🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.826855661@rscernix>, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> In <ted.oliver-1403960716070001@129.219.116.52> ted.oliver@asu.edu (Ted
Oliver) writes:
> 
> >In article <danpop.826581877@rscernix>, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
> >
> >> In <4i1lvn$899@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com> christw@meaddata.com
> >(Christopher C. Wood) writes:
> >> 
> >> >In article <danpop.826424237@rscernix>, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan
Pop) writes:
> >> >
> >> >|> Again, pure vapour vs shipping OS's and applications.  That's the best
> >> >|> a MacOS fan can do today.  Can you say lame? 
> >> >
> >> >How many shipping WinNT/Win95-native applications are there?  I've
> >> >been seeing counts around 200.  There are 1,500 native PowerMac
> >> >applications, and around 10,000 MacOS applications.
> >> 
> >> 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?
> >> 
> >Huh???!!!??
> >
> >Aren't NT and Win95 both currently shipping?
> 
> Yes, unlike their Mac equivalents, Gershwin and Copland, NT and Win95
> are both shipping.
> 
> >When Copland arrives (holding my breath, of course ;-)), then perhaps it
> >would be fair to compare Win3.1 apps vs. System 7 apps, and Copland-savvy
> >apps with Win95/NT native apps. At this point in time, the comparison you
> >suggest is ridiculous and illogical.
> 
> It's very logical and sensible.  It's based on "equivalent" PC and Mac
> OS's:
> 
> MacOS 7.x -- Windows 3.x: no memory protection, no PMT
> Copland   -- Win95:       limited memory protection and PMT, due to backward
>                           compatibility requirements.
> Gershwin  -- Win/NT:      full memory protection and PMT, limited backward
>                           compatibility.

You are now espousing only comparing what you percieve to be functionally
equivalent OSes. I thought this argument was referring to currently
shipping OSes. Although your comparison of functional equivalencies might
be reasonable, what I consider to be a more logical comparison is:

How many apps are available for the currently available OS that consumers
buy on currently available top-of-the-line PC or Mac hardware? 

Your suggested comparison is a straw man argument; further, your
comparisons presume that the only meaningful attributes of an OS are
memory protection and PMT.

The point being made by those who you have responded to is, despite the
architectural benefits of NT and (to a much lesser degree) Win95, there
aren't many applications that take advantage of them. Like damn near all
of these advocacy threads, the sides have switched as time has passed. It
used to be "PowerMacs have no native software"; now its "Win95 has no
native software".

> It's clearly not my fault that the Mac equivalents of Win95 and Win/NT
> are not here and nobody knows when they'll be.  This doesn't mean that
> MacOS 7.x apps can be meaningfully compared to Win95 or Win/NT apps.
> Power or 68k, MacOS 7.x apps can be compared only to Win 3.x apps.

No, I think it *is* Dan's fault that Copland and Gershwin aren't here yet. ;-)

 
> Dan
> --
> Dan Pop
> CERN, CN Division
> Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
> Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

-- 
ted.oliver@asu.edu