Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!richardt
From: richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: re: re: 16-bit OS'
Message-ID: <12200017@orstcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 20:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: orstcs.12200017
Posted: Tue Aug 13 20:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 23:21:34 EDT
Organization: Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 14
Nf-ID: #N:orstcs:12200017:000:942
Nf-From: orstcs!richardt    Aug 13 16:28:00 1985

Actually, I consider the entire conept of portability to be shaky at best, 
for much the same reasons.  However, I also know that too many programmers
and end-users want to take their software from their Apple II+ to their
IBM clone WITHOUT CHANGING IT.  They don't understand that hardware is built 
differently.  I'm not suggesting that OS efficiency be sacrificed for 
"compatibility" -- this has been done too many times already. What I am
suggesting is that what portability can be achieved be implemented --
as CP/M has been near-succeeding for years.  An awful lot can be achieved by
making systems compatible at the system call level and making individual, 
ROMed BIOS'.  And yes, portability does mean lowest common denominator if
you're not careful.  My point is: do people want something like this?
					orstcs!richardt
"Its called a tactical feint -- They charge and then the Platoon Seargeant
	shouts 'About Face! Charge......."