On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 13:31 -0500, Gordon Keehn wrote: > Mike McCarty wrote: > > Guy Fraser wrote: > > > > [I wrote] > > > >>> It looks to me like MicroSoft products are much better able to keep > >>> older hardware going than Linux. > > > > I don't have to. NO version of Linux has EVER run on an 8088 or > > an 80286. Period. > > > > [snip] > >> As far as I know, the 80386 was the first processor supported > >> by Linux, or BSD but I don't know. Back in those days, I > > > > What I said. MicroSoft products are better able to run > > on old hardware than Linux. > > > > You agree, so there's no need for further discussion. > Would someone show me their copy of Windows running on an > 8086/8088? Or for that matter an 80286, except as an interesting toy? > I'm willing to stipulate that MS DOS ran well on those processors. As > did PC DOS, and DRDOS, and CPM/86 (and probably a few more that I'm > missing). I know a professional writer who still uses the DOS version > of Word Perfect, because it does everything she needs, with no learning > curve. That doesn't mean I have to (or even want to) use the same tools > I used in 1980. I don't even want to go back to using Windows 3.1 > (which only ran on '386 or better processors). Actually, Win 3.11 ran nicely on my old 286, which I used until the 486 was out then upgraded. I would never go back, but it did work for me at that time. > Cheers, > Gordon Keehn >
