🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Summers-0809951734570001@ethyl-the-frog.arc.nasa.gov>,
David P. Summers <Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <42o5b4$f4j@thetics.europa.com>, mbell@atheria.europa.com (Max
>Bell) wrote:
>> Well, technically speaking, even the 8086 systems of the 80's are still
>> usable if one discounts the speed problem.  A friend of mine is running
>> PPP on one to connect to his ISP.  Windows 3.1 will still run on a 286
>> system, abet rather slowly.

>Does Win95?  Also, I heard that a lot of software put out for Windows
>won't run on a pre 386.

I did not claim it could, nor did I deny that it cannot run enhanced mode
dependent code.  The point is that the machine itself still works, one just
has to use software that does not depend on those features it does not
have.  As I stated in the portion of my response that you omitted, I admitted
that Microsoft code obsoletes machines at much faster rates than Macintosh
code does.  Microsoft, however, is not the only source of software for MS-DOS
(actually it may not even be one today for all I know) and there are plenty of
programs that will run on the old machines.

>I'm not sure, but I think Mac programs know what processor they are
>running on.  So the programmer can utilize the features if they
>are there.

If this is the case, then Macintosh corporate programmers are more concerned
about the welfare of the owners of old machines than Microsoft programmers
are.  Given Microsoft's close relationship with Intel and general lack of
moral character, this tends to make sense.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'