[Am-info] New Apple store near Beantown

[John J. Urbaniak]

Erick Andrews wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:28:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:
>
>
>
> Macintosh does not run a "Windows" operating system, so I don't understand
> your point, legally, in your last sentence above.  I'm sure you know that.
>
> Apple is not just a "hardware company".  Microsoft, as far as I've ever
> understood, did not write the Macintosh operating systems for the Motorola
> cpu's found in Apple's hardware.  Once upon a time, Apple was closer to
> Unix and academia before Windows came along.
>
> To be sure, application software like M$ Office and "Lookout Express"
> are being shoved down the throats of new Mac buyers, but correct me if
> I've forgotten, there are other Mac choices for these apps, too.  Less and less
> now of an ideal choice, but no worse than IBM's half hearted support of
> my preferred OS:  Warp.
>

I wouldn't describe it as "half hearted."  I believe IBM top executives entered
into a "market-splitting" deal with Microsoft, killing Warp on the desktop for
personal and corporate gain.  It was an ignoble decision for the entire computing
industry.

John


>
> Although many of us refer to "PC's" as Intel platforms (usually to mean MS
> OS's  these days), and Mac's as a distinctly different platform, most users in
> the world don't know or care that much unless faced with fair choices.
> Microsoft does NOT have a *100%* monopoly on the "fat client" desktop,
> but it does *have* a monopoly damned close to it.  Still an illegal one.
>
> They are all desktop computers setup for the personal use of one user.
>
> I prefer to call them fat clients, more so now with mainstream networking
> capability, but what the lawyers and judges accept lately is another story.
> Judge Jackson became enlightened about this and understands the law
> and came to understand the need for more choice -- and wrote a very long
> document called "Findings of Fact".
>
> Over simplifying "100%" monopoly here, "hardware company" there,
> PC, Desktop, and Macintosh somewhere else...may be useful as a
> limited introduction on the issues to those less informed...but I want
> more credibility and influence with those who should be more
> technically and legally savvy of the industry:  to act against Microsoft.
>
> I don't want to sound like I'm preaching to the choir, but now consider
> this:  many, many "hardware" manufacturers today have become virtual
> Microsoft companies.  Too many new PC products [sic] must be hacked
> by developers and users of OS's other than Windows to get them to work.
> Kind of similar to Apple's position today, but the other shoe.
>
> >To all intents and purposes you are tied in to buying Windows when
> >you buy a PC even though it is not required for using the PC. This is
> >something which must be drilled home so that it eventually gets through
> >to the general public.
>
> No argument here.  The slimey blob expands and oozes along.  Those
> who need the most drilling are the new judges and fearful prosecutors.
>
> --
> Erick Andrews
>
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info