Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpsmtc1!kwallich
From: kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macs, IBMs, and compatibility.
Message-ID: <11540096@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 87 18:56:24 GMT
References: <37250@sun.uucp>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 28

>For the life of me, I can't understand why *all* programs written for a circa
>1981 IBM PC should run as is on a circa 1988 PS/2 ?  It is a machine with
>a significantly new architecture, will run a different operating system and
>hence only programs that are written with that in mind will work.  
----------
What I was trying to get across is that a "compatability mode" should be
just that.  HP, Dec, and IBM have all come out with "new architectures",
and provided "compatability modes" which ran over 90% of their old software
base.  The software may not have run as fast, but it did RUN, with NO
modifications.  there is no reason (other than insufficient
resources, or lack of desire to "do it right") to not have a very
compatable system.  The fact that my MacII can run over 90% of the
old software for my Mac128 shows that if the company wants to, they
can design compatable software.  Granted, it is a design philosophy
question, but I am tired of IBM not getting roasted for showing no
interest in its customers.  Apple has done some really stupid things,
and has tried to rip me off for hardware upgrades, but their have
been alternatives, and the basic software they deliver is solid and
amazingly COMPATABLE!

Anyway, I don't want to get into a "compatability war".  I do understand
the marketing reasons for this type of a move, and they are valid to
some extent, however since my Mac can run MS-Dos programs with the
addition of a card, the least IBM could have done was to provide a
AT card, so purchasers of the PS/2 with OS/2 could run other folks
software.  I'm sure some third party has a board prototyped already...

ken