🚀 go-pugleaf

: >>My point was that even software written by Apple, even as part of MacOS,
: >>has problems with CMT, so there is little wonder that other applications
: >>have this kind of problems, as well.  It's easy to see why Apple is
: >>moving towards PMT, but it's impossible to understand why it took Apple
: >>so long. (Well, the reason is that the average Mac user thinks that
: >>this is how computers are supposed to work and accepts all the crap s/he
: >>gets.  The best example is offered by the Windows users, who accepted
: >>the frequent crashes for the same reason.)

CMT OSes are not immune from crashes.  Believe me I've crashed OS/2
many a times, Unix stations and NT (which is such a bitch when it crashes).
I won't even mention 95 since it is not a CMT OS.

: You mean that Apple programmers are so incompetent that they're not able
: to write code which can be easily migrated from one hardware platform
: to another?  Linux was ported to a bunch of platforms and Apple is porting
: it now to the PMac (they don't even seem to wait for the PPCP).  If this
: was possible (so easily) with Linux (or *BSD), why do you think it would
: be so difficult with software written by Apple's professional programmers.

Apple has absolutely zero to do with the porting of Linux.  It is purely
an outside effort.  Actually, lack of tech info from Apple is holding it
up.

: Windows users had the choice between at least a dozen of OS's with PMT.
: They could even run their Windows apps in a PMT environment, at least on
: OS/2 and SCO.  The PMac users had MacOS as their only option.  Can you see
: the difference?

Yes, I agree, multiple OS's is nice, but many perfer the ease of the mac and
reliablity.  It's an easy machine to use when you have work to get done.


: Moreover, with SCO I was even able to run Windows 3.1 apps from my
: non-intel workstation by telneting to the SCO box and starting the
: Windows emulator there.  The SCO emulator is X-based, so I could get the
: emulator window on my remote screen without any problems.

Apple had the same thing for years.  It's called MAE.

: Apple programmers didn't try very hard to get their software right.
: If it was good enough for the average Mac user, it was good enough for
: them, too.  The current state of MacOS (especially the idiocies and
: machine code inherited from the 68K version) shows this very well.

Well, they have done a damn good job considering the roots of the Mac.
The 68k code is a hold back but newer versions of the OS include more
native code.  Actually Apple had a version of the OS up and running
on a PPCP machine with no hardware emulation running with very few crashes for
a prerelease OS.  This is much better than what MS has managed to do with
an "OS" (well the newest 95 version) that is much newer than Apple's.
Compared to its competitor, Win95, the MacOS is a winner in my view.
(MS simply copies apple, take a mirror image of their OS, suprised apple
doesn't sue).  Less complex means the user gets to be more productive.

qwerty@wpi.edu