I really don't want to start a religious war or anything. It just boils down to semantics. He means something *very* specific when he talks about an architecture, you haven't used it that way yet, and (unfortunately) I understand it but not well enough to explain it while I'm troubleshooting something else right now. On Tue, 15 May 2001, Ben Kochie wrote: > I think what your dad is talking about, is the same ideals that MS is > pushing. You take that back! <g> (It's not true, either, but I don't think either of us care enough about it to waste the keystrokes on it. > the oldest alpha system I've worked on was the Jensen, or DecPC 150. > over the years, they have gone through a lot of changes, and each > time, they throw in a bunch of architectural changes that have been > good, and kludgy. No, the alpha architecture hasn't changed that much, according to what I've seen. You may know better. Features and implementation take place in the *context* of an architecture. It smells like you're talking about the former. > (in my opinion) no single system type is perfect, just like no OS is > perfect True enough. We can discuss the relative merits and pitfalls of them at the next beer thang. :) -- "To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." --Anonymous