🚀 go-pugleaf

Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov (David P. Summers) wrote:

>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.

MS's newest OS will at least run on old 386 machines.  As of right
now, Copland's plans for 680X0 have not been determined- and
considering how far we are into Coplands design, this seems unlikely.

And to say older Macs haven't been prematurely pressured into
obsolence with Apples "A Mac a week" introduction policy is
ridiculous.  386's can run Pentium software, just more slowly.  68040
Macs can not run Power Mac software.  Copland as of now will not run
on any 680X0 machine.

But what an argument.  You can run Mac software on an incredibly slow
Mac+- is this what advocacy has come to?  We're defending grandmothers
using computers to write 2-paragraph letters to their grandkids with
MacWrite.  Jesus.  Might as well start advocating the IBM XT's- still
used quite a few of them, and quite well for simply database and
letter work where I last worked.

>> 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.

Or your expecations are lower.  I find that often to be the case.


>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.

It's the same thread that platform advocacy always follows.  Just as
when the Mac users get pre-emptive multitasking and proper
multithreading, they'll be shouting the advantages from the rooftops,
and Coplands "superior" crash protection, even though many claim it's
"good enough" now.

What your machine has over mine is irrelevant.

What my machine has over yours is fundamental to computing.