🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42g94m$jbl@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
Glue) wrote:

> MS has obviously tried pretty hard with the compromises they made in
> having Windows 95 run your 16-bit apps the best out of any new 32-bit
> OS for the PC.

It might be able to run old software on new machines but it is alot
cheaper to upgrade an app than it is to upgrade a computer.  I mean a 386,
come on.  They could have at least tried for a 286 like Windows 3.1.

> So, how are those motherboard upgrades coming for your Mac +?  Your
> Power PC 6100, even?  How about upgrading to PCI?  You're jumping back
> and forth between architecture and software responsibilities.
> Motorolla's chips have been 32-bit capapable since the first Mac.
> Should Microsoft have released a 286 version of 95?  

Yes, they should have.  I guess because of the tight integration between
OS and machine that us Mac users enjoy, the hardware/software distiction
isn't as big of a deal.  I guess we just have higher expectations than PC
people.

> And yes, we can argue what Apple "might" do- but the fact is they
> haven't announced a port of Copland to the 680X0 architecture.  If
> they haven't at least announced it by now, don't expect it to be
> showing up within the same general time frame as Copland, if at all.
> The prospects for a 680X0 version of Copland look pretty weak.  And of
> course, that's more of a hardware issue, as the PowerPC is a different
> chip than the 680X0 series.  What is a disadvantage now for Intel (in
> terms of advocacy postings only) in that they have two different chip
> sets (16 and 32-bit) in which 32-bit code can not run on the lower,
> will be seen as quite extensive backwards compatibility when Copland
> works on just the Power Macs.  

There will not be a Copland for 040s and it definitely won't be available
at the same time as PPC Copland.  Copland is going to be too much for 0x0s
to handle.  They have, however, annouced plans to port Copland features to
0x0s.  I have not heard of MicroSoft saying they are going to port long
filenames or the absence or the File and Program Managers back to 286s.

> I don't blame Apple for focusing on the PowerPC support, I just think
> stating Apple (a hardware & software company) "orphans" fewer of its
> customers than Microsoft ( a software company) is a bit erroneous.

Erroneous, how?  Apple's computers become obsolete much less than MS's. 
Apple writes its OS to be compatible with 68000 technology, MS writes its
to kind of support 386s but its better to have 040s.  Only the first two
Mac models are truly obsolete although they are useful like the 286s you
were talking about for using stuff like MacPaint or MacWrite.  I'd like to
see a 8088 try to run a current OS with current apps like the Classics at
school.  Similar time frame, better technology, just like we've been
saying for years.

> >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).
> 
> Check your resale value on that 6100 then.  Especially when a model
> significantly faster and cheaper comes out a month later.  

Resale value isn't relevant.  A car loses several thousand dollars once
you drive it off the lot but it still gets you where you want to go.  The
same thing is true of computers.  What is relevant is how much value you
get out of your computer.  I'll be able to use my computer into the next
century without upgrades while you will have to pump money into a new
computer or an upgrade to your current computer.

> Upgrading to a new machine is costly.  Microsoft wants to to pay $100
> for their upgrade- and right now, it's hardly necessary regardless.
> Without 95 on your 386SX, or Windows on your 286, you won't be able to
> run the "best and the newest" software.  And if you still have those
> machines, that obviously isn't your incentive- just as it isn't for
> Mac+ owners.

It is an incentive for Mac Plus owners.  They can still run the best and
newest software (a lot of it anyway).  They can upgrade to 7.5.  However
you see all these people with 286s buying new computers and 386 users
buying more RAM, a larger hard drive, and an overdrive chip so they can
run the "revolutionary" Windows 95.  Mac Plus owners, however just drive
down to the store and pick 7.5 off the shelf.

> >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.
> 
> You still have not provided an example where MS "obsoletes" software.

We have listed several but you keep throwing that lame "but it's a
hardware issue" excuse.

> I don't expect it will be forthcoming.  Once again, this is a hardware
> issue, not a software.  Your Mac+ can "run" 32-bit software (are you

You release a slightly less featured version for the older hardware or you
make the software so people can use only what parts of it they need.

> forgetting the memory contraints?) because the first chip used was a
> 32-bit chip.  Microsoft had to deal with 16-bit chips when Windows was
> released.  The criticism against MS is that they try too HARD for
> backwards compatibility and support and sacrifice some advanced OS
> features because it, and I agree.

Yeah, they tryed so hard.  That's why it only runs on 3 generations of
chips.  Mac software can run on 7 different chips in two totally different
categories.

If you buy a Mac, say a Plus when it came out, you paid around $2,500. 
You would have had it now for about 9 years.  Total cost $277.78 per
year.  If you bought a 8088 based machine when it came out you'd have paid
less.  Then you'd have to upgrade to a 286, probably a motherboard swap. 
Then to a 386, 486, and possible a Pentium.  Or you would have had to buy
a new computer.  All of which comes to much more than $277.78 per year and
definitly more than $2,500 total.  So what happended to the cheaper clone
vs. the expensive Mac?

> >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.
> 
> As I said, if someone wants to write a letter, how is MS obsoleting
> them?  Keep your 286 and run Windows WRITE in standard mode if you
> want.

No, I want to run stuff like WordPerfect (I wouldn't dare touch Word),
Excel, ClarisWorks, etc.  I want to run new OSs.  I want to be able to buy
software, not be stuck with only what I already have.

--
Hotel California
hotelca@cris.com