...It's been a REALLY long time since I have seen someone use the phrase "IBM Compatible". Does that phrase actually mean anything any more?
Not really. The concept of IBM compatibility took a nose dive after the bus split (EISA vs MCA) around 1987. Since IBM is no longer the one to be cloned the term no longer applies.
Nonetheless the program looks interesting – I am going to download it and try it out.
...It's been a REALLY long time since I have seen someone use the phrase "IBM Compatible". Does that phrase actually mean anything any more?
Not really. The concept of IBM compatibility took a nose dive after the bus split (EISA vs MCA) around 1987. Since IBM is no longer the one to be cloned the term no longer applies.
Nonetheless the program looks interesting – I am going to download it and try it out.
Perhaps the new mantra should be Microsoft Compatible. But that doesn't seem to have the same impact as the original "IBM Compatible."
-- ɐ‾nsǝɹ
Just one click away from the end of the Internet
Perhaps the new mantra should be Microsoft Compatible. But that doesn't seem to have the same impact as the original "IBM Compatible."
The old IBM Compatilble concept was based on hardware compatibility. (Back then application software often went directly to the hardware.)
Since most modern application software is written to the operating system instead of directlly to the hardware, I think it is sufficent to simply state which operating system the software requires.
I think “Microsoft Compatible” would not be specific enough in general and would be redundant when used before a stated operatiing system.
For example it would be redundant to say “Garmin Voice Studio is compatible with Microsoft-Compatible PCs running Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later.
Also, note that an originial IBM PC using an 8088 CPU is “Microsoft compatible” but would not come close to being able to run the subject program.
And note that Microsoft software is now running on Apple computers and Apple computers are using x86 system architecture. Thus it could be said that some Apple computers are Micosoft compatible.
But since Apple uses a different operating system, that would not be enough to make it compatible with Garmin Voice Recorder.
When stating the requirements needed by software such as Garmin Voice Recorder, I think it would be sufficient to simply say ““Garmin Voice Studio is compatible with computers running Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later".
IBM Compatible?
This looks interesting.
AlCo
http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/us/ontheroad/voicestudio
It's been a REALLY long time since I have seen someone use the phrase "IBM Compatible". Does that phrase actually mean anything any more?
Arcane term
...It's been a REALLY long time since I have seen someone use the phrase "IBM Compatible". Does that phrase actually mean anything any more?
Not really. The concept of IBM compatibility took a nose dive after the bus split (EISA vs MCA) around 1987. Since IBM is no longer the one to be cloned the term no longer applies.
Nonetheless the program looks interesting – I am going to download it and try it out.
Perhaps the new mantra
...It's been a REALLY long time since I have seen someone use the phrase "IBM Compatible". Does that phrase actually mean anything any more?
Not really. The concept of IBM compatibility took a nose dive after the bus split (EISA vs MCA) around 1987. Since IBM is no longer the one to be cloned the term no longer applies.
Nonetheless the program looks interesting – I am going to download it and try it out.
Perhaps the new mantra should be Microsoft Compatible. But that doesn't seem to have the same impact as the original "IBM Compatible."
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet
Compatibility
Perhaps the new mantra should be Microsoft Compatible. But that doesn't seem to have the same impact as the original "IBM Compatible."
The old IBM Compatilble concept was based on hardware compatibility. (Back then application software often went directly to the hardware.)
Since most modern application software is written to the operating system instead of directlly to the hardware, I think it is sufficent to simply state which operating system the software requires.
I think “Microsoft Compatible” would not be specific enough in general and would be redundant when used before a stated operatiing system.
For example it would be redundant to say “Garmin Voice Studio is compatible with Microsoft-Compatible PCs running Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later.
Also, note that an originial IBM PC using an 8088 CPU is “Microsoft compatible” but would not come close to being able to run the subject program.
And note that Microsoft software is now running on Apple computers and Apple computers are using x86 system architecture. Thus it could be said that some Apple computers are Micosoft compatible.
But since Apple uses a different operating system, that would not be enough to make it compatible with Garmin Voice Recorder.
When stating the requirements needed by software such as Garmin Voice Recorder, I think it would be sufficient to simply say ““Garmin Voice Studio is compatible with computers running Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or later".
Fluff
Just a touch of easy software fluff to appease attract the masses. Give me real functionality in my GPSR please.
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.