🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4imn4l$glo@News.Dal.Ca> hayesk@is.dal.ca (Kevin B. Hayes) writes:

>Dan Pop (danpop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
>
>: 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.
>
>First of all, you are saying OSes are "equivalent" based on memory 
>management. I'm sorry, but Win95 was matched in 1991 with 7.0 - if you count
>other features.

I've got it.  7.0 has been having PMT since 1991.  Glad to know it :-)

>That's your problem. If the memory model was the pinnacle of the 
>usefulness of an OS we'd all be using Unix. I wonder why we're not?

Mostly because you don't have the necessary skills :-)  And because
Microsoft Office doesn't run (natively) under Unix :-)

>: 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.
>
>They're not here because we upgraded our macs' OSes long ago. Get a clue,
>there's more to an OS than memory management.

Yes, but it's memory protection and multitasking which are currently the
limiting factors in MacOS and Windows.  This is why it makes a lot of
sense to talk about how they're handled by various versions of these 
popular OS's.

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