--- Teri Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What prompted all this, is that one of my favorite > Palm software companies > came out with a desktop version that runs on OS X. > Plans are to finish the > Windows desktop next, then support OS 9 in the Mac > world (maybe). It seems > to be hurting sales. I'm wondering if they would > have been better off > supporting OS 9 and OS X at a later date. Which > lead to the deep thoughts > about which company did a better job at supporting > legacy machines.
The x86 CPUs seem to have added more features with each generation than did the 68k CPUs, like going from an 8bit memory bus to 16bit then 32bit. They added relatively large internal caches and FPUs. To add features to Windows _and_ continue support (with a limited feature set) for older CPUs would've made Windows code more complex. The 68k CPUs started life at mostly 32bit then went full 32bit and didn't change much except for integrating the MMU then finally the FPU and a small internal cache in the 040. The two lines started from different places and ended up in pretty much the same spot with the 040 and 486. If the 68k CPU line had changed as radically over the years as the x86 did, then the Mac System and OS would've had shorter hardware "life support" spans. After the 040 and 486 they split off in different directions. Motorola made a few further advances with the 68k but Apple chose to dive into the pool with IBM and Motorola on the PowerPC and an aborted attempt to build a computer that would run Mac OS and other operating systems. (The CHRP system.) The x86 world decided to pile on more and more Mhz and features like MMX, 3D-Now! and a whole host of others. Apple/IBM/Motorola has brought us a steady progression in basic performance from the 601 through the G3 and one major added feature with AltiVec on the G4. (Which still isn't fully exploited.) Go here for in-depth looks at various CPU technology from all the major players. http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html Just because you CAN run some versions of the Mac System or Mac OS on a computer 8 or so years older than the OS version doesn't mean that it's going to be tolerable to use. :) Windows avoided that by dropping support for older CPUs with fewer features and less capabilities. Call it "fostering consumer loyalty" if you want, but it sure didn't help drive sales of new Macs to not "fix" each new major System version to drop the previous CPU generation. ===== http://www.junkscience.com "All the Junk that's fit to Debunk!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com -- Vintage Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Enter To Win A | -- Canon PowerShot Digital Cameras start at $299 | Free iBook! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Vintage Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/vintagemacs.shtml> The FAQ: <http://macfaq.org/> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/vintage.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
