Frank wrote:
>By creating a common base for all their operating system offerings,
[Microsoft] will eliminate the need for Win9x/ME, and
they are trying to get rid of it. But that won't mean consumers will pay any
more for the replacement than they do now for ME. They will simply have a
$98 operating system that is robust right down to the core.
......................................................
And I've got some swampland I can get you a *good deal* on.
Frank, I can tell that you're a serious computer guy and a serious
practicioner of the art(?) of scanning, but you've got a lot more faith in
the benign benificence (or good-will, if you please) of monopolies than some
of us do. John D. Rockerfeller didn't gouge his customers on the price of
oil & kerosene, he gouged his competition and his workers. The key phrase to
remember is, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Nothing against a $98 OS, but when it's the only OS you can buy or get
software to run with (which is almost the case now), what happens next? This
is why many users & developers would prefer open source-codes and standards
that really *are* standards. Not to "stiff" the corporations or developers
who made it all possible, but to work within the standards to market better
software (and hardware) for everybody, without the iron gates of high-priced
*licensing* and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) to keep the under-funded
developers out (read my "cautionary tale," which I'm not about to repeat).
Somebody's got to keep the giants honest--Microsoft, Adobe, AOL, the whole
lot of them--and the best candidates for that are the small developers,
Art's "Genius Companies." Lord knows, the Courts and the Congress won't.
Best regards, and hope you didn't take offense--LRA
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
