Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: 680x0 vs 80x86 Message-ID: <1991Jun24.051233.3203@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 24 Jun 91 05:12:33 GMT References: <92@ryptyde.UUCP> <4671.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <105@ryptyde.UUCP> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 28 melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <105@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > Apple also did this with the original MacOS. Of course, this was in the day > of 128K machines. But the transition has been rather smooth since Apple > warned developers about 32-bitness back in 1986, so most programs are > "32-bit clean". >Yeah, the patches for LightSpeed C and Pascal will be shipping anytime >now. :-). (Does this count? Are these major products? :-)) Actually no. Not compared to say Word, Excel, MacWrite, Filemaker, etc. Anyway, I think the problem with these products is 1. They're integrated development environments which do some fairly funky things with the OS environment to allow debugging/editing etc all in the same package. 2. Symantec (which took over Think Technologies) has been fairly negligent over the past 2 years of these products, to the extent that a fair few users have switched to the better supported MPW (which is 32-bit clean and also sports C++ for example). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."