🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42765o$5k2@sashimi.wwa.com>, blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G) wrote:
> 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?

I'm saying is that, unlike Microsoft, older Macintoshes haven't been
prematurely pushed into obsolesence.  Even today, with a whole new
processor, a plus can still run current software.  Meanwhile, MS
made you get new software when windows came out and now expects
you to get new software to use windows 95.

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

Solution to what problem?  It's like "true" multitasking.  People
keep saying it's better because it solves the problems of premtive
multitasking.  The funny think is that I'm just not having those
problems to a significant extent.  It maybe that it's somewhat
better, but it's clear that it's more of a religous belief.

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

Gee, an OS without applications.....

> 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.

Gee, filename length was "unimportant" when MS had only 8 characters.
Now, when they have almost 255 (since it's full pathname, you don't get
255, perhaps a lot less), suddenly anything less is unacceptable.
Functionally, the difference between 8 characters and 31 is a lot 
bigger than 31 and some number approaching 255 (and mostly 
significantly less).  If MS is right in saying that going from 
8 character filenames is such a big deal, it means that people
who bought DOS/Windows all these years have been using the wrong OS.

> >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?

You are complaining about bringing up new points?   Look at 
the subject line.  The fact that so many people touting Windows
95 are saying things that are directly opposed to what they
said when the pushed Windows and DOS before that.