Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:56:42 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <000601bf353c$d804b400$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <199911222227.PAA02095@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > o IBM PCs are Intel based instead of Motorolla based. > > > Enough said, I think (other than "segments are for worms"). > > > > This is a case where the advantages of compatability outweight > > the costs of lock in. > > So you admit that it's a "lock in", by your definition? Compatability > is only an issue when software vendors don't port, BTW. No, nobody is locked into anything. We choose the 'inferior' technology because of the advantage of compatability. Hence the allegedly 'superior' technology isn't really superior once the costs of adopting are taken into account. (This is the same reason the US has not adopted the metric standard generally.) Eventually, technologies that don't have the costs of compatability will become so far superior that nothing will stop us from switching standards. At this point, either Intel will succeed with Merc^H^H^H^HItanium or we will change platforms entirely. The former solution is less expensive and painful (better for everyone except Intel's competitors), so it'll probably be what will happen. Had Intel not been able to maintain the costs of compatability so low, we would already have dumped the x86 architecture. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000601bf353c$d804b400$021d85d1>