🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.826581877@rscernix> Dan Pop, danpop@mail.cern.ch
writes:
>Let's avoid comparing apples to oranges.  Compare MacOS (the currently
>shipping version) applications with Windows 3.1 applications and
>shipping 32-bit Windows applications with shipping Copland applications.  
>What gives?
>

Why? Current MacOS apps are 32-bit, flat memory model apps, and can even
be moderately multithreaded. Why wait for copland apps to compare them
with 32-bit Win95 apps?

I think it really depends on the market too. MS is trying to be all
things to all people. Win95 was supposed to fill the needs of business
users with powerful networking, home users with mac-like ease of use and
multimedia, and power users with PMT and multithreading. The MacOS is
really more focused on ease of use and media prowess. MS has been unable
to make Win95 the end all OS, hence the resumed push for NT for business
users. 

My experience has been that NO single architecture or OS is perfect for
every situation. To make it so would involve so many compromises that the
system would be moderately successful at avery task and excel in none. My
view is that UNIX, NT, Win95, the MacOS and DOS all have suitable roles
to play in a large corporate environment. In many cases it is a simple
issue of cost, and in others an issue of expertise. Graphics departments
do better with Mac's and SGI's. Financial depts do better with PC's
running DOS or Win3.x. Developers need everything<g>. Unix workstations
make great SQL servers. NT boxes make great departmental app servers.
Novell servers make decent file/print servers. 

A good IS staff can make sure everything communicates and works while
allowing workers access to the BEST tool to accomplish their job in a
productive affordable manner.

WT