In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>,
foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>
>Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too. And
>a lot of people agree with me - do a search on "ntvdm wow emulation".
>
>Microsoft calls it emulation too:
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...c_run_tzvh.asp

It's more like WINE.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
<foo@bar.com> wrote:

> Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.

I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally
comparable to Classic.


> Why wouldn't you call the OS X Classic app an emulation? Emulation
> just means 'imitation of another'... The Amiga Mac emulations (and
> *everyone* called them emulations) ran 0x0 Mac Systems on an 0x0
> Amiga. Wouldn't you call that an emulation?

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

>In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
><foo@bar.com> wrote:
>
>> Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.
>
>I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally
>comparable to Classic.

Why not? Both run Mac system software (Amiga) or older-generation
software (NTVDM/WOW).

>> Why wouldn't you call the OS X Classic app an emulation? Emulation
>> just means 'imitation of another'... The Amiga Mac emulations (and
>> *everyone* called them emulations) ran 0x0 Mac Systems on an 0x0
>> Amiga. Wouldn't you call that an emulation?
>
>But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

The System 9.2.2 environment.

foo wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
> <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
>>But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.
>
> The System 9.2.2 environment.

Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your
face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say,
Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
be wholy incorrect.

This is just an argument over terms, and it's pretty stupid. Exactly the
kind of word game I expect from you, foo.

> From: Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>

> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:24:52 GMT
> Subject: Re: No IE 6 -- Is this Good or Bad???
>
> In article <BB22F821.13D90%don.romero@verizon.net>,
> Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Do you really blame them?
>>
>> Who else? I don't run Apple.. only support a small array of High margins
>> and low performance hardware..?
>
> Only support machines for seven years, you mean?

Not the hardware -- I'm not looking for 'new' 604 hardware updates. Support
for OS 9.x apart from within OS X (ie 'Classic' as I believe it's called)..

Were 9.x dysfunctional, buggy, requiring constant major rewrites and such --
that'd be one thing. But just to drop it to help move Mac users off the
snide to upgrade to OS X is something else. That's Apple looking after it's
cash flow, not it's users.


>> that would not be MY recipe for growing the
>> Mac user family. Pretty doesn't go very far in my book. Neither does
>> planned obsolescence or obsolete on delivery.
>
> That's called "the computer industry." Macs devalue less on the way to
> the car than other options.

Yeah.. the Wintel industry. Aren't Apple people were supposed to "think
differently?" :-)

Forget the "computer industry".. In the computer "market", most people are
using machines a generation or more removed from "state of the art". Heck,
a year ago or less, in that other computer market, I could still by Celeron
based machines. For all I know (or care) they're still making 'em.

As for devaluing Macs, if it's true it's because of the Mac users out here
hungry for upgrades but can't afford "new". As it is, it's going to
people selling their "old" Macs. Apple doesn't see any of that money. Were
Apple smarter, they'd find a way to tap into that.


>> Were Apple MINE, you wouldn't have a motherboard form-of-the-month club..
>> you drop your new g4/5 MB into your 7600 or whatever and motor on.
>
> That's fascinating. What would you do about the cooling? How about the
> different set of ports that aren't the same shape? Or should we all
> still be using DB-9 serial ports or support USB but only with an adapter
> that lets the standard USB connector mate with something that fits
> through the RJ-11 keyboard jack?

The one thing I thought snazzy about the Performa was the ability to pull a
motherboard like it was a big RAM chip. Not so much that you could change
the MB, but that it was EASY to change. I/O connectors were all along the
back edge .. New MB's got new I/O forms? No problem .. all you need is a
new back cover plate in this particular scenario.

And why cooling requirements would be a difficult or unforseeable issue.. ?

(..there ARE g4 upgrades for even the lowly 7600 already.. that's more money
not going to Apple.. G5? way too early to tell.)

Within the same form factors, these certainly aren't issues with PC boxes..
which have over the years undergone several connector changes (dealt with in
a little different manner).. doesn't seem to have hurt PC sales or
performance..

"Upgradeable computers" is not an original idea. And it's not rocket
science.. not if Wintel people can figure it out.. :-)

Building MBs to fit inside oddball designer shapes *may* be rocket science,
but it's not a good blueprint for developing widely *affordable* new
computers.


d.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>foo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
>> <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.
>>
>> The System 9.2.2 environment.
>
>Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your
>face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say,
>Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
>be wholy incorrect.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
that's another story.

>This is just an argument over terms, and it's pretty stupid. Exactly the
>kind of word game I expect from you, foo.

You're the one arguing and namecalling - I just asked.

foo wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your
>>face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say,
>>Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
>>be wholy incorrect.
>
> Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
> Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
> that's another story.

Oh look, Captain Tangental Word Game strikes again!

Did I ever even mention NT? No, I didn't, did I? What makes it AT ALL
related to my statement?

Oh, I know: You needed to play more word games.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:14:44 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>foo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your
>>>face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say,
>>>Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
>>>be wholy incorrect.
>>
>> Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
>> Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
>> that's another story.
>
>Oh look, Captain Tangental Word Game strikes again!
>
>Did I ever even mention NT? No, I didn't, did I? What makes it AT ALL
>related to my statement?

Follow the thread.

>Oh, I know: You needed to play more word games.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:33:37 GMT, Gregory Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

>In article <j3n1gv4q5do14r4kmg8375cg34lvnvql2c@4ax.com>,
> foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
>> <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
>> ><foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.
>> >
>> >I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally
>> >comparable to Classic.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because they are actually _emulating_ something.

So is Classic. It's emulating the System 9 environment in an OS or a
machine that cannot natively run System 9.

>> >But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.
>>
>> The System 9.2.2 environment.
>
>No. Not in any real sense and certainly nothing like how WoW works.

WoW is a layer in the NT model, just as Classic is in the OS X model;
why are they different?