>> >>
>> >> LOL
>> >
>> > What does that mean according to you?
>>
>> LOL
>
> LOL
Want to mention Pixar again?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
LOL
>
> > It would have taken fewer words.
>
> LOL
>
> There's your kind of "answer."
LOL
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > How much money are they making selling computers today?
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL
> >> >
> >> > What does that mean according to you?
> >>
> >> LOL
> >
> > LOL
>
> Want to mention Pixar again?
Would it make you feel better if I did?
Edwin
Reality forever eludes the creature that calls itself "Snit," forcing it to
make up yet more lies.
Snit
See: just nonsense insults from you. I suspect you want to make a point,
but you are failing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
The screeched lies of the creature that calls itself "Snit" have grown more
shrill as it vainly flops about, reality forever beyond its feeble grasp.
Edwin
Are you getting any treatment for schizophrenia, Alan?
You forgot to mention Pixar again. Or would you rather repeat your lie
about how many workstations are sold every six months?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Why would I be? We, them members of CSMA, know that you don't know what
patents Gateway wanted to acquire when Commodore out of business. As
usual you're painting yourself into a corner and you don't even realize
it.
>
> You forgot to mention Pixar again. Or would you rather repeat your lie
> about how many workstations are sold every six months?
Do you want me to mention Pixar again? And I never lied about how many
workstations were sold, Edwin.
Edwin
No, you, the schizophrenic who thinks he embodies all of CSMA.
> know that you don't know what
> patents Gateway wanted to acquire when Commodore out of business.
According to the little voices inside your head. The same ones who call
themselves "Edwin" and tell you that 850,000,000 workstations ship every six
months.
> As
> usual you're painting yourself into a corner and you don't even realize
> it.
You're projecting as usual. You also forgot to mention Pixar again.
>>
>> You forgot to mention Pixar again. Or would you rather repeat your lie
>> about how many workstations are sold every six months?
>
> Do you want me to mention Pixar again?
It's your obsession, not mine. You're sure to repeat it again one way or
another. We could be talking about tuna fish sandwiches and you would
suddenly be reminded that's "just like Pixar."
> And I never lied about how many
> workstations were sold, Edwin.
You repeated a lie about me giving some ridiculous figure for workstation
sales, and you repeated it for years. Try to ignore the little voices
inside your head long enough to get your lies straight.