Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!tramp!hassell
From: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple VS IBM
Message-ID: <6258@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 30 Jan 89 22:17:35 GMT
References: <8901270656.AA01616@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell)
Organization: (Let's see, I'm positive <clang> .. I've <rustle> got ... )
Lines: 19

Just to note this question from an also-Apple-addict.  I don't think 
Big Red is listening.  It is an obese corporate ape now.  There appears to
be very little refinement and "vision" <I DIDN'T like all of Jobs' ideas though>
left there.  

There is very little left anywhere, from what I can see.

There would appear to be not much creativity in the market these days that
isn't overblown and near-useless or very-OVERPRICED.

Apple's ideas about what a computer could be and it's versitility were NOT
taken up by IBM, they were slowed down.  After this only some wild graphics
techniques using up new processor speed made it and has left apple what it 
is today.  I certainly beleive that we may yet see again a "newcomer" 
if a wild new approach to technology comes upon us once more.

But until then... <sigh> ...we'll just have to use the "new industry standard"
or make and furnish our own, I think.
### C>H> ###