🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.93Jan5192712@decb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>aland> Also, any of *those* applications should run just fine in
>aland> DOS-under-UNIX implementations *today*.  So, what exactly is the
>aland> NT advantage?
>
>Source, rather then binary, compatibility with Windows 3.1; sw houses

The lack of binary compatibility is supposed to be an ADVANTAGE?  

>can "just recompile" an application, if it was written to the WIN32 API,
>and "almost as easily" if it was written to the WIN16 API.

"Just recompile" -- yeah, right.  "If it was written to the XXX API" -- THERE's
the key part.  You're STILL talking about the average user having to
replace all of their DOS software.  Therefore, Alpha NT "compatibility" is
still more myth than reality.

>Piercarlo Grandi, Dept of CS, PC/UW@Aberystwyth <pcg@aber.ac.uk>
>  E l'italiano cantava, cantava. E le sue disperate invocazioni giunsero
>  alle orecchie del suo divino protettore, il dio della barzelletta

Translation: In Italy, you can't have it; you can't have it.  You desperate,
wretched vacationers all are going to need divine intervention for all
the trouble you caused in your day of drunken bar-hopping.     (Right?   [-:  )


--
Alan Denney      aland@informix.com      {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland

I'm Pro-Anarchy...   and I Vote!