Joe writes:
> With the exception of the glass bottle example, the computer examples are self
> evident.
 
Not really.
 
> Amiga and Mac didn't sell as big because to buy into them meant being trapped.
> They
> were one pony shows.  Intel, Microsoft, and IBM opened up the PC and now you
> have the perfect
> example of OPEN COMPUTING.
 
Huh?  IBM didn't "open up" the PC more than Apple (with Apple II or Mac),
or Comodore with the Amiga.  I *know* that Commodore encouraged outside
vendors to make boards for the Amiga, and I'm fairly sure that Apple did the
same, and IBM as well.  I'd rate them about the same in this area.
 
Perhaps you mean: make the BIOS available so that other people could make
compatible computers?  NO! IBM didn't did that ... clones had to wait until
reverse engineered BIOSs was available.   In *just the same manner*, Apple
and Commodore have acted like IBM in not licenensing their BIOS.  Indeed,
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's current Power Mac licensing program is
actually the first instance of Openness at the BIOS level for *any*
major personal computer.  (Although, I don't remember if IBM changed its
tune when trying to get vendors to build Micro Channel PCs.)
 
Maybe you mean: you can choose between several operating systems for the
PC, therefore it's Open.  Perhaps, but we can give equal credit to the
Apple II (UCSD Pascal, DOS, and SOS (the successor to DOS)), Mac (Mac OS,
and AUX), Amiga (Amiga DOS and Unix (not counting emulators running
Windows, Mac OS, etc.).
 
No, I'm afraid you're basically saying "I like the PC; its popular; it
must therefore be the Open champ" ... the first two are true, but that
doesn't mean the third is.
 
Actually, another type of "Open" definition occurs to me: the ability to
chose between multiple vendors for software products.  By that definition,
the most open computer ever made has to be the Amiga: there are more products
and vendors *PER AMIGA SHIPPED* than for anything else.  Mac probably comes
in second, with PC a close third ... if correct, does this mean anything?
Nope...only that statistics don't prove anything.
 
As for being "trapped", that is, of course, a self fulfulling prophecy, at
best.  There are still hundreds of thousands of people using Amigas that
can easily emulate PCs *AND* Macs (and can emulate a variety of other machines).
Remember...the high-end Amiga was a 68040 chip.
 
Besides, you need to put your "HP 3000" filter on :)
(I.e., scare yourself by changing "PC" to "Unix", "Amiga/Mac" to "HP3000"
and re-read your posting)
 
What a lot of "computer holy war" fighters forget is a very simple concept:
 
   A computer is a tool
 
Tools are neither inherently good, nor inherently bad.
 
A "bad" computer can be a great tool in some peoples hands (I've seen
a Commodore 64, Tandy 100, and original Mac running a school and church
on one South Pacific island),
 
and
 
a "good" computer can be a lousy tool in some people's hands (I've seen a
Pentium PC sit idle because the owner can't figure out the difference between
a file and a folder).
 
We shouldn't be wasting our energy on PC/Mac/Amiga/Windows/DOS/Win95/MacOS...
the MPE/Unix question is in front of all of us!
 
 
--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html