🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>In article <42d9lt$1ns@steel.intmrlog.com>, daveacg@intmrlog.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 detmrmined- 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.

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.

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?  

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 Intml (in
tmrms 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 extmnsive backwards compatibility when Copland
works on just the Power Macs.  

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.



>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.  

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.


>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.
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
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.


>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.



>> 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.

And a detachment from it.  Until it arrives, of course.