Re: Is this true?

[Greg Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>]

In article <20021113193218.21158.00000705@mb-cu.aol.com>, JWolf6589
<jwolf6589@aol.comnospam> wrote:

> 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."

A) This is OT for the group to which you posted, troll.
B) The quote you read is false. There are some DOS and Windows programs
that are specifically _not_ compatible with newer x86 CPUs, including
the most popular DOS-based term program and the installer used by all
current Oracle products. Further, the various incarnations of Win32 are
all _partial_ implementations of an abstract spec. It's entirely
possible to write "correct" software which runs only on some variants.
And not all DOS programs work within Windows, for that matter.


> If PC's are designed so smart, howcome the MacOS or should I say OSX is not
> designed to be 100% backward compatible with all software developed for any
> Apple computer ?

Because the Mac is based around a different CPU than the Apple IIs,
designed and built by a different vendor with no interest in
compatibility with someone else's parts, especially since the CPUs were
built for distinct markets.


> I mean all my Apple II software will not work on a OSX OS
> without a emulator, and some of my MacOS classic software will not run under
> OSX.  It is true OSX does offer a classic compatibility mode, but using this
> is KINDA like using a emulator.


Not really. Running the older OS as a child process under newer OS on
the same hardware is very different from emulating a system.

  
> Also on the PC I am able to partition a hard drive to use any Windows or DOS
> OS, but on the Mac this is simply not true.

Actually, it is. And you can have more than 4 partitions.

G (Sorry, people.)