Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 00:53:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Mike A. Harris" Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" To: James Fudge cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0 In-Reply-To: <199703210151.UAA10572@adams.berk.net> Message-ID: Organization: Total disorganization. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, James Fudge wrote: > I think that if it is possible (nothing is impossible somethings are just > more difficult) > a gui should developed that supports 16 + 32 bit machines. It seems to me > that when developers > develop ( i don't claim to know the depth and breadth of this) a program, > they seem to "punish" , so to speak those that use slower machines. No like > any other good program out there, a gui should be written with MODES , 286 > modes, 386+ modes etc.. 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. 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? 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) 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. > 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 ) 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. > 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. Does this mean that id Software's game "Quake" was only programmed in a half-hearted manner because it wont run on a 286? > > Really, any thoughts? Anyone? > > I have a bunch of theories I have a theory too. It's about the brontosaurus. This is how it goes.... All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the other end. What do you think? Have I hit the nail on the head or what? I have another theory.... :o) TTYL P.S. In case you're wondering, my "theory" was based on a Monty Python skit called "Miss Anne Elk". It's very funny... Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris Computer Consultant | Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom... My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Question: Does anyone know how to get talk to work in Linux?