🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 Jan 1996 17:55:09 GMT, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood)
wrote:

>|> You apparently have news that we don't.  
>
>Only news that you choose to ignore.

I think who has the platform advocacy is quite obvious.  Copland is
_not_ fully pre-emptive.  Period.  Does that mean it's awful?  Hardly,
looks quite good, and I may be running it in 97 if the PPC clones
proliferate and the software support comes.  Presenting the facts as
they really are indicates a hidden agenda to you?  Yes, I have an
agenda, to stem the FUD as much as possible.

>
>|> It is not fully pre-emptive.
>
>Preemption in Copland will work more reliably than preemption in Win95. 
>In Win95, a 16-bit app can grab the system, and not let go.  Nothing
>runs.  In Copland, nothing short of a kernel crash will prevent the
>preemptive tasks from continuing.

How many 16 bit apps will even _exist_ in late 96, or early 97, when
Copland is released?  How often does a new user to 95 have to resort
to 16-bit apps _now_ in Win95?  32bit Win95 versions of software are
plentiful right now, by mid 96 16-bit software will be a distant
memory unless people choose to keep it.

Yes, 16 bit software can crash and hang the Win95 system.  _CAN_.
Does it always?  No.  I use a 16-bit newsreader, Free Agent,
downloading thousands of newsgroup messages while I'm browsing with my
32-bit web browser and printing out files, everything runs fine.
Regardles, all that is moot when you look at the 32-bit software base
for Win95 currently, to even think it will be a mentionable factor by
the end 96 is ludicrous.  Plus, we'll see what Windows 96, which is
already in beta, has to bring to the table.

>
>|> Old Mac apps are multitasked co-operatively, and the toolbox routines
>|> are apparently not pre-emptive as well.  
>
>Old news.  I never said they would be.

By being "fully pre-emptive", you certainly indicated so.  WinNT is
fully pre-emptive- it can pre-emptively multiask _everything_.  That
is what I determine as fully pre-emptive.  Copland is not.