Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote:
> Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> >
> > >The PCs running either Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, two systems that are
> > >sitting right here in the office I work in, next to my Mac, DO NOT do
> > >true multitasking as well.  You may *think* they do, but they don't.
> >
> >  Windows 95
> > is completely independent of MS-DOS (and other problems associated
> > with it) and support preemptive multitasking.
> 
> Not that I've seen it hasn't.  And, Windows 95 also has DOS running
> underneath it as well.  Just because something has been made practically
> invisible does not mean it is not there.  Unless/until the architecture
> of the PC changes in the future, DOS will *always* be there, underneath
> everything.

Yes, DOS is there.  They're going to get rid of it soon.

> 
> >
> >     Let me see if I understand you correctly, your claiming the Mac
> > does multitasking _better_ than Windows 95?
> 
> Where did I claim this, *exactly*????   This is a sentence you
> fabricated to draw me into yet another argument.  Neither PC or Mac
> (with the current Mac OS) does *true* multitasking.  But the Mac *will*
> do this once Rhapsody is made available.  And the BeOS does it right
> now, and it offers protected memory as well.

Hmm...I agree that Rhapsody would be interesting, including the
Intel version of Rhapsody.  :)  Imagine running Windows programs
with a nice Apple Interface....

Win 95 does have real pre-emtive multasking.  Lewin Edwards just
said this in the other post.

I noticed you said the "PC" does not have such a feature.  That's
wrong even if you were right about Win 95 because you know what,
OS/2 does it and so does NeXT (aka. proto-Rhapsody).

> 
> >     Today is a very different story. In order for an Apple IIgs to be
> > sold, it would need to be more or less redesigned from the ground up.
> 
> This was the very point of that "modernizing the IIgs" discussion to
> begin with.  Yes, it would have to be totally redesigned, and the
> discussion was saying how that could be done--from a monetary and
> practical viewpoints.

Yes, but you keep neglecting that the GS was a superior choice
for modernization in 1986-1990 than the Mac.  If you are going
to say it is not feasable today, you have to follow up that
it was very feasable yesterday but Apple deliberately destroyed
its chances.

-Scott G.