Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!DZimmerman@blue.rutgers.edu From: DZimmerman@blue.rutgers.edu (Davidann) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Message-ID: <25@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 00:27:04 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.25 Posted: Mon Nov 25 00:27:04 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 20:18:37 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 19 In article <289@well.UUCP>, (Mike Farren) writes: > In fact, MOST of the software first available for the IBM PC >(that which made it a popular product) was old cp/m software (WordStar, >DBase II, etc.). Without that quickly available software base, the PC >would have languished for far longer than it did. Also, without that >starting point, it would have taken a lot longer for the state of the >software art (as far as PCs go) to advance to where it is now. Without that quickly available software base, it just would have been a while longer before a sizeable one could be established. The state of software art for PCs is not dependant on the amount of software available, but the abilities of programmers. A large software base doesn't automatically increase the state of software art - on the contrary: a small one would be a better stimulus to write software, thus developing new ideas. David "Davidann" Zimmerman ------ Disclaimer: These are only the opinions of a deranged mind. -------