[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is this true?



Byron Q. Desnoyers Wimill wrote:

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.
Well, clueless, here's a fact: The IBM 360 wasn't a PC, as in Personal Computer. 

Here's another fact: The IBM 701 wasn't a PC either.




The Apple II and Macintosh are entirely different products from Apple.


No shit buckwheat. Care to tell me something I don't know?
Their purpose and target markets were quite different.
Not really, at least, not for the former: the purpose was to make money selling hard/software. As for the latter, have you noticed how many IIs Apple is selling in elementary schools these days? What's that? They sell Macintosh computers to elementary schools? Well snot, I guess the target markets are the same, aren't they? 

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.
But JWolf6589 never said that the PC was compatible with a mainframe's hard/software. All he said was, and I quote,
"I read this quote: "All PC-compatible computers (even a 1Ghz PIII) are equipped with hardware to provide this backward compatibility and are therefore able to 
 execute the large no. of applications which have been developed for
 PC-compatible computers in the last 20 years."
The only person, after a quick scan of this thread, who mentioned compatibility between PCs and mainframes, was you.
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, 
1993
and the Macintosh was
introduced 
1984
after the IBM PC.
1981
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.
What's this "We" stuff? Are you an editor or a potentate? Or do you assume to speak for all users of all computers?
My only beef with you was your nonsense about PCs failing to be compatible just because they don't run mainframe software or use mainframe hardware.
Personally, I don't care who does what in emulation. I don't like running software created for one kind of hardware on a totally different machine, it loses the "feel" for me. But that's subjective, and other people can do what they wish.
If you wish to debate an issue, go for it, but comparing apple and oranges to make your point is either lame or dishonest, so which are you? 

Roy

Whew - it's been too quite here



Byron.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----