WHY EMPEROR BILL SHOULD RULE

By JOSHUA QUITTNER

My computer doesn't work. If you own a computer, I'm sure this admission doesn't surprise you. This morning, for instance, I powered up my new, $3,000 machine, hoping to check my E-mail. I launched (an optimistic verb) a communications program, and double-clicked an on-screen button.

The button refused to respond. I couldn't get my E-mail. When my computer doesn't work, I engage in a few modern rituals. I turn it off, then on again -- the equivalent of throwing a cup of cold water in its face. Or I try starting it while holding down the shift key; that secret handshake tells my computer to load only its most essential programs. Then, I add the one I need, hoping it won't crash my system. I've found that rapping my machine smartly on its side never cures the problem. It does, however, precipitate a brief but gratifying starburst pattern on the monitor, much as if it had been punched in the nose.

My behavior is within the normal range of human-computer interactions. I know an editor at a computer magazine who treats his machine as if it were organic, a delicate ecology of microchips and electric pulsing code. He's put a word-processing program and some bland communications software on it. Nothing more. While every new, cool program comes to him (laser-'em-up games, flight sims, goofy utilities that promise to make his computer bark like a Schnauzer), he refuses to put any of them on his hard drive for fear that doing so would expose it to grave biological risk.

We're not stupid and neither are you. It's 1995 and we're no longer technological naifs. Many of us don't need how-to books like Windows for Dummies or Macs for Dummies because we've been using (or trying to use) computers for more than 15 years. We neither fear them, nor want them to go away. When they work, they help organize our thoughts and simplify our lives. When they don't, we want to rap them smartly on their sides. Repeatedly. Until the nurse comes and leads us to a quiet room.

The problem is not in us, it's in our computers. And I am fed up. I don't want to have to deal with software conflicts and bugs and crashes anymore. I don't want to waste another second waiting at the checkout counter of the grocery store because the cash-machine network is down. I want to be online, not on line. Most of all, I want to read my E-mail without having to sacrifice a tethered goat.

So I offer a modest proposal: Let Bill Gates rule the digital world.

Gates doesn't control too much, he controls too little. Encourage him to finish building his monopoly. Let him manage the flow of bits end-to-end, from the boxes that sit on our desktops to the servers that run mighty networks. Let him provide the digital dial tone for the information superhighway. Look the other way while Microsoft gobbles up cable and telephone companies so it can have a direct information pipeline into every home. Ignore it when Gates colonizes Hollywood and starts running the film and TV industry. Give him Intuit. And throw in the banks too.

Things work under monopolies. Remember how great the telephone system functioned when AT&T was the phone company? Competition threatens to ruin technology for all of us. Too many companies manufacture software and hardware, and none of it works together. Only the losers want to set new standards. Microsoft operating systems already run 80% of the desktop computers in the world. Why should Gates agree to someone else's standards?

I make my proposal selflessly, objectively, recognizing that from a programming standpoint, Windows isn't exactly poetry. It's counterintuitive and clunky, which is peculiar after all these years. Microsoft, you'll recall, came into being when Gates licensed to IBM his Disk Operating System, or DOS, which was supposed to make PCs easier to use. Later, Windows was supposed to make DOS easier to use. And a few months ago, Microsoft unleashed something called Bob, a program that's supposed to make Windows easier to use. Until a Bob helper is born, you can look forward to reading -- I swear this is true -- Microsoft Bob for Dummies.

By contrast, Apple Computer's operating system is easy to use. In fact, it's joy and light, clears up your complexion and allows you to lose weight effortlessly. Then why aren't Macs on 80% of the world's desktops? Apple made too many bad business decisions. It failed to license Apple technology in time to create a cheap Mac clone market; it underestimated demand for PowerPCs when the product turned out to be a hit, etc. ... Who cares anymore? The battle is over. Soon, Windows 95 will land in the stores and while the technical press has given it mixed reviews, one good thing you'll hear is that it's more "Mac-like."

This is wonderful news -- at least the company is moving in the proper direction-and if it's true, maybe I'll start using the IBM clone that sits on my desk, stupid as a lawn jockey. But this isn't about me. This is about what's good for the entire digital world. And what's good for the digital world has nothing to do with smart technology versus stupid technology. It has to do with who's biggest and most likely to put all the pieces together. More important, it has to do with someone finally being responsible for our computer malfunctions. Someone we can blame. Someone like Bill Gates.