My observation seeks not to put a burr in the saddle of Mr. Guralnick, but to bring to light the very important issue of software diversity (as opposed to *market domination*) and open-standards. Rob Guralnick, in his post (Sun, 23 Jul 1995 15:35:36)--- RE: Incompatibilities (Re: Upgraded WWW presentation)--- made many points about the inconsistencies of Web browsers, generally favoring Netscape and speaking ill of Mosaic. As I claimed in an earlier post, my platform does not have a Netscape browser compiled for it, hence, I claimed that I can be a voice for the other 15% that form the underdogs not using Netscape. The underdogs do adhere to the specified HTML standards--let's be clear about that. In the Web world, a standard protocol for information delivery IS the desired objective so that everybody has equal access to information USING THE AGREED UPON STANDARDS. That is why Web has become such a powerful information delivery/navigation phenomenon. Mr. Guralnick makes the point: >>"I cannot believe that more than 10% of the users out there still use Mosaic." 10% of all Web users is not an insignificant number of people!!! I beg the question, should I and the others not using Netscape be rounded up and put to sleep as a humanitarian gesture, as so much of the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats are? I AM PROUD TO NOT BE USING NETSCAPE! The fact that there is still competition in the marketplace makes for a better (software) future (exemptions allowed for those who don't follow Darwin's school of thought.) There might be other Browsers that might have features AS GOOD or BETTER than Netscape... Will users seek better features, or just take whatever Netscape provides forever more? Rounding out his perspective, Guralnick indicates that he is: >>>"...amused by all this fervent anti-Microsoft sentiment..." It might be useful to point out that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is among those who have a hand in the anti-Microsoft sentiment (on behalf of the citizens in this country), something which I happen to applaud. Why would the Federal Trade Commission have such an opinion? There are some very valid reasons! I generally do not feel good about supporting businesses that the FTC investigates quite so often. And finally, while Guralnick responded to a previous poster, the following question was posed that I would like to respond to on behalf of every computer user in the world: >>>What the hell has Microsoft ever done to you? My answer to his question: They are holding back 85% of the world from fulfilling their potential as productive human beings. And they did it in ways that the FTC possibly finds in violation of the law. That is what Microsoft has done to me. Software allegiance is similar to religious belief---opinions are heartfelt to the core and there is no "right" answer. I think that these are timely debates because if the general computer user becomes complacent and accepts the "most popular" mandate, quality and diversity will completely disappear. Has anyone had a vine-ripened tomato lately? They are nearly extinct because of marketeer driven replacement with hard, squarish, flavorless tomatoes which can be machine picked, have a long shelf life and don't bruise. I think that *popular* software is similar. Why am I waxing on so? I use a computer platform that is very powerful and easier to use than a Macintosh. It doesn't matter what it happens to be, it only matters that it exists and many people find that it empowers their productivity. When I consider what I can do with my common computer desktop tools, I speculate about what the world would be like if everybody had a similarly powerful computer interface. The workplace has become a productivity place. It happens to run on 486, Pentium, HP, SUN, etc. The company is also working with other companies on "open-standards" and "object technology" which is the up and coming buzz word in the computer industry. Alternatives to mediocrity are out there. Alternatives to mediocrity need to survive. I AM PROUD TO BE AN UNDERDOG, even though I can't claim to be among the 85 or 90 percentile of popular software usage. The most alarming aspect of this topical debate can be gleaned by reading various industry rags. Everywhere it is being declared that "Windows has won the desktop market." Software companies are folding at an alarming rate, and with them the diversity that we need for a robust and comprehensive computing environment, especially one based on open-standards. In the 1980s, the common retort to any alternative computer environment was, "It isn't IBM." Here we are in the 1990s and there is a similar, "It isn't Windows/Netscape." Everyone is bullied into thinking that they have to use the most popular software, even though it may not be the best. Best for who, best for what--who decides this critical question? My formula for having a powerful computing environment which makes me productive is this: "What do I want to accomplish with a computer toolset and what hardware/software will allow me to achieve my desired goals." Approaching it from this idealism is more empowering and a far cry from, "what does everybody else use" or "I guess I'll have to buy/use (fill-in-the-blank)..." I regret the attitude of corporate buyers who again in the 1980s would buy only IBM because it "is safe." Today it is Windows. But what does the end user need to be able to work? Web browsers should adhere to HTML standards (they can help to evolve the standards, yes) and consumers should help to guide the software evolution by being vocal about what they need and want. Doing the right (vendor) thing is possible for the benefit of the user, the industry and the future. I remain an underdog with a more powerful, but less than, "the-most-popular" software toolset. There are viable alternatives---I recommend considering what they might be. Know someone with a summer garden? Go ask for a tomato. Ever happy to work for a better solution/world, Robert MacKimmie California Historical Society, San Francisco [log in to unmask]