CompuServe Messages

Apple's multiple monitors and extended screen res seems fine, performance of the powermac's is also very good, but that's not my point. Apple tried to build and establish a closed box when introducing the first Mac. As such it was a success: real plug and play (mainly play as some cinics remarked <g>.) Software and hardware have to follow close rules to confirm to Apple's policy: the great advantage of this scheme is that support costs stay low (i.e. everything always works as expected). The Intel/M'soft boxes on the other hand are truly open systems as there is no governing hand and it's up to the ingenuiety of independent developers and the willingness of the market. To paraphrase: 'much to plug, little to play'. However this approach stimulated a very fast development in which the Intel boxes became the major players. They were more versatile, cheaper and faster than the Apples. Interesting thing of these modern times is the convergence of both policies. Apple got more open over the years, but at a price: there are compatibility problems ever since the introduction of the 32 bits OS. The 'freedom of the Intel boxes' gets confined: some serious standards are in place (f.i. PCI, Windows Api, Aspi) and others around the corner: the Intel/M'soft alliance to settle on some 3D standard api). My 'only' point is that over the long run the more open approach will get us faster and cheaper computing platforms than the Apple directed way. Of course it means we will have to live with configuration problems for another decade, but I am sure every 3DS user knows there is no such thing as a free lunch.