In article <47f9b2be$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Sure. But it was.  It had to be someone without a vested interest in one
 
> particular brand of hardware, tho.  You didn't see Sun porting Solaris 
> to other peoples' chips until they realized they couldn't compete with 
> Intel as long as Windows was the problem. (Same reason they wrote Star 
> Office, same reason they've been battling Microsoft all along.)
> 
True.

>  > Windows wasn't able to run on those either.
> 
> Windows ran on lots of machines where a fuller UNIX wouldn't. I'm not 
> sure what "those" means, unless you mean 8080-class chips, at which I'll
 
> agree but wonder why you bring it up.
> 
> Windows could do a lot more with a lot less hardware. And it was PC-DOS
 
> compatible.
> 
> And PC-DOS was very compatible with CP/M, conceptually. Indeed, the 
> original design was that you should be able to reassemble/recompile your
 
> CP/M programs for 8086 and have them run under PC-DOS.
> 
Yeah, so what went wrong? lol Lets see. Code bloat, people actually 
wanting to be able to transfer documents between unlike systems (with 
filenames intact), oh, and an endless list of cases where people 
"tried" to make something run on alternatives, but MS changed theirs in 
some way that either broke the alternate, or broke their code "on" the 
alternate. But sure. If they hadn't tried to rule the world, just live 
in it, some of us might not be so annoyed by them.

> > Even with the need to make some adjustments, there is still a basic 
> > standardization to internals, and commands.
> 
> As with various versions of Windows. Yes?
> 
Umm. Not really.. Half the stuff that doesn't work between 3.1 and XP is 
a result of hacks needed to make it work right at all on 3.1, but which 
where bugs, hole or unintended interfaces. The other half are cases 
where MS changed the underlying implementations, so you just *can't* do 
it any more. They are still doing that, releasing .NET, then basically 
making it very very hard to code anything with MFC. Sure, it will still 
*run*, usually, but its fairly clear that, if they could, they would rip 
out all those old libraries and bury them, never mind what inconvenience 
it might cause anyone.

> > adaptions, most of its isn't going to flat out refuse to work right 
> > because you plugged a Ford transmission into a Mitsubishi motor, in a
 
> > Chevy frame.
> 
> I see. That's why Apache and MySql and VI don't work at all under 
> Windows, yes?  I was wondering why that was.
> 
Sorry? Are you saying all of those just had some bits of code lopped 
off, some new code tacked on, then recompiled, because... I get the 
impression its a *tad* more complicated than that most of the time. lol 
Besides, your talking what is basically command line systems, which just 
"happen" to have GUIs built to access them. Or, to put it another way. 
Mind you, you get some of the same with Linux, depending on if its X, or 
some other GUI you are running, but I get the sense that the gaps you 
have to leap are "slightly" less cavernous. Besides, now you are talking 
about odometers, gas gages, or steering wheels, which is a bit higher 
level than the "core" systems.

> And while I admire your ability to turn a phrase, the hyperbole really 
> doesn't manage to communicate anything of interest other than your 
> distaste for Microsoft's products. You speak as if every day there are 
> thousands of people dying from Microsoft products, or that every 
> business that uses Windows goes broke trying to keep it running for more
 
> than a few hours.
> 
Which version? lol Seriously though, forgive me if I would prefer to 
avoid MS in my critical life saving devices. ;)

Ok, its not that bad, "anymore". It was, not that far back. I might 
argue that we have, partly in XP, and hugely in Vista, traded stability 
for the equivalent of some goon at the door saying, "Now, you know we 
can't do nothing about the bad guys outside, so whys you want to leave? 
Just stay here, nice and safe like, and let us decide if that packet 
shood get sent or not." Security via not letting you do anything. Or an 
admittance that they can't stop the stuff that "requires" that kind of 
security. Either way, I didn't like 95/98 because it robbed me of a lot 
of control I *used to have* over my system. XP, is kind of getting on my 
nerves, and what I have seen of Vista... Well, I am not the only one fed 
up at this point.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message