Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macs, IBMs, and compatibility.
Message-ID: <522@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 88 08:27:52 GMT
References: <37250@sun.uucp> <497@gethen.UUCP> <7119@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 42

In article <7119@apple.UUCP> phil@apple.UUCP (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>HOWEVER, more to the point, A/UX is an ALTERNATIVE operating system
>for the Mac II (our very own PR words) - it is not the definite, preferred
>only-way-to-go-forward answer that OS/2 seems to be reported in the trade
>press as. Correct me if I are wrong ...

I think you is wrong...  MS-DOS isn't going away.  OS/2 may be the
'preferred' OS for the PS/2 series, but that doesn't mean much - MS-DOS
is going to dominate the market for a long time to come.  

>A/UX runs on a 68000, the 68020 to be precise.

That's begging the question.  The 68020 is NOT the same processor as
the 68000, and all 68000 software does NOT run on a 68020.  If you
guys believe that it does, it's no wonder A/UX is taking so long :-)

>But to really support what Chuq is saying (I think and thus presume), you
>don't have to buy extra hardware to run Mac binaries on a Mac 128K, Mac 512,
>Mac 512E, Mac+, or Mac II that ALSO RUN UNDER A/UX. Because we really sweated
>to get the launch program under A/UX to be backwards compatible.

And you don't have to buy extra hardware to run MS-DOS binaries which 
will also run under OS/2, either.  So there, nyah, nyah, nyah :-)

>And as for not being able to upgrade a 128K Mac to a Mac II, well, if the
>boards would have fit, we would 'uv done it. O.K.?

Not the point.  You didn't do it, 'cause it couldn't be done.  Same as
IBM.  O.K.?

Come on.  I'm trying very hard not to knock the Mac, or Apple.  All 
I'm asking is that you guys work as hard not to knock the IBM line,
especially on inappropriate or false grounds.  There's plenty to
knock IBM for, Ghod knows, and there is also plenty to knock Apple
for.  If we concentrate our efforts on trying to make the bad parts
good, on BOTH machines, then the net result will be TWO good machines,
and I can't see that as a losing proposition.

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame