-=> Bob Ackley wrote to Ross Cassell <=-

 RC> It is because of their arrogance as to why their platform doesnt have
 RC> the marketshare that PC's have. Had they used the IBMPC compatibility
 RC> model, you would have had a well balanced computer marketplace and
 RC> Microsoft itself would be more humble. Lets face it the Apple
 RC> Operating System is incredibly stable and can do more with lesser
 RC> hardware.

Not necessarily "lesser" hardware. Different
hardware/architecture. But Ross is
right about the arrogance of Apple and its advocates.
 
 BA> IBM went with open architecture on the PC for a number of reasons,
 BA> gaining market share over the existing S-100 bus among them but
 BA> primarily because of its consent agreement with the government over its
 BA> antitrust case.  That's also the reason IBM hired M$ to provide the OS
 BA> rather than developing one in- house, the government wasn't about to
 BA> allow IBM to own the PC market as it did the rest of the computer
 BA> market.  When IBM tried to recapture and control the PC market with a
 BA> proprietary system (the PS/2), it flopped even though it was superior
 BA> to anything else on the market at the time..

According to a former housemate who was a field engineer for the Itty Bitty
Machine company the top brass thought that they might sell as many as 100,000
PCs over a period of about 10 years.   Bv)=

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... Ability will never catch up with the demand for it - Malcolm Forbes
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49