INMC 80 News

  

October-December 1981, Issue 5











Page 16 of 71











– 16 – Dundee Dear Editor INMC80,

THE BUS OF COURSE. Mr. J. N- S- Deane of Lucas Logic appeals for a chance. By all means Lucas should be given a fair chance but he should not be surprised that Nascom owners are more than a little uneasy about resting their eggs in one basket.

Most are capable of appreciating a good product, why else did we plump for a Nascom. The market is here with we the owners or future owners, and the customer is king. He can be sure we will continue to exercise care in selecting products. I wish him well, as like most I would like te see Nascom flourish. If however he is overwelmed by smaller competition he can rest assured it is because he has not appreciated our needs, or that our money can buy better elsewhere.

Many thanks to you all in producing an excellent news letter, more power to your Naspen.-

R. Bain

Harrow, Middlesex. Dear INMC80, Yes, follow the bus unless it’s essential to ‘keep in’ with Lucas Logic.

Yours sincerely, John Waddell

Thornton Heath, Surrey. Dear Editor,

With regard to the direction the club should take in future, there has in the past been no question of restricting it purely to Nascom items and excluding other companies’ products. The real question then, it do we choose to ignore one particular item from Gemini’s compatible product range whilst acknowledging the rest?

If we do so, where do we draw the line? Perhaps by accepting only products that Nascom think fit to approve. The club would then regress to little more than a mouthpiece for Nascom. Pretending that the Gemini board does not exist would also inevitably lead to coy references to ‘the other system’, and confusion and duplication of effort by owners of the different systems.

On the other hand, much mutual benefit and experience could be gained from users of another intrinsically very similar machine. After all, Gemini users will be trying to do broadly the same things with the same add-ons, and (with disks at least. Ed.) with very similar software as Nascom users.

In my view therefore, we have to go for the ‘Nasbus compatible’ approach, and brush aside calls to ignore anything non-Nascom.

P. J. Mathews.

Loughborough Leics. Dear Sir,

I feel most strongly on this matter and would certainly discontinue my membership if the Nascom content were diluted. Most people are apathetic until “it’ affects them and I suspect protests would not occur until after any decision had been taken. Please give Lucas a chance, they obviously realise that Nascom 3 is needed and perhaps a reworked Nascom 2.

Nascom’s success to date has been that you can personalize the computer, understand, alter and modify as the mood/requirement dictates. One can see how all this has contributed to the success of Nascom by the numbers of add-ons that have been produced. Not everybody needs an all dancing all

singing micro. Yours slucerely,

A. Braithwate


This is an OCR’d version of the scanned page and likely contains recognition errors.











Page 16 of 71