Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/23/02:29:33
----------
> From: Mike A. Harris <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> To: James Fudge <jfudge AT adams DOT berk DOT net>
> Cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
> Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
> Date: Saturday, March 22, 1997 9:53 PM
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, James Fudge wrote:
> I don't think that software is developed to "punish" old computer
> users. A more realistic way of looking at it is: Software
> developers come up with an idea for a program. They decide on a
> platform and architecture for their program. They begin working
> on the program and possibly may change the minimum architecture
> based on the demands the program needs.
maybe punish is a bad choice, for the word i am looking for in all cases,
but you must admit the companies like microsoft and their cronies (
followers , partners etc) have said DOS is dead in the past
and have stopped develpment of products in dos, is this not the way of
saying stick with that and sleep with dogs?
>
> Let me ask you an honest question. Should users of NEW computers
> be "punished" by being forced to run software or operating
> systems that are slow and don't take advantage of the new
> features of their computer?
I agree with you there. but also it is a disservice to their audience to
use a NEW and expensive technology that most folks can not afford.
i get your point about technology - and "punish" was the wrong term to
use.
> In my opinion, software in general (OS, utilities, applications,
> etc...) should ALWAYS STRIVE to take FULL advantage of ALL of the
> new features of new technologies. This helps to make
> technologies cheaper, and further research and development. The
> status quo may be good for some people, but there comes an
> inevitable point in a developers development cycle when they must
> abandon support for older CPU's to put their human resources to
> more productive use.
>
> If new programs aren't taking advantage of new technology, then
> why bother inventing new technology? Why not just give everyone
> an 8088 and say, "ya it's slow, but tough, if we support the new
> processor, we'll be abandoning the 0.0001% of our customers that
> still use DEC Rainbows." :o)
point noted and taken but by the same token that percentage that has the
new up and coming
technology is about at the same percentage as the users of older machines.
>
> In the real world, commercial software is written for profit. If
> their is no profit in supporting legacy equipment, then it isn't
> done. In the "Free" software world however profit is of no
> concern, and since the sources for everything are usually
> available, development and improvements on various software tend
> to follow the demand for such software. This means supporting
> ALL platforms that are popular. OpenDOS *AND* Linux will
> both follow this route I believe.
Well one can hope, but there is a commercial aspect of it too. alot of
286's
and 386's are still used by law offices supply companies supermarkets, etc
etc
>
> > how is this done? i don't know . but it would be nice.
> > the spirit behind linux was that old hardware needn't be cast into the
> > trash, ( i said the L word again <G>)
>
> The theory behind Linux was to create a Minix clone that took
> full advantage of the features of the intel 386 processor and
> up, and to make it "a better Minix than Minix itself". This is
> more or less Linus Torvalds words. Processors and hardware < 286
> was never part of the original plan.
well i didn't actaully mention that linus targeted the 286 but the concept
was there..
just not for the processor
>
> > but could be used with this operating system, Mind you the effort was
only
> > halfhearteed, as they left out older machines...
>
> Well, originally there wasn't much hardware supported, however
> there are only so many coders out there, and so much time in the
> day. I don't think calling the Linux project "half-hearted" is a
> very fair thing to say. Linux is a very powerful 32 bit OS that
> is completely FREE and comes with the source code. Also, an
> effort is under way to port Linux to 286 processors (maybe even
> 8088). I'm not sure how far they've gotten, but I'd bet that a
> stable running system is available now.
Sorry let me restate that, so as not to offend: in that aspect i think the
effort was half-hearted.
>
> Does this mean that id Software's game "Quake" was only
> programmed in a half-hearted manner because it wont run on a 286?
Quake wasn't meant to run on a 486 to be honest, so yes i would say it was
halfhearted.
little johnie rainbow would have to sell his 486+ machine to get a pentium,
to play this game..
do you think that's right? this is exactly what i am talking about. they
exluded certain people.
obviously i would not be foolish enough (or maybe i am) to argue about
running quake on a 286
but let me repent of some of the things i said, because you are right on
ALOT of your points.
i can sum up what i would like to see with this project (opendos) :
Backwards compatibility
ttyl
James
- Raw text -