Re: Is this true?

[jwolf6589@aol.comnospam (JWolf6589)]

Actually in many ways I find PC's faster than macs.  

<< Subject: Re: Is this true?
From: "Richard Harvey" richattri@yahoo.com 
Date: Wed, Nov 13, 2002 7:45 PM
Message-id: <1%EA9.22550$ME6.12791@rwcrnsc53>

> Maybe I am blind, but I know that when I use Windows XP I seem to have an
> easier time using older Windows 98/95 software or even DOS software, than
if I
> were using Mac OSX and using ProDOS (Apple II software) or Mac OS classic
> software.

So what. Win95 software is not even a decade old; that's no big deal. Try
running some Windows 1.0 or 2.0 software under Win9x/NT/2K/XP and see how
far you get -- not bloody likely you'll get more than a blue screen. And,
the only reason DOS apps still work is that Intel is totally chained to an
instruction set dating back to the 8086. Fairly easy to remain compatible
when you run on 70's technology. Why aren't you asking why you are losing
upwards of 50% or more in performance when Windows or your chip has to
switch back into 16-bit compatibility mode to run some device driver or
codec? That's the price you are paying for that wonderful DOS compatibility.
And all of that gets flushed down the drain when Itanium arrives -- all your
compatibility down the drain, as Intel will have to rely on Microsoft to
provide software emulation, via Apple/Macintosh, to preserve any level of
backward compatibility. It's the only way they can move their chipset
forward after staking it to the ground for so long!

I agree with another poster -- when/if you have the need to run ancient
apps, keep a handy personal collection of the hardware you'll need. I have
an Apple II, II+, //e, //c, IIgs, and various Macs around so I can always
run my old trusty software when I need it, which is usually only for
nostalgia purposes. For any real need or critical app, I use modern software
both for feature and performance advantages.

Rich







 >>



-----------------------
John 3:16
*Remove nospam to reply.