From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 15:49:53 EDT
At 11:59 AM 04/06/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>For those of you who hold to the Corvette and i-Corvette [née Camaro] theory,
>I'd like to hear your comments on the 770 vs 600. After all, the 600 was a
>more "budget minded" system for the business guys, as opposed to the 770
>series, which was meant to be for "power users".
Not even close!
The 600 was *not* a "budget" 770. It was a "Thin and Light while
not sacrificing major features" laptop. To support that argument, I point
to the simple fact that there are *no* 770's currently being marketed by
IBM and the 600's are now the "top of the line" available.
The 770 had only 3 things over the original 600: (1) Video
capability (presumably in or out), which is of limited use to most people,
(2) Hardware-assisted MPEG playback (now in current versions of the 600),
and (3) the largest 14.1" screen with 1280x1024 resolution (600's have a
13.3" screen at XGA). EVERYTHING else the 770 had or did, the 600 matched
quite nicely.
More importantly, the 600 did it in a form factor that was nearly
2 lbs. *lighter* and 1 inch thinner. There's a lot of us out there that
scramble through airports, must have a machine that does more than the
ultra-lights are capable of, and yet didn't want a monster brick like the
770. The 600 filled the bill nicely. The 600 is a power user's machine in
a portable form factor. The 770 was practically a luggable.
A *lot* of 770 users were positively *envious* of the 600 when it
came out, and all but the most hard-core "gotta have my big screen" freaks
still are. I guarantee you there wouldn't be any envious Corvette owners
if an "i-Corvette" came out. The 600 has always been a worthy competitor.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:57 EST