Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Amiga Custom Chips - why hasn't C= made them faster?
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.113054.16692@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> <1991Apr16.015953.22600@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr17.073837.2647@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1991 11:30:54 GMT

In article <1991Apr17.073837.2647@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes:
> In article <1991Apr16.015953.22600@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >In article <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes:
> >[ bunch of useless figures ]

> >Looks like you included the inital R&D for the Amiga, and left that out for
> >the Sun. Plus, I believe the margin on a Sun is a bit higher than for an
> >Amiga. How about listing R&D as % of net, or something at least *vaguely*
> >rational?

>    I *DID* list R&D as a percentage of net sales.

How about net profits? (net sales, what a concept. net sales == total sales ==
gross sales == ...)

The last time someone used the meaningless term "net sales" on me, it was a
software publisher trying to con me out of royalties. I can only assume your
motives are similar.

>    I have included the tables again, in a slightly edited fashion for
> people like you who cannot recognize synonyms in economics terms.

How about including them again, with some better data for people like me who
recognise waffling when they see it?
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
