>>At the time, absolutely.
>
>I dunno, dude. You can't run more than one program at on time on them without telling you the memory is too low or whaveter.

Well, you're comparing things as they are now, not as they were then.

>And from what I could tell from the Mac X preview, Macs are just getting OO capabilities because of the new OS. I'm not into the specifics, but why in the world would the OS limit your programming methods? Shouldn't you beable to do OO without an OO OS?

Mike, Mike, Mike, the OS has zero to do with it. OOP is a development paradigm. It's well over a dozen years old (mid-1980s I think). In fact, if I recall correctly, I recall a "Computer Chronicles" on PBS in the very early 1990s talking about OOP, and using a Mac to demonstrate.

>Is Windows like that? If not, I'd still have to think, Macs are cute (and I'll agree more stable), but not very versitle.

Again, you're confusing then and now.

I think I'll have to get Raoul to come by a smack you with a large fish.:-)