Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.96/text4839.txt

Text File | 1996-07-25 | 5.6 KB | 105 lines

    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0u7sxk-0007ren; Fri, 12 Apr 96 18:13 MDT
Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.iag.net!news.math.psu.edu!scramble.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Scott Shuchart)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
Subject: RE: Let's get System 7.x on top!
Date: 11 Apr 1996 19:45:56 GMT
Organization: Flat Earth Society
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <4kjnhk$[e-mail]>
References: <v02120d01ad92dea99753@[199.246.2.154]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shuchart.student.harvard.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7
To: [e-mail]
X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

In article <v02120d01ad92dea99753@[199.246.2.154]>,
[e-mail] (Dwight W Weisman) declares...

...some things that aren't remotely right.  I respond to some of them below,
but the key thing that was missed is: You've Only Bought Executor 2.0.  This
thread is about 3.0 and up, which you will have to pay for AGAIN -- perhaps
an upgrade fee, but a fee all the same.  Your $100 investment is in a DOS
app, agreed, and ARDI won't magically break all 2.0 copies so that they
cease working under DOS.  The argument is about what ought to be done next,
and Cliff makes the good argument that networking/sound/ports/filesystems,
etc., are much easier left to the Microsoft/Linux/IBM/NeXT people, freeing
ARDI to work on the Mac-specific stuff.  DOS people will at some point have
to accept that their platform isn't worth developing advanced applications
for, just as owners of 286s have accepted that no one makes good CD-ROM
games or CAD software or whatever for their machines.

>I favour implementation of MacOS overlay before a port to Win95(aka Mac85).
Well, if it were just a choice between having E/2 functionality in a Win95
window in August, or a System 7-droppable Executor for DOS in August, we'd
all agree.  The point is that this isn't the point; it would take longer to
get to Sys7 in DOS than in OS/2-Win95-Linux-Nextstep-NT-whatever
(henceforth: "not-DOS").

>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.
No one will stop you. Cliff always says that Executor is only for those
whose needs are met by its current functionality; you seem to have bought it
for its future functionality.

>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.
Native to the Win32 API, rather than a DOS-box VM, is standard Wintel-world
usage of "native," in my experience.

>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).
And they can continue to do so.  Non-DOS will presumably allow better
virtual memory for Executor, saving lots of users a lot more than $100 in
RAM costs.

>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.
It does, but it could run something better much more easily than DOS could.
That's the only point.

>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.
Um, the additional cost of Mac ROMs is an order of magnitude higher than a
Win95 upgrade.  You can't just buy them, you have to buy a Mac, first. But,
to repeat myself again, you've got the development process wrong: to
implement the "glue" that would allow AppleTalk, say, to interface with the
PC's networking hardware would be much harder to write on an OS like DOS
than on one of the non-DOS OSs under consideration.  Better to use what
non-DOS provide, allowing ARDI to move directly to the glue.

>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.
You would be absolutely without license to request a refund. No product
includes a guarantee of feature-enhancing upgrades, and only some include
bug-fixing upgrades.  This is an absolutely bizarre claim.  If I buy a
Honda, I expect it not to break, but I don't expect the dealer to make it a
1997 model next year even if I want one.

--
Scott Shuchart
[e-mail]