🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sunday, October 06, 1996, Stephen R. Savitzky wrote...
> In article <537gi8$fhi@boursy.news.erols.com> davegrow@erols.com (David
P. Grow) writes:
> 
> The 386 DOES handle Win 3.1, and the 486 DOES run Win
> 95, if you have enough memory.  On the other hand, when I bought my
brand-new
> Mac II, much of the software I could find for Mac simply wouldn't work. 
When
> I upgraded to System 7, a lot of what was left stopped working, too. 
Now
> there are probably not a dozen programs still on the market that come on
800K
> floppies and run on a 68020.  In another year there probably won't be
any.
> I don't buy software for the Mac anymore.
> 
> By contrast, every single one of the programs I bought for my 8MHz PC-XT
will
> still run on my 120MHz Pentium.  Windows is a twisted, contorted piece
of
> barely-useable junk, but it's that way to preserve compatibility with as
much
> old software as possible.
> -- 
>  /   Steve Savitzky   \ Cyberspace: an alternate universe where magic
works /__
> / h:steve@starport.com \    http://www.starport.com/people/steve/       
  /___
> \ w:steve@crc.ricoh.com/   http://www.crc.ricoh.com/people/steve/       
  \___
>  \____ Kids' page: ___/__
http://www.crc.ricoh.com/people/steve/kids.html __\__
> 

I've been using computers since CP/M days, and I can still run some of
these programs on my 486-33SX, along with WIN95 material.  I hate
Windows--it's so clumsy in the long run.  And when I have to use the Mac
at school, I'm always trying to find my lost files.  But--I can get what I
want to run to run.  Now I need to upgrade to a faster speed and more
memory, but at least I can do it on my MS-Dos machine.