🚀 go-pugleaf

In <42dom4$dqj@sashimi.wwa.com> blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G) writes:
>In article <Summers-0309951911020001@arclan-ara-gw-1.arc.nasa.gov>,
>David P. Summers <Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov> wrote:

>>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.

>Do  you  understand the limitations of the pre-386 hardware?  The
>8086 cannot address more than 1 MB of RAM and the 286 can only do
>8  MB  (or  is it 16?).  Neither of them have a MMU.  Both are 16
>bit.  Do you want MS to release a severely restricted, memory un-
>protected,  16  bit  OS?   That  would be completely unusable.

That would be Windows 95! :)

  I
>don't believe ANY OS (besides Minix) still supports  the  pre-386
>hardware.  Heck, there were OS's released at least five years ago
>which required a 386.  Anything earlier just does  not  have  the
>features  needed.  Feel frame to flame Intel for this, but I just
>don't understand why you think MS is to blame.

>Cheers, Terry Murphy

-- 
--
Gary Morris                         "Happily using OS/2 Warp!"
Sherwood Park Remote Systems        
sprsys!garym@nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca