🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25 Mar 1996 16:03:44 GMT, dke@adnc.com (David K. Every) wrote:

>> 16 bit - 32 bit.  What's the difference? 
>
>The amount of memory it can address, the speed at which it runs, the data
>it can address, etc., etc.

Those have nothing to do (within limits, yes!) with the bitness, and a
LOT to do with the various OS limitations.  Yes, 32 bit adds a lot,
but a good bit is marketing hype.

>> I care about speed and performance, not labels. 
>
>Sure. And 16 bit generally has more limited utility and performance than
>32 bit. Which was the point.

Granted, yes.  But I don't believe we should focus on 32 bit, or say
"32 bit" and just assume we mean improved utility and performance - we
should say, when asked what's better, that something is more versatile
and faster, not that it's "32 bit".  32 bit isn't an end; it's a means
to an end.

>Win95 does NOT have PMT. Your labels are wrong as well. You say you want
>speed... but I bet you run 16 bit (slower) apps on Win95. Your protection

Actually, no.  

>(a label) gives your system no better stability than my system that does
>not have it. In fact your system is still LESS stable than 7.5... so if
>you don't care about labels, why do you keep spewing them?!?!

Because you haven't a clue about Win95?  Because it has PMT, and
because it's significantly more stable than MacOS is currently?  

>> NT has the Win95 interface (shell preview has been available for what,
>> 9 months now?) and NT4 is just around the corner.  NT does have
>> performance disadvantages with WOW...that's very true.
>
>And I've been looking at copland for a year now. Its been in SOME
>developers hads for over 6 months... and parts of copland have already
>made our system. (Native Resource manager, translucency manager, native
>PCI drivers, OT, etc. are all moved into 7.5 from copland).

That's nice, but the shell preview is available to anyone; Copland
isn't.  And the parts of Copland people are raving about ARE NOT the
parts you listed.

>> Can you tell me how 7.0 under an 020 without MMU has better memory
>> protection than Win3 under a 386 or better?  That doesn't make sense
>> to me.
>
>7.0 has some stack/heap checking that Win3 did not. The mac is still a

Not memory protection.  You're comparing memory protection with a
dedicated MMU to something more like an alarm when  memory gets
trashed; it isn't quite the same thing.  Even an Amiga has lots of
those programs...

>flat 32bit memory model, while win3 is not. The Mac does not use shared
>low-mem resources that can fill up and crash your system. The Mac has some
>limited memory-range checking. Under System 7.0.2 or 7.5 the modern memory
>manager has code protection (your code segments are read only, and may not
>be written to, by you are anyone else).

7.02 or 7.5, which?  And does that include 020 and 000 machines?
Again, this isn't memory protection as we have come to think of it.

>Long filenames are longer, but still can't handle many special characters.

There's a list of 5 or 8 it can't.  I don't use them.  It doesn't
affect me.  

>Long filenames dont work right in a mixed environment or with any legacy apps.

Works OK for me.  They have little ~s in them, but they definately
work.

>Shortcuts work, unless you move the file (then you have to find them). 

This is true.  

>Shortcuts work, unless you rename the file (then you have to find them). 

This is true.

>Shortcuts dont work across a network.

Not at all true.

>Menus work in windoze, unless they are too long to fit on screen, then it
>doesn't know how to scroll the menu.

I haven't had that experience.

>Heirarchial menus work unless there are too many, then you sometimes have
>discontiguous selection issues.

Ditto.

>Plug & play works only if you have a new bios, new cards, and Win95
>decides to recognize the system and the humidity is right. I'm sure
>they'll get the gotcha's worked out in a few years - but the point is you
>do NOT have plug & play reliably by getting Win95, you may have it if your
>hardware supports it.

I strongly disagree with the above.

>Win95 is 32bit, sometimes... but still has a lot of 16bit DOS based crap.
>Calling it a 32bit OS is a lie. (I.E. a feature that doesn't work as
>advertised).

You've yet to find one of those.  Hell, some people even argue over
whether it's an OS.  Shall we argue about that, too?  :)

>It is not as good as a Mac, and not even close (as some advertise). Even
>PC mags concede that point.

I don't think they do.  They say it doesn't have the Mac interface,
but there's a lot to like about '95.

>Color matching does not work on PC's as advertised.

I don't remember getting any advertisements for color matching in
Win95.  Did you?

>Fonts have their issues under Windows in general that are better on a mac...

'Have their issues'?  ??

>need I go on, or are you getting the point.

You've nitpicked a few minor issues, while the major ones are either
wrong, substantially incorrect, or iffy.  Sorry...

>> Win95 is far, far more stable than any Mac I've used.  Not to say Macs
>> aren't stable, - they are - , but Win95 is more so.
>
>I've used both... and Win95 OUT OF THE BOX can be touchy as all hell... if
>it does get installed just right, on just the right hardware it CAN be
>somewhat stable. 

Amazing how I've -only- found the right hardware, then.  I must be
blessed...

>The Macs (MacOS) ARE stable out of the box... and only if you add
>screenfulls of inits can you DESTABALIZE THEM. Most hardware additions do
>NOT destabalize them (while it does on Win95). Most Application installs
>can not delete a needed DLL or destabalize the system as on Windoze (31,
>95, NT). 

We'll, again, agree to disagree.

>You can configure a Mac to be unstable - but it is usually stable to begin
>with. 

Usually, yes.  As is a Win95 box.  They're both quite stable once set
up.  Nothing new there.  

>It is almost impossible without being a techie guru to keep a Win machine
>stable with any sort of additions... and it does not even install stable
>in many cases.

We'll agree to disagree.  How does it not "install stable" for you?