> is why Compaq dropped support for NT/Alpha. True > Microsoft is working hard actually to support the Merced Chip, with a special version of Win 2000 in 64 bits !!!!!! Is that hope or a whish ? Microsoft never supported the 286, 386, 486, chips the all died runnen XT code I run Linux on Alpha for over a year ( 64 bit alpha) and was not the first ran 486 code 386 code 286 On Linux Unix and Xenix rougly 3 months after the processor was available I would not trust MS for anything: Knowledgeable people are bound with nondidclosure agreements : sad I am not a lawyer : we should sue MS for not being uptodate with the processor The package should have a warning : This code is optimised for 8886 See how the pent pro (32 bit optimised) failed to run win9X Like selling cars without gear boxes : ok goes faster on a faster engine But why cannot we shift to second gear ? Let us jhope Emagic decides to port to linux too : I have my dual proc machine with BEos waiting for LAB regards Frank W. Kooistra

True > > > Microsoft is working hard actually to support the Merced Chip, with a > special version of Win 2000 in 64 bits !!!!!! > > Is that hope or a whish ? > That's what I red about it !!! I'm not an expert !!! > I would not trust MS for anything: Knowledgeable people are bound with > nondidclosure agreements : sad I am not a lawyer : we should sue MS for not > being uptodate with the processor > The package should have a warning : This code is optimised for 8886 > > See how the pent pro (32 bit optimised) failed to run win9X > > Like selling cars without gear boxes : ok goes faster on a faster engine > But why cannot we shift to second gear ? > > Let us jhope Emagic decides to port to linux too : > I have my dual proc machine with BEos waiting for LAB > > regards > Ok, I think you're right, i'm not a real Microsoft supporter, but there's nothing in music that works on other systems. I'm really considering to wait until the Emagic release on BeOs (by the way, wath are people thinking about this System ??????) , to buy Logic Platinum ..... I'll see. regards, Hans

Hi Frank, people, >Microsoft never supported the 286, 386, 486, chips the all died >runnen XT code Windows 3.1 and onwards use 386 specific code. Windows 95 and onwards rely on 386 specific code. This 386 code provides virtual memory & memory protection; both areas in which the Mac is still deficient. It is core OS functionality. Since Windows 95, most applications have been 32 bit. The OS is generally 32 bit. However for backwards compatability with Win 3 & DOS apps, there remains an area of 16 bit code supplying DOS functionality. Cheers, Thomas

Hi Thomas > Windows 3.1 and onwards use 386 specific code. Windows 95 and onwards rely on 386 specific code. Running 16 bits apps in V86 mode can only be done on 386 yes. But that does not make them 386 aps anyhow: This discussion does not belong here. maybe it is wise, as an eye opener, to read some of Andrew Schulman books like windows 95 development ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/examples/windows/win95.update/schulman.html I sincerely hope that one day Emagic will port logic to a stable environment, which optimally exploits the hardware. regards Frank w. Kooistra