How can Meade call it an Advanced RC ? easy.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:46 AM
Whats ya reckon ?....
Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:13 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:30 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:47 AM
I also dont want to re talk about the accuracy and deception etc etc. Just that i see how they can say what they say without getting into deep water.
["guy talk" edited by Joad"]
Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:46 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:18 AM
Its here,this button ||| just under the marks.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:41 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:55 AM
Sure the RCX may have cut into RCOS's sales, but not because of some possibly misleading sales brochure. They just made a more affordable alternative. Now if they would just get a grip of the QC issues....
Boy could that turn around their bottom line.
Oh, wait. That was on topic :john:
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:12 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:23 AM
Choice 1: RCOS RC scope: $$$$$$$$$$$$
Choice 2: Meade ARC scope: $$$$ not only way cheaper but advanced too??!?!
Decision: Choice is clear. Next up, what color Jaguar does the head of the University acquisitions board buy this year....
The above may have happenedall of twice ever, if that. Sour grapes I agree.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:37 AM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:48 AM
Thanks for understanding.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:23 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:04 PM
Well, ol'd Joad was earning his living last night telling students about the history of literary theory and Plato, so I missed this one.
I remember studying that in school - the book I had actually had excerpts of the original Greek interspersed in the book where I guess the English translation could or would not do the original justice. Very interesting.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:39 PM
Well, ol'd Joad was earning his living last night telling students about the history of literary theory and Plato, so I missed this one. I've got a problem here: I know the guys are just joshing around about wives and such (or may be serious, for all I know) but this partcular forum is a pretty small one and I don't want any of our Cloudy Nights women to visit this forum and feel shut out, or intimidated, or just put off by "guy talk." It isn't a good way to expand our user base, as they might say in the business world. So I'm going to edit out the off topic jokes. No demerits to anyone; no harm done. There shouldn't be any hard feelings. Surely the wife jokes do not rank among your most carefully thought out posts, so you shouldn't miss them.
Thanks for understanding.
Joad..... if you were a speech writer for the candidates in the upcoming election they all would win. I think we are all on board now. Thank you.
Oh, and as far as Plato, while not as gifted as some in philosophical discourse, I don't mind showing sophistication by quoting the Plato I know "et tu brute". I think he said that when he was about to let the adder bite him after his trial rather than flee to Thessaly. (Be glad to guest lecture.)
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:45 PM
That may be a valid argument, if that's what happened. But if Meade doesn't have any documentation that shows it started as an RC, they are out of luck in a legal proceeding.
It's more likely it started out like this - "what existing optics do we have that we can modify to make a scope better for imaging that will potentially compete in the RC Market?" I think it is likely they started with SCT mirrors and correctors right off the production line and modified them to come up with the RCX design. I'd place it at a 50-50% chance that the RCX primaries are the same as their SCT primaries...
This makes economic and business sense to me - you don't have to come up with a new manufacturing stream for every element of the new telescope, which allows you to produce the scope at a better price. Isn't that what their claim is - "Ritchey-Chretien 'like' performance" at a much lower cost? It was their marketing and legal department that messed up, not the engineers...
And once again to the RCX owners...you bought a scope with significantly improved performance over an SCT, but you didn't get an RC. But you didn't pay the RC price either. So, overall you should be happy...