🚀 go-pugleaf

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

: > 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.

By using a Mac you've managed to avoid most of the crap turned out by
Microsoft. On a PC the poor multi tasking is a real problem. Apple are
better at making Operating systems than Microsoft.

: > 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.

Indeed they have - mainly due to their own ignorance. As I keep saying
there is no excuse.

: > >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.

--

 ______________________________________________________________
|Linux the FREE OS that has a Performance/Price ratio that is  |
|INFINITELY higher than anything sold by Micro$oft!            |
|                                                              |
|         http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/linux.html                |
|______________________________________________________________|
NOTE:-This is my Opinion and not necessarily the opinion of
ANYONE else, especially not my employer!

Colin Smith.
colins@mojo.europe.dg.com