I've done the "backwards" approach to using AOL from what you've described.

At home I use pure-AOL, via AOL dialup, with AOL's browser (blegh!) for the _few_ times I ever do this. (After reading your article, I may load Netscape instead; memory isn't a problem.) Much more common at home is to use Claris Em@iler to collect my e-mail (dialup) from AOL, and that's it.

At work, my Mac has a 10BaseT line direct to our fiberoptic backbone, which has a T1 connection to the Internet. (20K/sec or better normal rate - 10x what I get on a 28.8 modem - it's enough faster that I do all my Web-surfing by staying late at work instead of trying to do it via modem at home!) I use Em@iler via TCP/IP to AOL to get mail, use Netscape directly (no AOL involved) for browsing, and whenever I need AOL content I use AOL via TCP/IP.

On the road, I use my Newton with ALOHA software and AOL's 1-800 number to collect my mail - from a different screen name. I use a different name "on the road" because my _work_ Mac is sitting there with Em@iler collecting ALL my mail every hour, and forwarding only the stuff I'd consider "urgent" to the screen name I'm looking at from the Newton...

Since I pay annually in advance, this all costs me less than even the AOL "standard" $19.95/month. Being _very_ tired of the "AOL Spam" e-mail, and the repeated down times, I've looked at various ISP's, but every one has one or more problems; higher cost, less than the 10Mb of Web space I've got on AOL (5 names x 2Mb), no nationwide (800) access, or I can't connect from work since they _only_ expect a dial-in.

So, for different reasons, I too have decided to "stick with AOL" - at least for now.

Bill

Apple and Clones

I would like to add a little personal word to the big debate about Apple and clones.

I think we have to consider few points :

A) Clones were because Apple was. The situation of PC clones in the '80s was different because IBM started but everybody was able to put some chips together and to buy (a) DOS license or (after) (a) Windows license and to go on the run.

B) The original strategy of Apple was : we will produce for the high-end market and clones will expand the low-end one with cheap and flexible models.

C) If a) and b) are true means that in reality something went wrong! Why the few clone-producers immediately pointed to the Apple-owned market and they didn't expand the Mac OS share in the low-end segment?

I have an opinion about this; I think that Apple made a mistake giving licenses of the OS to big corporate (ex. UMAX, Motorola, IBM, etc..). The real market of the low-end computer (PC for example) comes from the very small companies. They build their products in little quantity and they sell in local areas. If I was in the Apple strategical market department, I would press the company to start the clone project from these micro-users because one million micro companies do a much bigger volume then Motorola and UMAX together. Does somebody remember the time of Apple II ? In that time it was the leading personal computer in the world. But also the market had plenty of clones mainly produced by very small companies in their garages. These little companies don't cover the main professional market but they are able to produce with very low cost and to sell to the students, to the home/game addicts, to the hobbyists, etc...

My opinion is that Apple had to create a kind of "Kit" for these people and let them run. If so I am sure that in less than one year the Mac OS share could rise very much.

I'm sorry for the too long message, and please forgive me if english is not my mother-language (everybody has his own limit).

Regards