  |
|||
|
|
Right now there is much debate about whether Microsoft, Intel and other
computer related companies should be broken up. Some say these companies
have become coporate bullies to smaller companies, and thus should be broken
up before they run all their competitors out of business. Others say that
we can't do this, because it will kill the computer industry and will be
another inroad into our freedoms if the government has their way.
To answer from my prospective, I think we are in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation. Our fate, at least in a computer sense, is being decided not by us, but by everyone else. For example, when was the last time you bought computer software? Were you able to get just the software package? Could you get by with only one purchase, or did you in fact have to consider updating your entire system just to get that one thing? Progress is great and mostly it is a benefit to all of us. However, is it a benefit when it costs us so much just to add something new? When was the last time you bought parts for that '86, '90, or '97 automobile? Did a normal stereo system cost you more than the car itself? Did you have to replace the car just so you could get the stereo? What about the CDs for the stereo; did you have to get a new stereo just so you could play them? Isn't it time for our voice to be heard in this whole thing? Make it a good day! Ross Go To Page: 1
The copyright of the article Who should decide what computer you buy? in Personal Computers is owned by E. Ross Helton. Permission to republish Who should decide what computer you buy? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to E. Ross Helton's Personal Computers topic, please visit the Discussions page. |
||
|
|
|||
