🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <adtDo9us5.CrH@netcom.com> Anthony D. Tribelli, adt@netcom.com
writes:
>I think the point being made by the earlier poster was that Microsoft's
>modern OS (NT, not 95) has been delivered, but Apple's (Copland to be
>generous, Gershwin is you only want to count something that is comparable
>to NT or UNIX) is still being worked on. Of course Apple has put resources
>into developing hardware also (hopefully they have realized that they are
>not really a hardware company anymore, that only their software is
>unique), something Microsoft doesn't have to be distracted by. 
>

What is modern about NT or unix? NT is "not quite" a microkernel OS. It
is not OO. OLE is "not quite" OO. NT is modem *for MS* because it is not
a copy of CP/M, but compared to Spring, NeXTstep or QNX it is dated. MS
is good at appropriating the necessary buzz words for marketing purposes,
but they seem to always go only halfway with their software. UNIX? It is
25 years old. Not quite modern in my book although I like it.

In Apple's case the needs of their customers currently don't dictate the
need for an OS comparable to UNIX. In addition to their software, their
hardware is UNIQUE, especially if compared to today's PC's. Apple
designed their hardware right the first time. They have been able to
adopt new hardware designs almost every generation with minimal
compatibility issues. For all intensive purposes, except speed, the user
cannot tell the difference between a 68K NuBus Mac, a PPC NuBus Mac, and
a PPC PCI Mac. The PC market is rapidly approaching the time when it has
to abandon the ancient AT design, and it will not be as smooth as Apple's
transition because of the ad hoc nature of the design of current PC's. 

WT