🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, I know Chuq doesn't care to read or reply to flames, and he has been
taking some heat - some of it deserved. But there is a point or two here that
I consider invalid so here comes my $0.02:
     
In article <497@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) says:
>
>In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes:
>
>No upgrade paths, but then, try and get Apple to upgrade your 128K Mac
>to a Mac II.  The older architectures are NOT obsolete, any more than
>the original Mac architecture is obsolete.  While IBM may have stopped
>making the original style PC's, they still work fine, and run most of
>the current round of software - my personal machine is one of the
>original PCs with the cassette port, and runs all of the latest software
>(short of OS/2) with ease.
>
  Sorry, but I feel Chuq is right here. There is no way any version of th
 PC is going to be supporting new software running OS/2, whereas my Mac+
 runs the latest version of Finder/System just dandy.
     
>>It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out.
>>There's this neat new toy called OS/2 that is going to replace everything
>>you ever new about operating systems. Or, at least, it will when they finish
>>it. Even more fun, the pre-releases of OS/2 need (get this) 1.5 megabytes of
>>memory to get started. The standard memory in a PS/2 computer? A megabyte.
>
>Well, compare OS/2 to A/UX - that's the reasonable comparison here.
>Nobody at IBM is requiring anyone to run OS/2, MS-DOS still works, and
>works just fine, thank you.  Let's look at Apple, shall we?  The last I
>heard, A/UX requires 2 megabytes of memory to get started.  The standard
>memory in a Mac II?  A megabyte.
>
 Here again I agree with Chuq. OS/2 is supposed to replace MS-DOS. You
 can't run it without a memory upgrade. I can run Finder/System/Multi-
 Finder without one on my Mac+, though I can only open 2 or 3 programs at
 once. Also, A/UX is not designed to replace Finder/System, but to allow
 it to run UNIX for those that want to. And I believe it is a little
 easier to upgrade a Mac ][ by plugging in memeory boards than it is on
 the PS/2.
     
>Remember, multifinder-like things for MS-DOS have been available for
>years.  I used to run one - DoubleDos.  Worked just fine for almost
>everything I ever tried to do (including comm programs).  You can't
>compare multifinder to OS/2.  Again, the appropriate comparison is
>between OS/2 and A/UX.
>
>>But when you compare [what Apple is doing] with what IBM is
>>doing in the same market -- actively tossing computers, operating systems,
>>and complete architectures out the window, setting configurations and prices
>>in ways that force users to buy expensive upgrades to get functional, and
>>trying to make old hardware not just slower, but unable to access the new
>>technology, I think you'll have to admit that Apple ain't all that bad.
>
>Apples and oranges, Chuq.  Not to mention damn lies (or, at best, very
>misleading statements).  The new line of IBM's does not, I repeat, does
>NOT, make the older models obsolete.  One by one: "actively tossing
>computers" - something EVERY manufacturer does.  Have you tried to buy a
>Mac 512e on the retail market lately?  "operating systems" - MS-DOS is
>still around, and runs on ALL of the PS/2 line.  "complete
>architectures" - not at all.  The major change in the architecture is
>the addition of the microchannel I/O bus, and is no different than Apple
>adding NuBus to the Mac II.  Would you have rather they made the Mac II
>I/O cards Apple II compatible?  At any event, for most applications, the
>change will be transparent to the user anyway.  "... expensive upgrades
>to get functional" - not at all.  If you are willing to stay with
>MS-DOS, the PS/2 machines function perfectly well right out of the box.
>Now, I'm not trying to JUSTIFY staying with MS-DOS, mind you :-)  If you
>decide to go to a multitasking operating system, yes, you may have to
>upgrade.  But, again, the 'standard' Mac II system will not allow you to
>run A/UX, either.  "Trying to make old hardware ... unable to access the
>new technology" - Bushwah.  OS/2 will run just fine on an AT.  It won't
>run on an ordinary PC, but then, neither will A/UX run on a 68000.  The
>other issues of compatibility are being addressed - you can, right now,
>get a card which will allow ANY PC to have the graphics capablility of
>the PS/2 line.  You can get equivalent hardware for almost every
>function that is supported on the PS/2 line for your ordinary PCs.  What
>you can't do is take advantage of the microchannel I/O, but then, your
>basic Mac users can't use NuBus cards, either...
>
>In short, blasting IBM for compatibility problems is a fairly stupid
>thing to do.  In comparison with Apple, IBM comes out OK.  In comparison
>to IBM, Apple comes out OK.  Mindless bashing of either machine is dumb,
>dumb, dumb, and not at all what I would have expected from the man that
>wrote the primer on using Usenet intelligently.
>
>--
>Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just
     
 Yes, Chuq may have indulged in a little machine bashing, true. But I still
 agree that OS/2 is getting to be a little ridiculous if half of the rumors are
 true as to the size of disk/memory needed, and the point of the article (in my
 mind) was that OS/2 will have a bear of a time being used on PC's, where that
 problem doesn't exist now on the Mac.
-------
 George A. Brownfield                       B5U @ PSUVMA
 Aerospace Engineering Major                B5U @ PSUVM
 The Pennsylvania State University
     
 BITNET: B5U @ PSUVM (down until late January, try GAB @ PSUECL)
 UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!b5u
     
 "Women, cats, and golf; man was not ment to understand these things."