Re: XMOS XC-1 kits are ****pping

In article
<29f6f706-9a1a-4a31-b7df-bca8733765d7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 <steveu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
 <SNIP>
>
>Going to market with an impractical product is much worse than toying
>and figuring out its impractical before you spend the big bucks. I
>remember when the Inmos people kept trying to sell their filter chip
>into a board I was doing. The board's BOM target was about 130 pounds
>(more or less met in the end), while their chip in 100k volume was
>something like 800 pounds. I guess the salesman had few other leads to
>follow if he kept wasting his time on us.

What is "impractical" about the first device to manage doing the first
quantum chromatic calculation?
What was "impractical" about the interactive graphical displays of oil
wells on the Meico's at Shell Rijswijk?
(Hint, the alternative at the time was tying up Shell's Cray. The
transputer boxes where an order of magnitude less expensive.)

I don't argue with the lack of commercial prowess though.
If they just had managed to keep up with increasing clock
speeds, instead of going to 9000, they might still be in business.

>
>Regards,
>Steve

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst