From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2000 - 10:11:06 EST
At 08:11 AM 12/4/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Also, someone mentioned the 600 seems a little flimsy compared to the
>770. It this
> >I think it's a trivial difference. I carried the 600X in my knapsack,
>with no padding, no case, or anything, every single day for 7 months,
>trekking all around a big city with it; and I used it during just about all
>of my waking hours during this period. I used it in live performance
>settings. I moved it around the office all the time. I think I spilled
>liquid in it. The machine never suffered any detectable wear during this
>7-month abuse period.
>
>My experience with the 600 model parallels yours over a longer period of
>time. As of next week, I've been schlepping this one around for 2 years on
>a daily basis. It goes wherever I go, and I still use a 5-year-old Silicon
Let's just be straight about something: Whoever it was that
called a 600 "flimsy" was doing a disservice to the 600. If its "flimsy"
compared to the 770, that's because the 770 is built like a tank--and
*everything* is "flimsy" compared to it. If the 770 is a tank, then the
600 is a Mercedes--well-built with excellent fit & finish, can be expected
to last...but it doesn't have armored plating and may not stand up to
getting shot at on the battlefield.
Good enough comparison?
In this context, I think you can have a better idea about the 600
vis-a-vis the 770.
>The 770s that I've seen are very nice machines, but for my daily use for
>something that I carry around with me, my pick is the 600.
Between these two choices, I very much agree.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:56:38 EST