🚀 go-pugleaf

In <869410485snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) writes:
>In article <5qoa91$61d$4@news1.telenordia.se>
>	   nospammikkelm@datasvar.se "Mikkel Breiler" writes:
>
>> Also OS/2 doesn't run on Macs...
>>
>> ...but just think how that would be, the friendliest machines
>> running IBM's finest. :-)
>
>While appreciating your sentiments, I'm struggling with your
>logic.  Macs certainly have a reputation for being nice to use
>(whether earned or not, I cannot say) but surely much of that
>comes from the software?  If the Bad OS Fairy were to sneak into
>your home and load Win95 on your machine, displacing OS/2, would
>it remain as "friendly"?  It'd be like your family pet catching
>rabies.  <g>
>--
>Andrew Stephenson
>

You may be missing a critical point.  One of the reasons that Macs are friendlier
is that they don't have the 8086 baggage with 16 IRQ's (of which only about 5)
are available and 8 DMA channels; all of which must somehow be allocated to
the installed hardware in such a way that no component conflicts with another.

The Mac was 32-bit from the beginning with built in hardware configuration and
a very homogenous (however proprietary) hardware set that integrates very
closely to the system to improve performance and ease of installation.

IMHO, OS/2 is as good (or better) a UI as System 7 (and its offspring).  It will
probably never happen, but if OS/2 were available for the Power-Mac it would
be a formidable combination.

/********************************************
 * Douglas Toltzman
 * Software Engineer, Oak Street Software Inc
 ********************************************/