Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aecom!werner From: werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Why is DOS limited to 640K? Message-ID: <2533@aecom.yu.edu> Date: 16 Oct 89 21:28:35 GMT References: <8909270503.AA28536@euler.Berkeley.EDU> <10253@cbnews.ATT.COM> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 25 In article , nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > Apple got it right with the MacIntosh. Give the developer a reasonable > software interface, leave the hardware interface undocumented, and keep > changing the hardware so that ill-behaved programs keep breaking. > -- You call getting this right?!! True there is a software interface. However, you're stuck with it. I happen to loath and despise the Macintosh interface, and several programs that would have made it bearable (I can see the screen flicker of reverse video. I would like nothing better than to have white text on black screens) like reverse screen programs, seem to fail on the Mac II, or else have designed in side-effects that are worse than the flicker (this last applies to the Apple-supplied CloseView). This is just one example of about a dozen gripes, which is why I use Macs under protest (although I'm using one now to type this) and use PCs willingly. Because you can't bypass the software, you can't realize the speed increases by bypassing it, so nobody really notices how slow the machine actually is because there's no basis of comparison. Or something like that. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "..pursuing Dharma, Artha, and Kama (although not nearly enough of the last)."