PALM - The rebirth of Palm Inc. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : PALM - The rebirth of Palm Inc.

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Daniel who wrote (1487)	8/31/2000 2:44:15 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Read Replies (3) of 6784

Daniel, Khan & Others: You guys are talking a bit above my level of understanding of OS's. Would the move to a SrongArm (or other) 32 bit processor and a new 32 bit PALM OS present the same type of problems that MSFT faced when they moved from a 16 bit OS to the 32 bit WIN95/98, where they had to include code to handle the thousands of legacy 16 bit and MSDOS apps that were out there? And if so, would a new 32 bit PALM OS then be more bloated, need more memory, run slower, and suffer from the stability and frequent crashing problems that seem to be inherent in WIN 95/98? If so, then that's the last thing PALM needs. Sometimes, when I'm confronted with that ever rotating hourglass and the insulting "this application has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down...", I long for the old days of MSDOS6.0 and WP5.1 - lighting fast, stable as hell, never crashed, now dead and gone. David T.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next