Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #03730
To: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:45:12 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: [non-tech / LONG]Solarbotics Replies...
Dave Hrynkiw wrote:
> >And this bias filters down to the BEAM community as
> >CPU's suck. Don't even look at them.
>
> I think _that_ has been more of a BEAM myth than anything else.
I actually counted up the responses, both on-list and off, to this very question
when it was
discussed here recently. The majority of posts supported the myth, and its become
a
reality.
Even the list owner was in the minority as to what is on topic here!
When I read some of the earlier descriptions of what BEAM is, the anti-CPU bias is
clearly and openly stated.
And I do wonder why more SE's are not Suneaters, nor has there been any real
interest in
the possibly superior op-amp based SE (type 3?).
So I think its not so much an anti-CPU bias, not an anti-Suneater bias as such, but
there is
a very narrow range what is popular BEAM technology. But this may be due to the
availability of components. Who can say why something is popular, or refused to
fade from popularity well
past its useful life is over?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home