🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hotelca-2808952252320001@192.0.2.1>,
Hotel California <hotelca@cris.com> wrote:
>[snip stuff about modern systems running on 030s and 386s]
>At my school they are running system 7something on 6MB Classics and
>Pluses.  For those of you who don't know, a Classic uses the 68000 chip,
>used in the original 128k Mac introduced on January 24, 19*84* and the
>Plus is the 3rd Mac model, the first to be platinum instead of beige and
>also the first with a SCSI port.  What is the minimum requirements for
>Windows 3.1, a 286?  Windows 95, doesn't that require at *LEAST* a 386 but
>runnnns baaaaad onnnnnn iiiiiit.  Don't even think about putting it on a
>8088 or even 80286.  Heck, a 020 Mac can run 7.5 with no prob.

For  starters,  you should compare models' years instead of CPU's
years.  The Classic is from 1990.  (I know, I know...   The  Plus
can, too...but the 386 was released the same year!)

Second,  when  Copland is released your situation (not running on
anything before the PPC, from 1992?) will be worse than ours (not
running a good OS on anything before 386, from 1986).

Third,  why  do  the  same people who denounce MS's dedication to
backwards compatibility (long filenames compatible with old  FAT,
run  15  year  old  DOS programs, etc.) and denounce PC backwards
compatibility in general (Intel's dedication  to  the  8086  set,
ability  to  use  a 15 year old ISA card in a Pentium, etc.) find
Apple's dedication to the old hardware so holy?

Cheers, Terry Murphy