The Schloss Cafe was one of Texas' first "Internet Cafes". A lot of computer evolution has taken place since it opened in 1992, and this site first went on line in the USA. But I feel that may change significantly, so I am sharing this with my visitors. There isn't anywhere else more appropriate on this site to place this editorial article about PCs. It is an article about Macs, PC's, Linux, the recent evolution of the computer and the Internet. It also explains why I think Bill Gates is "the lowest and greediest cretin America ever spawned from settling-tank pond sludge", and why you should not be using any of his sloppy privacy-invading virus-spawning defective products. (Just in case Melissa, The Love Bug, WSL, OE, and other recent events haven't convinced you of that fact)

"These pages made by the Mercedes of computers, a PPC Macintosh. This site like all others with Image files, is best viewed by a Macintosh. All browsers are supported, especially Netscape and Mosaic. However , use of Microsoft-ware is prohibited here since crashes, viruses, sloppy code, defective software, lousy aesthetics, and gaping security flaws are hazardous to computers and users. But, if you do have a PC, there is a stable OS option: Trash Windows and load Linux. It is free. It won't freeze on you when you are having World Press Conferences. In fact, Linux never freezes!"

That paragraph was always lighthearted fun for me (still, it is all true) but it is not so funny today. Things changed.

I am placing this article on line because today 24 June, 1998, world history changed. The U.S. Department of Justice caved in and Microsoft is being allowed to distribute Windows 98 the 26th of June with Internet Explorer as an INTEGRATED internal browser. That was a sad day for PC's. I am sure that is the death blow of the WinTelPC. It is a matter of natural selection. PC evolution is now retarded. Netscape, Sun/Java, and many other great software companies are in deep trouble. Why? because Microsoft does not adhere to ANY protocols, even the ones it signs. This is an effort to make it impossible for people who have Windows to use any browser besides Internet Explorer. The operating System prohibits it now. That means there will be very little competition in browsers, and that is bad news for PC users. There will be very little innovation. But the good news is (I predict) that my beloved Apple, Linux, and IBM will soon dominate another market, thanks to this Microsoft measure. Apple long ago won graphics, publishing, video/computer animation, and digital design, but Apple (Macintosh) and Linux will now win the Internet. That is the key that even Bill Gates understands. "He who wins the Internet vehicle wins the computer" And Gates just personally bought 150 million dollars worth of Apple Stock. Steve Jobs refused to give him any voting rights, but Gates took the deal anyway. Philosophically, fundamentally, and architecturally, the future of the computer and the Internet are the same thing. I will take all bets on those prophesies. This article addresses how it all inter-connects:

Many people ask me why I always put Gates/Apple stuff on all my personal webpages throughout the world. There are two reasons for it. The first is this: There really is a big difference between the internet performance of a Macintosh, and all the other computers. I was unbiased, once. I began with 8080 machines in the US Army long before there was any such thing as "Microsoft". I always loved the "back side" of computers: building, repairing, and tinkering with them (that was my initial "job" in the Army and how I became interested in robotics). But I hated the cryptic awkward, literal stupidity and utter ignorance of the "Operating System" (back then, there was only a precursor of UNIX III). But in 1984, the first time I used a Macintosh I fell in love with its "front side" (the "OS"). It was a very artistic, creative innovation. At the risk of giving animate consciousness where it does not exist, I still say it was "intuitive" in its operation. More importantly, The mechanics of how Macs process data is totally different, much more efficient than how linear PC code is processed. From the beginning, Macintosh was a multi-tasking code. To illustrate what that means to you, my cafe (above) where the Castle was "dry-docked" was one of the first Internet Cafes in Texas. The cafe had a T1 connection to the internet, so there was no limit to the pipeline speed. I had a 1995 486DX66 (66mhz, the fastest PC at the time) sitting on one table, and across from it I had a 1988 Mac IIci that was running at 25mhz, only at 1/3 the speed of the PC. Both were connected to their own separate IP address. I had fine tuned the software on both machines as best can be done, yet the 25 mhz 7-year old Mac would pull in and load up pages twice as fast as the NEW PC which was processing at triple the Mac's speed. Why? No 19.2kbps buffer bottlenecks on a Mac, and it handles by design, more than one task at a time, simultaneously. That is what multi-tasking means to you! The Mac starts the process of painting the picture at the same time its fully integrated chassis is receiving the picture. When I got a 66mhz PPC Mac, it would load web pages faster from a dial-up modem connection than the DXPC could on ISDN ethernet! And when both were on Ethernet, the Mac was 4 times faster than the PC. That is a tremendous difference. Now, you may think I am selling Macintoshes. I am not. I am a Mac addict and fan only because (and only as long as) they outperform a PC. I simply detest watching an hourglass, and that is why, for 14 years, I have been a "MacConvert". I would have gone "back to the other side" in an instant if there had been a faster machine for graphics during all those years. That is the absolute truth. Before today, I believe there was a chance that someday a PC may equal the Mac's graphic performance, or even exceed it. But now, I simply see no possibility whatsoever of any further genuine PC (non-Mac) evolution, except through a Linux victory over Microsoft.

Here is the reason the WinTel PC will never outrun a Macintosh. (remember, I said there were two reasons) The reason the PC will never outrun a Mac is because the PC is artificially restrained by a "anti-evolution mobster" named Bill Gates. Because he has so overwhelmed and manipulated the world's PC Operating System market with his retarded trash, there will never again be a revolutionary innovation in how a PC PHYSICALLY functions because Microsoft has suppressed and stalled the evolution of the basic design in PC processors. Even Intel and Cyrix and to some extent, revolutionary Linux (the best PC OS by far) must conform to MS dictates of processor standards or risk not having a market for "deviant" (by MS definitions) CPU's. Therefore the market is not free to fully explore the 64 or 128 bit processor paths that Macintosh has mastered. Windows is still just pretending to run at 32 bits most of the time. This artificial market restraint is like Michelin saying in 1950 " We will not sell tires to automobiles that have overhead valves". If Michelin was the only tire manufacturer, the whole world would still be driving flathead engines, and overhauls would need to be done every 30,000 miles. It would be fine if Microsoft was an innovative technically-advanced corporation devoted to fundamental process R & D, but it is a stone-aged dogmatic corporation built on one product: DOS. Now there is a piece of apocrypha. Gates' sole claim to genius is really a complete product he bought from a poor soul in Seattle for 50,000 dollars. And he bought it with IBM's money! IBM was paying Gates by the code line (instead of per hour) to make an OS for the first IBM PC. Like PavlovÕs dog, Gates is still stuck in the notion that software quality is measured by its length instead of its frugality and thus, efficiency! There is a myth of creativity about Gates that he himself archives. It is a lie. There is nothing on this planet that Bill Gates has created except the Mafia of Microsoft itself . He could not write DOS, so he bought it pre-made . . and Windows is really just DOS covered with a newly painted plastic shell. Add a few stolen Mac, Java, and IBM innovations like GUI that work great on a 32 bit system (but crash on the mostly 16-bit Windows 95) and you have Windows 98 or NT. All of this has made me hate Microsoft as much as I hated the input side of those old 8080 computers: Microsoft is still the same old 1970's technology with a 1990's whitewashed facade. Nothing fundamentally (structurally) new at all. So I do love Macintosh very much, for the same reason I would prefer to drive a Mercedes than a Lexus, or a Harley rather than a Suzuki: I would rather have the REAL thing, Performance! . . not a cheap pretender, non-performer, or "wanna-be". The frustration is that I must pay the premium for a unified system like Mac to get graphic performance, when a rediesigned PC chip architecture and software innovations beyond archaic DOS/Win could achieve the same results (without Windows choking development)

There is another more sinister reason for distrusting Microsoft that most people are not aware of. I have a PPC Mac with a DOS card. From the factory, it came with Windows loaded on it. Later I decided I had no use for the Windows so I reformatted that side of the Mac and loaded Linux, DOS 622/Win311, and UNIX. I still had room left on the PC drive, so I decide to put Windows back on. When I did, I could not find the ID at the moment so I skipped the registration and configured Win95 without it temporarily. Later I was testing the shared modem port on the PC and the very first time I dialed up to the internet, it would not respond and appeared frozen on line when I had entered a local URL. I decided to shift to the Mac screen so I could look at the com logs and see what Windows was doing (was it frozen or still trying to boot Explorer?). When I saw the transcript, I was horrified! I had a Windows CD included with my computer, but here was Windows talking to microsoft.com and giving them my name and saying "this is a pirated unlicensed* copy of Windows 95". The ignorant OS was calling me a thief and I was paying for the phone bill while it did it! ( W95 is not worth stealing!) This gives new meaning to the slogan "WHERE do you WANT to GO today?" . . doesn't it? I cut the modem off, found my serial number and fed it to the fink OS. Then I started again, and went to download Netscape so that lousy browser would not get another chance to go somewhere I did not tell it to go... SAME thing, it froze again. So I went to the Mac side to see if W95 had crept into microsoft.com again. It was displaying a command indicating that I had entered the Netscape download site, was asking for a NS32.exe and then it issued a stop command on the browser download. When I returned to the Windows, it was displaying an illegal operation threat, and then W95 shut off the browser itself. I had to disable I.E. and load Netscape with a Brittanica to get what I wanted. Then, I never really trusted W95 with a modem again. Nobody should! Microsoft is so afraid you will load a real browser on your machine that it has hidden commands to interfere with the navigation and download. And on several occasions I found it trying to access the modem to give out my physical address and telephone number to MS databases.

So, in the final analysis, I really love Macintosh and Linux, but I distrust and despise Microsoft. And as much as I hate Microsoft, it is not nearly as much as I despise Bill Gates for blowing his own horn and retarding development of the PC. Bill Gates is the Ghenghis Khan barbarian crusader of the information age. Now, you might ask, what do you really feel about Bill Gates as a person? :) . . here is my canned cryptic answer: "All teachers and artists dislike plagiarists". OK, you are ready for me to stop now. . . WAIT . . wait! . . one last thing. I stood next to Bill Gates once. He smelled like he turned his underwear inside out after a hard day's work, and put them back on. I found out later in a biography from his early friends that it was because he rarely took baths. That is disgusting. But true. A smelly plagiarist and a pig. Tell him I said so. Let his team of lawyers try to call that slander or libel! . . That won't work, since the whole world knows it is true.

But to finish on the point, it is still sad that the evolution the PC architecture ceased today. It will now become a world standard of technological regression. It will forevermore be a succession of "sophisticated shiny facades" running on top of (and crippled by) the limits of a worthless 20-year-old 3-floppy-disk Operating system (DOS).

To wax philosophic a la Douglas Hofstadter (similar in subject, but words from my book): I keep speaking of evolution of the computer and how it will stop (for the PC) as a result of this news event. But that may need a definition since I also make robots I do not want people to think I mean evolution in a biological sense. Robots are not biological. Neither are computers. They can imitate biology only as far as programming and hardware allow. There is research that indicates that future advanced computers will be "assembled" at a microscopic level by biological processes like enzymes and bacteria, but the end product will always remain a machine. But computers are subject to the same laws of nature as humans in some aspects, Including evolution! Many people think the computer is faster and more precise than a human. It is neither in fact, in most regards. Computers can, to some extent of the definition "calculate" much faster than a human, but they cannot "see" as fast as a human. And they cannot truly "create" anything at all. By seeing, I mean a computer cannot process images as fast as a human. That is why we spend so much time waiting for small images to load on screen. It must be done in millions of pieces like a bricklayer putting down stones in mortar. It takes a significant amount of time for the fastest computers today to open (build) a 25 Mb jpeg. The same image data can be processed by the human mind a billion times faster than any computer can do it, even a superprocessing giant like the Nitrogen-cooled Kray. There is not now, nor will there ever be a computer that can "see" in the pixel depth resolution equivalents that the human eye/mind combined, can achieve. And while computers struggle to assemble a 6 inch square 72 DPI Mpeg movie at 30 frames per second, our mind does the equivalent of 30 frames per second in a net field of 30,000 DPI and a spectrum size of square kilometers! Why do I say computers will never achieve this? Even if given thousands of years of development (that is, assuming you all wake up and realize what a ripoff jerk Gates is) computer processors have too many links to maintain, and there is no threshhold of tolerance for losing even one single connection. Computers have one single linear connection to all points (a maximum of 2 in Nand/Nor logic). Each one requires 100% continuity. Sever any one of them, or as is natural by heart fatigue, let one develop high resistance, and it all ceases to operate. Humans have goologs and trillions more neurons than the computers' equivalent component, and all of ours have an average of 18 pathways for simultaneous connections, each one faster and more complex than any ISDN modem. Drink some alcohol or sniff gypsy aracet, and you kill a few hundred. They do not regenerate (unlike all the other cells in our body) but they will heal and re-establish a connection while you sleep overnight. (obviously, I do not promote either, especially the latter) The point here is this: The speed limit of both human thought and digital telecommunications is that of light: 300,000 kilometers per second. But the speed limit of the computer is the human eye. Computers have a long way to go in their technical evolution, both in hardware and software capacity before they even get one billionth as fast as the human eye. We have all noticed that the processors are getting faster these days, but now they are all exceeding the speed limit of their bus, and all those 500 Mhz CPUs are waiting for those 120 Mhz com-busses to catch up. So the difference in speed is beginning to taper off. Has been for a year now. We have passed the bell curve on what physics will allow in this type of computer architecture. And now, when there was about to be some innovation in that subatomic level of PC CPU design, its evolution will be stifled or perhaps totally regress due to a lack of competition for Microsoft. MS does not want any innovation that will require the whole Windows system to be rewritten from the ground up (I don't think they could ever do it anyway, or else why would they still be using the same archaic code they used in 1988?). But that is exactly what technology demands. The simplest solar calculator today is far more advanced and complex than ENIAC or any of the first "supercomputers". The on-board computer that got man on the moon had no hard drive at all, less than one quarter of a Megabyte of Ram, and was running at a couple hundred Kiloherz (far less than 1 Megaherz). I saw that stone age device personally, and if I had been on that ship after using todays G4, I would have been kneeling before it, praying, crying, and horrified the whole trip. The 1984 Macintosh existed in a world where all computers were built with mixed up components using very few standards and conventions for interaction. But in order to become the fastest of those equals, it required a whole new component and software standard be designed. Most of the benefits of that creativity went to Microsoft because Mac dropped the ball by not licensing the system when even IBM wanted to lease it. But Mac came back and started another revolution again ten years later with the Risk/PPC and now, the G3 is a complete structural redesign only 3 years later. That kind of market driven evolution will stop for the PC. The laws of nature that apply most to computers is survival of the fittest. If the PC loses ground, and Mac continues to finally become affordable to everyday people, it will quietly inherit the internet because it has remained the fastest and fittest for 10 years now, and like me, when it comes to computers, nobody likes to wait. Right now there are two myths about Macintosh that remain from the 80's slump: 1. Yes Macs are significantly faster, but they are not affordable. 2. They cannot run PC software. The first myth is addressed in the next paragraph, the last one is addressed by the fact that my 1995 PPC Mac is running Linux and doing a spreadsheet at the same time I am writing this document. I can open, read, run, or write to any file format from any OS that has ever existed, even the crippled "DOS-in-Windows-clothing". In fact, the only limited access OS today is Windows. It cannot even "see" a Mac Unix, Sun, Warp, or Linux disk without a "translator". That is Windows limitation. Windows is an institution. It was designed to exclude itself from compatibility, where my computer has that very word stamped on the face: "DOS Compatible". That is evolution. I challenge anyone to show me a disk I cannot read, no matter how old, new, or cryptic. But I can write a list of 20 types of disks and files that no Windows or DOS PC can ever read, no matter what translators it has. Not only that, but usually, you can't even get the fonts and disk formats to agree from one windows PC to another, in the same office!

Now instead of hundreds of thousands of small and medium businesses worldwide inventing and creating new software technology, and chips for newer and more innovative computers, we will say good-bye to all but a few. Most will exist only in an incestuous silicon community of Seattle. I do not want to see only 3 computer technology companies worldwide. (Apple, IBM, and MS). It is Nature and the consumer's best interest to have diversity and competition. I like having the fastest and best performance that only robust competition pressures can produce. Next month Apple begins distribution of its first "poor man's computer" A hot-rod 3-piece Porsche-in-a-box. Everything you need including the monitor , mouse, keyboard, modem, word processing and Internet software for under 800 dollars. It will outperform any Cyrix or Pentium machine on any Internet application, yet costs less than half. It is called the "iMac". Next is MacRhapsody OS and the G4 chip. Once you have seen that perform, you will know as I do, that computers will never be judged by any other standard of performance. Especially now that the PC is legislated and judicially endorsed to be forever chained and inhibited by Microsoft products. Products measured by "code line length" and thus, long, slow task time. As I said, Before today, I believe there was a chance that someday a PC may equal the Mac's performance, or even perhaps exceed it. But now, I see no possibility whatsoever of any further genuine PC evolution. The natural law and history of competition, market demand research, development, enhancement, and thus improvement is now neutralized. Microsoft has become a legislated institution as of today. Microsoft has no competition left, thanks to a spineless cowardly American Judge who probably got a ranch in Seattle out of the deal. MS will never again have to try harder to make a better, lasting product. as it did the brief time that Netscape and Sun forced it to perform. But that is over now as of today. So too, is PC evolution and innovation. Today is a great day for Macs. But it is a very sad day for PC's.

ADDENDUM 2001: I do not hear anyone else who sees what I am sure will come of this. Yes, some say, the DOJ got another judge, sued Microsoft, proved they were a criminal monopoly, and suggested splitting up the monster. But then, Bill Gates contributed MILLIONS illegally (and some hundreds of thousands, legally) to George Bush Jr's campaign fund. Since the Bush coup, Microsoft has only been getting a public "slap on the hand". It is obvious all that money Bill contribuuted to George bought all the judges, and assured status quo, which means retarded processors, inhibited evolution, and more viruses to contend with. -Indefinitely. Unless you get a Mac or Load Linux.

Consider this in parting: I have always found Gates personally despicable, but I would never accuse him of anything less than genius in financial abilities. Curiously, I think Bill Gates really does see the same winners I see: Gates' old enemy, Steve Jobs is back at Apple doing a very good job of running the show. And remember, Bill Gates just recently bought 150 million dollars of Apple stock! In December of 1999, Gates actually stated that Linux "was more stable than Windows"... Hell, Bill, Linux is not more stable than Windows, Linux is totally stable. In 2001, one of two things will happen: Linux will take over the world of desktop computing (it already has taken the servers away from NT, thank God!) and there will only be idiots still using Microsoft; or.. (second possibility) if Microsoft does not die, the PC will ... and you will all have to learn how to use a Mac. Don't worry, it isn't too hard. Since 1995, I have been verbally TELLING mine what to do! (voice recognition was built into the system software)

. . take another bite of apple to get back to SchlosStudios .