[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Let's get System 7.x on top!



I disagree,
I favour implementation of MacOS overlay before a port to Win95(aka Mac85).
In the first place, it still costs over $100 dollars for the Win 95
upgrade here in Canada, and I already own Executor, so I would rather it
met my needs that expect me to go out and spend more money to use it.
Incidently, yes I own an unused copy of Mac OS 7.5 (Apple sent me three),
so that would cost me nothing to use.  Also while I think that Win 95 can
be grudgingly called 32-bit, the appelation "native" may be a bit of a
stretch.

A second consideration is memory.  Executor likes lots, DOS needs very
little, Win 95 needs LOTS.  Thus if we are forced to use a W95 port we have
to expec to use more memory (and faster processors - there are still some
people out there running executor on 386's and 486/33's - no good for W95).

Lastly, if W95 is an effective replacement for a DOS/WIN environment (aka a
real system upgrade) then it should run the DOS version of Executor
-- NO IFS, NO BUTS, NO MAYBES --
if not, complain to Microsoft, not to ARDI.

An implementation of Executor, that accepts a Mac OS overlay (or is just a
hell of a lot more sys 7 like) tha can then be ported to all existing
platforms (and yes I suppose at some point W95) is a more valuable use of
time and resources than a W95 port.  One of the reasons that ARDI has
upheld for not making their product _dependent_ on a Mac OS overlay (or
ROMS) is that it would then force us to buy those items at additional cost
to us.

Now, I assume that there are a lot of registered owners of the _DOS_
version that already own Win 95.  However the key element here is _DOS_.  I
paid for a DOS application (emulator) not a Win 95 app.  For ARDI to turn
around and say that implementing another platform is more important that
providing me with a better product would be a very bad move.  I would be
more than tempted to request a refund.  I suspect that Linux and Next users
would agree.


>Without trying to belittle the sender, I need to point out that the
>products.
>
>----------
>From:   owner-executor@ardi.com on behalf of PurdyM
>Sent:   Wednesday, April 10, 1996 8:02 AM
>To:     executor@ardi.com
>Subject:        Let's get System 7.x on top!
>
>I'm disappointed in the idea that E3 will still not allow the true MacOS
>to be placed on top of it.  If ARDI is planning a Win95 specific version,
>that could be AFTER the MacOS can be placed on top...it just seems that
>the DOS version is fine for Win95 and more folks might like to use System
>7.5 before the Win95 version...
>
>Mike

Cheerios,
                     +         weismand@limestone.kosone.com        +
<Dwight W Weisman>   +----------------------+-----------------------+
 >   Kingston   <    |  Fax:(613) 547-9649  |  Voice:(613) 547-6136 |
< Ontario Canada >   +----------------------+-----------------------+




Follow-Ups: