Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!evan
From: evan@ndcheg.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: IBM new 'standard'
Message-ID: <105@ndcheg.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Mar-87 11:18:44 EST
Article-I.D.: ndcheg.105
Posted: Mon Mar 23 11:18:44 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Mar-87 02:23:03 EST
References: <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU>
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Lines: 18
Keywords: proprietary not upwardly compat. OS is goof...
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.ibm.pc:2503 comp.misc:392
Summary: How ironic...

In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
> Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple
> made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine
> the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs,
> that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything
> about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be
> undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple
> has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now
> that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried
> they're loosing touch. 

    Actually, I find it very ironic that IBM is now developing a closed 
system and Apple is releasing slotted versions of their Macs.

  Evan Bauman
  Chemical Engineering 
  Univ. of Notre Dame
  ihnp4!iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!evan