🚀 go-pugleaf

danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> 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.

Well, if memory protection and PMT were major reasons for buying those
systems, you might have a point.

But how about the things that Microsoft seems to be pushing?  Like
"32-bitness?"  I keep hearing about how wonderful W95 is because it's 32
bit- *not* because it's got (partial PM&PM).  Or "plug and play?"  Or user
interface/ease of use? *Those* are the reasons Microsoft gives to buy
their software in their ads.  So in other words:

MacOS 7.X -- Win95: Support for 32-bit applications.
or
MacOS 7.X -- WinNT: The operating system *itself* is 32-bit all the way through.

Or...

MacOS 6.X -- Win95: Approximately equal in user interface sophistication.
or
MacOS 6.X -- WinNT 4.0+: Ditto...

Or...

MacOS 7.5.2 -- Win95: Approximately equal in system stability.
or
MacOS 7.5.3 -- Win96+: Approximately equal in system stability.

Or...
MacOS (any since 6.0.1) -- No Microsoft system ever: *Real* plug and play.

-- 
Chad Irby          |  My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@magicnet.net |  for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."