CompuServe Messages

Ben, Please don't misunderstand me here. If you are right about the PowerPC surviving its current sole source situation, then GREAT! But I think we are sort of coming full circle here. The PowerPC was proposed in 1992 by IBM, Apple, and Motorola to break "the Intel stranglehold." OK, fine. Except, from my point of view, Intel is not the problem. Micros**t is the problem; for it is Micros**t that is still selling a single-tasking OS optimized for the 16-bit 80286. It is Micros**t that is selling the world's most inefficient GUI that absorbs rather than empowers powerful hardware. Intel, on the other hand, has been selling 32-bit solutions since 1987. Now we have NT for PowerPC. More slow, bloated, Micros**t OS software running on hardware that solves no problem. I think this is a real shame, because I have been following the PowerPC saga since its first announcement. Why? Because with the Amiga evaporating into thin air, I was determined that the next computer I spend thousands of my own dollars on would AGAIN be an advanced design. I also looked forward to the idea of a viable alternative to the PC, which is a powerful CPU sitting on a 1982 motherboard running a 1977 OS. In other words, I wanted my next computer to be powerful, advanced, visible, and NOT a PC. The Amiga had all of this except the visibility part. By going their separate ways after over two years of development, IBM and Apple have made this almost impossible. If I'm going to have to run Windows NT, why should I not buy a Pentium and just be done with it? Tab Trepagnier Cruising on AutoPilot from Beaumont, Texas