Re: uninstallation

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

In reply to Steve Cohen's message sent 1/25/98 6:59 AM:

>You may be right that my remarks about generic peripherals are somewhat
>off-subject
>and out-of-date.  There was a time when it was nearly impossible to use an 
>Apple
>computer
>and a non-Apple printer, but that was probably long ago.

We're way off-topic here, but for the record: I don't remember such a 
thing, and my Mac experience goes back 13 years.

[snippage]

> But 
>this is a
>small gesture
>and not really likely to make a difference, and principles are important.

On the contrary -- the principles and the practical realities are joined 
at the hip. If we continue to buy substandard products from companies 
that abuse us, we are only inviting more of the same. NO amount of 
government intervention can save us from ourselves.

>But Microsoft isn't a hardware manufacturer (or much of one anyway. They 
>do sell
>mice and keyboards, I suppose).  Microsoft did not make my computer.  
>Gateway 2000
>did.  I like my
>computer.  

You are alluding to an important point: Microsoft, as the primary 
beneficiary of the clone accident, was freed from the burden of 
manufacturing hardware (a low-margin business). The main reason you can 
buy a PC from Gateway 2000 and the others is because of IBM's strategic 
errors in the design of it hardware architecture.

>And yes, I want to have it all.  I want all the benefits of
>"standardization" but I want
>that standard to be fairly and honestly enforced and I want fair 
>competition among
>software
>vendors within that standard.  From that perspective, urging me to buy a 
>Macintosh
>is utterly
>irrelevant.

Hardly. What I think you are suggesting is that Microsoft place Windows 
in the public domain, just as IBM did accidentally with the PC hardware 
architecture. A nice thought, but don't hold your breath.

Also, be awfully careful what you call a "standard." The PC architecture 
may be standard, in that virtually anyone can build a PC (again, thanks 
to an historical accident). But Windows is a proprietary method of 
operating that PC, and Microsoft is intent on holding it close to the 
vest, and squeezing every last nickel out of it. To call Windows a 
"standard" is akin to calling General Motors cars "standard."

I'm not urging you or anyone to take any specific course of action. I am 
merely pointing out the obvious, which is that continuing to patronize an 
abusive company and expecting magically improved treatment is wishing 
thinking.

>This issue really goes beyond Microsoft.  If Apple were in the hegemonic 
>position
>that
>Microsoft is today, I think we might be launching these same verbal 
>assaults on
>them.

Yes, and if Al Gore was the Unibomber, we'd probably be calling for his 
immediate arrest. So what was your point?

   Mitch Stone
+---
   Windows 95 is what Rube Goldberg would have designed if he'd 
   studied cartooning at M.I.T.
                                --Russell Baker

   Boycott Microsoft ** http://www.vcnet.com/bms