Microsoft vs GM

[Paul.Tait]

This was sent to me via e-mail. Don't know how much truth there is in the scenario, but it's fun all the same. I particularly like number 5!
------------
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

"If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon".

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and re-open the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that looked fantastic, was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive -  but would run on only five per cent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

[kelly]

That;s been around a long time Paul.  

At least a long time in Internet Time.

There's a rebuttal and a rebuttal to that too somewhere.

[RHPConsult]

Hey Paul,

In fact, it's likely to be a hoax (as to precise details) but it's an Urban Legend, for sure.

Explanation?

Sure. Take a look at . . .

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.htm

Then, everyone, simplify your life and bookmark Snopes for the future. It's fascinating/invaluable and all sorts of other good stuff.

PS: Sorry. I just couldn't get the URL to appear as clickable in this post, for some reason. Still. it's a great source to have at your fingertips.

making it clickable-the bold tags threw it off-jep
 
 [ 03-05-2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: jepinto ]

[krissel]

A modern update to that old comparison would include:

•Vehicles would be produced that were able hold massive amounts of luggage and customers would try to justify the need for all that space.

•Cars would be rated by their ultimate potential speed even though the needed speed (limit) was much less.

•Smaller manufacturer of well designed, expensive  vehicles would be copied by cheaper knock-off versions.

•Low power consumption would be ignored by most of the public in favor of bigger and faster.

•Manufacturers would opt for leasing  over purchase to ensure continued income.

•Companies would add lots of doodads and geegaws to the vehicles to attract the narcissist in everyone.

•Power and size would become more important than safety.

...oh, wait a minute,    

...that's all true.