Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro.atari Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why? Message-ID: <2800013@ccvaxa> Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 22:47:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2800013 Posted: Sun Oct 27 22:47:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 01:32:57 EST References: <2298@ukma.UUCP> Lines: 28 Nf-ID: #R:ukma.UUCP:-229800:ccvaxa:2800013:000:1341 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Oct 27 21:47:00 1985 > This article reminds me of those who said in 1980 that IBM's entry into > the personal computer field would "legitimize" the industry. (Remember > when "PC" meant "a personal computer", not "an IBM-compatible 16-bit > MS-DOS computer"? Remember Osborne and Victor? Remember when micros > were an adventure?) /* Written 11:36 am Oct 24, 1985 by > davidl@teklds.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.micro.atari */ ---------- Would you claim that the micro industry would be be better off if IBM had not come in? Think for a moment of all those builders of IBM clones. IBM has very nutritious coattails. Apple may or may not have been wise in suing DRI, but they would almost certainly sell more Macs if IBM made one just like it than they do now. [Note to flamers: it's just my guess against yours, but I don't mind if you really insist on telling me why yours is better.] Personally, I think an obviously Mac compatible interface, available for the IBM, would be good for Apple's visibility in corporate offices and that it's better to be perceived as a technological leader, willing to share your insights with the rest of the industry, than as a miser, jealously guarding the insights you stole from those who preceded you. Which, rightly or wrongly, is the way a lot of see Apple. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece