🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42d9lt$1ns@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
Glue) wrote:
> 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.

We can agrue about what Copland "might" do, but we know what MS "did"
do.  In the past Apple has supported older machines and there is
precendent that they will keep older machines running new software.
MS has never really even tried.

> And to say older Macs haven't been prematurely pressured into
> obsolence with Apples "A Mac a week" introduction policy is
> ridiculous.

And exactly how does introducing a new computer prevent me
from using the one I already have?  The only thing that really
obsoletes computers is not being able to run software (like
Windows 95).

> 386's can run Pentium software, just more slowly.

Gee and System 7.5 runs on _68040_.

> Macs can not run Power Mac software.

Every piece of software I've seen will run on either Mac.  So far
even 3rd party vendors have followed Apples lead in not obsoleting
older computers like MS does.

> 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.

And what's wrong with this?  What about someone who wants to get 
5 years (or more) out of their computing $?.  Is this the attitude 
of a system that is suppose to bring computing to the average 
person???  You are only confirming what I said.  MS gears there 
product toward people that are willing to spend big $ upgrading 
their systems all time.  Clearly anyone who is concerned about
costs has been better off with a Mac.

> 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.

I nice religous type arguement.  "You're case doesn't match what
I believe to be true, so it must be wrong."  

> 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.

Only DOS/Windows users waited almost 10 years for good enough.  We
had most of what Windows users are just getting for along time,
and it won't take much to put the Mac a step ahead.

> What your machine has over mine is irrelevant.
> What my machine has over yours is fundamental to computing.

A good description of the religious attachment to premtive multitasking.