[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Digital Dark Age"
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: "Digital Dark Age"
- From: DT Fletcher <FletcherOR@AOL.COM>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:41:21 EST
- Message-Id: <199902160444.UAA18288@palimpsest.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
In a message dated 2/15/99 5:55:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, Lyle@QUODATA.COM
<< If infinite backwards compatibility were guaranteed, there would be no
companies running Unix-based computers (witness the rise of Linux), no
computers running Windows NT 4.0 (which is not 100% compatible with Windows
95), no computers running OpenVMS, no computers running MacOS. There would
be only one version of each type of application, one hardware architecture,
one sound card, one video display driver. Since that is _not_ the case (and
hasn't been since the very very early days of computers), your point must be
Lyle H. Gray >>
Sorry, absolutely nothing you have stated goes to disprove my point.
I can only assume you misunderstood or I just didn't state it clearly enough.
Here's another try.
Any new business (currently Windows) PC computer Operating System to succeed
must be compatable with current Windows applications.
Example: There is a little windows program called cardfile. I have always
liked it and have used it for probably 10 years now, since Windows version 2.
I used it on a 3.1 machine, and then on my my Win95 machine. I still use this
program on my WIN98 machine. It runs, or course, on a NT machine. I know with
absolute confidence that it will run on any version of Windows that Microsoft
ever produces. Simply put, if Microsoft ever puts out a Windows OS that
doesn't allow me to run my old Windows applications I ain't buying it and
nobody else is either.
ps- That Intel is "abandoning" the 386 archicture because of MERCED is just
plain silly and not worthy of any commentary.