🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pms49.42.30AD6C5B@omni.voicenet.com>, Paul M. Schuer wrote:
>In article <48hmdd$c4j@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> camargo@primenet.com (Jose Camargo) writes:
>>its@xmission.com (Travel CD) wrote:
>>>for people who have purchased IBM compatible computers. 
>
>First of all, IBM compatible is a misnomer. What you are saying is "MSDOS 
>machines with Intel processors".  The IBM machine we thought of for years was 
>running Microsoft's (ala bill gates) msdos on an 80x86 intel processor. Now 
>things may be different but... the 80x86 processor from intel appears to be 
>the standard. IBM is NOT the standard pc any more. READ AND HEAD the pc  
>magazines. Please disassociate IBM with the standard, the world had changed 
>and IBM went the way of the S100 buss and CP/M.

Well, I disagree.  There were 'MSDOS machines with Intel processors', but
they went the way of the S100.  All the software came to depend not on DOS
and the BIOS but on the surrounding hardware.  All computers now are still
compatible - they have compatible floppy controller chips, UART chips,
Programmable Interrupt Controller chips, etc.  There was/is a LOT more to
compatibility than running DOS; remember when all the computer ads bragged
that their clone would run MS Flight Simulator 2?  Not too many DOS calls
in that guy...

We are saddled with the albatross of IBM PC compatibility for some time to
come.  DOS and the IBM hardware set are our legacy on PC's as COBOL  and
big round tapes are on mainframes. 

That is, as long as you insist on running DOS or Windows ;^>

Cheers,
Garrett
--
Garrett P. Nievin                             | http://osf1.gmu.edu/~gnievin
12/95 Wired magazine says --                  | Any opinions stated here are 
Tired:   Microsoft Windows 95  Wired: Linux   | probably not shared by anyone, 
How can the new guy be tired already?         | least of all my employer.