Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
From: jb@jerbro.demon.co.uk (Jeremy Brown)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!jerbro.demon.co.uk!jb
Subject: Re: Smalltalk is no good for shrink/wrap
References: <3m3h21$eud@atglab10.atglab.bls.com>  <3lr0p5$fld@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <sehyoD6KuKH.GAI@netcom.com> <3m15jv$n5s@atglab10.atglab.bls.com> <sehyoD6Mowt.nq@netcom.com>
Organization: None
Reply-To: jb@jerbro.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines:  10
X-Posting-Host: jerbro.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 21:17:38 +0000
Message-ID: <262913293wnr@jerbro.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

Come on, any real business is going to depreciate it's assets over a 
period with a view to replacing them. Here we do it over 3 to 4 years 
for PC's. This is probably too long as it should be over the useful 
life of the asset and I would say a 286 or dumb terminal has outlived 
it's usefullness! You would'nt then replace them with dumb terminals, 
would you?

 Jeremy Brown    EMail jb@jerbro.demon.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
