Re: Is this true?

["Byron Q. Desnoyers Wimill" <bwinmill@kernigham.sympatico.ca>]

In article <3DD84608.9070601@noneofyourbusiness.com> you wrote:
> I would guess that English isn't your native language. Since when is a 
> mainframe a PC?

Tip: civil discussions usually stick to points of fact.

The Apple II and Macintosh are entirely different products from Apple.
Their purpose and target markets were quite different.  There was no
reason for the two product lines to be compatible, just as there is no
reason for a PC to be compatible with a mainframe.

> However, from the humble 8088 based PC up to current P4's I can still 
> run DOS and DOS software. Given that that PC is over 20 years old, 
> that's a pretty impressive compatibility record.

The Apple II was discontinued many years ago, and the Macintosh was
introduced after the IBM PC.  Of course the compatibility records are
not going to compare.  We will also come to different conclusions if we
use different definitions of compatibility.  Do we go straight down to
the hardware, so that we can run our favourite OS?  Do we allow software
to run in a virtual machine?  Do we allow software to be emulated?  If
we allow emulation, does that emulation have to be integrated into the
operating system or can it be a third part product?  If we claim that
new hardware must boot legacy operating systems, which operating systems
do we consider?  Must we limit ourselfs to well behaved software or does
anything go?  And there are probably many more considerations.

Byron.