Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from mstone@vc.net Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:01:21 -0500 
 The IBM-PC is simply one _kind_ of computer architecture, it isn't 
 the definition of a computer. The IBM mistake created the 
 Microsoft monopoly. It's a real stretch to find cause to be grateful. 
 
First, I do not mean to imply that we should be grateful over the M$   
involvement. Not at all. I fervently wish that IBM had chosen an   
honest company to deal with, and had made decisions with some   
semblance of a brain. But I think (I'm not an historian) that the   
personal computer field would be *much* less developed had IBM not   
enabled the clone industry. I do think there is some cause to be glad   
that IBM didn't [wasn't able to?] prevent clones. M$ is not a necessary   
element of that whatsoever.  
 
Obviously speculating about what might have happened had events   
been different from what they were can never come to certainty. But   
I've not seen any suggestion that a similar industry would have   
developed other than via the PC clone route. Certainly Apple has   
never shown any inclination to enable any such thing (save one recent   
desperate gasp). And IBM was able to say then, I believe, 'computers   
'R us'. 
 
If there is reason to support a different view of events, I'd be   
interested to hear it, since I'm not deeply informed about the history   
here.

-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net