Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

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.

> 
>     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.

>     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.

-- 
--bj    Auto reply will not work; please remove "black" to reply.
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.  
"None of my computers do Windows."