🚀 go-pugleaf

In <cirby-1903960216110001@pm2-09.magicnet.net> cirby@magicnet.net (Chad Irby) writes:

>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.

These are the major reasons for system crashes and lock ups.

>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:

I was trying to focus my argumentation on technical criteria, not on
marketing and advertizing issues.  It seems we have different ways of
looking at the problem :-)

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