🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Summers-3108951803560001@ethyl-the-frog.arc.nasa.gov>,
David P. Summers <Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <420ejn$dib@sashimi.wwa.com>, blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G) wrote:

>The Plus come out before the 386.  I don't remember if it
>came out before the 286.

You  are wrong.  The 386 was released in 1985; the first computer
using a 386 (Compaq) was released in 1986.  The Plus was released
in 1986.

>> 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).
>
>So people will be able to use System 7 to run new software. 

a)   Are  you  saying that Copland won't include various features
(e.g. pre-emptive  multitasking)  which  will  make  applications
written for it incompatible with System 7?

b)  System  7  is  not a viable solution, as Copland provides im-
provements over System 7's shortcomings.

c)  The  point is not ability to run the applications, but rather
to run the OS.

>Conversely, it has been stated that anything with a 286 instruction
>set is obsolete.  Clearly obsolesence is faster in the PC world
>and is forced by more than just speed.

Something better is required than a 286 (or a 68020 for that mat-
ter) for good MM.  If you prefer the broken  System  7  style  MM
which is not optimized for MM CPU's then you can use it.  I value
function over backwards compatibility.

>> 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?
>
>The point is that, since the Mac had a more modern design to begin
>with, it doesn't have to force people to choose between things like
>filenames more than 8 characters long and being able to use old
>software.

Complete  BS.   This  is  only true because it hasn't added basic
features in 11 years.  There's no excuse  to  have  30  character
filename limit in 1995, for example.  When Apple catches up (Sys-
tem 7 is as of 8/24 the worst OS shipping) they will  break  com-
patibility.

>The really ironic thing, is that by say that coming out with a Mac
>like interface is such a great thing, they are saying that before
>Windows 95 people should have been buying Macs.

What does this have to do with backwards compatibility?

Cheers, Terry Murphy