Sorry, I'm Way Off Topic, but, Wild thought about evolution in the computer market: How many companies made computers when you were a kid that were vastly different and forced the "other guys" to play catch up... (Apple, Atari, Sinclair (Amstrad et all..), Timex (really? a watch maker made computers?), Acorn, Coleco, Commodore (Pet-Amiga), Franklin (and who could forget the other knock off Apple wannabes: Pear and Bananna!), Kaypro, Laser, Osborne, Tandy (Pocket computer to the Trash-80), TI...) How many now? So good of IBM/Microsoft to come in and help push technology along by giving us a machine without a floppy, less memory than even the lowest end game oriented machine (for far more money than the $50-$500 machines of the time). The IBM PC was a pile of dung compared to many of the machines the proceeded it. No sound chip (before sound cards), and no using the timer chip to make noise was not as good as even the worst 2 voice sound chip on even the cheapest machine. No decent graphics till the VGA (even then some machines had much better graphics). Yes one could argue that they legitimized the PC for business use, but don't you think some companies had been using other machines for business purposes just fine by that point? I think that the market was doing just fine (fragmented and incompatible as all get out), but when you could get a new machine for the price of what you pay for a decent video card now who cares. O.K. I am done ranting (30 something remember the good old days). Kelly Black 73's KB0GBJ On Friday 14 December 2001 16:00, you wrote: > > > However, I dont agree with the microsoft remark. Anyone could have > > > gotten in their position and filled their shoes if they were lucky > > > enough and willing to rape and pillage everything in their path for a > > > few years. > > > > agreed. But they've done a great deal to get computers as main-stream as > > they are, and as latent result, cheaper. > > I disagree with that. in a more competetive marketplace, I think computer > prices would have fallen even faster, and we'd have *far* better OSes on > average. > > Linux might not have gotten anywhere quickly, tho. the sheer vileness of > the Windows OS has spurred a lot of people to go to Linux. If MS sold > everyone Xenix instead (as they were planning to, back in DOS 3.0 days); > we'd have decent commercial desktop OSes, and there would be a lot less > incentive to get away from MS. > > I'm often not entirely convinced that cheap computers are a good thing... > we have a lot more people using them; but the average technical inclination > of the users is declining exponentially, and the problem of marketing > triumphing over technology is exacerbated, not to mention the increased > legal attention brought to bear on the computing world (the DMCA, the > attempts to regulate Internet content, etc). > > I'm not entirely convinced that personal computers have made most people's > lives noticeably better. it's certainly made them able to do more work; but > does that actually result in a better quality of life? I don't believe so. > It may make things worse, by increasing the stress on people to do more > with their lives. It's allowed corporations to scale larger and span > farther; but has this done much more than make them able to swallow up > smaller companies? (which is not always a bad thing, but often is). > some of us, of course, wouldn't be nearly as well-off without > computers. it's an outlet for geeks, and a way for us to socialize, away > from a society that often would rather not have us. for us, computers do a > world of good; but the computing world is no longer just 'our' playground. > > Carl Soderstrom.