It also makes it easier to give specific applications a custom environment,
down to "best fit" .dlls or what have you. It does *not* (note the use of
asterisks instead of caps for emphasis) mean "Compatibility mode is broken."
I'll also have you re-read the same lines you quoted. "[It] serves a variety
of purposes." If a company has, for instance, a dBase app that runs best in
a very specific environment (to the detriment of other apps,) they'll want
to maintain that environment. Compatibility Mode does *not* know about that
app. Yes, you can set up some custom files for it - but do you know what
those customizations' effects will be on other apps? Compatibility Mode also
does not isolate that from the rest of the system, past the NT family's
built in abilities. VirtualPC does.
Now, if you said "Compatibility mode does have limitations as to what it can
do," there'd be no argument. If I were moving and had a choice between
using, say, a Ford Focus or renting a U-Haul, I'd use a U-haul. Why? For a
specific purpose, the U-haul is better suited. For everyday use, the Focus
works fine. Similarly, for everyday use, Compatibility mode works fine.
VirtualPC can be brought out for special needs or situations.
VirtualPC is, in fact, *worse* than Compatibility Mode in some instances -
Gaming, for example. Why? It takes *more* memory, *more* system resources,
and more time to go from the virtual machine to the *real* machine, if
needed, causing a performance hit. Not as bad as (say) Basilisk II, or VPC
on the Mac, since it doesn't have to emulate another processor type and
translate calls, but it's there nontheless. There can also be timing issues
that cause problems. That, on top of the cost of VPC + whatever OS you
choose to run in it.
As far as "Personal slurs?" Saying the 'logic' you used to connect this to a
broken compatibility mode is flawed is not a "personal slur" (nor does it,
as you state in redundant fashion, make any statement about your person. )
My statement:
"Your jump of "logic" is like saying "Bill gates is a communist!" because he
bought a red car."
A personal attack or slur, for comparison:
"You're a moron."
Note the difference. The second would, indeed, be an attack on your person.
The first is merely illustrating the flaw in the reasoning you used. Also,
so there's no misunderstanding, the second is purely for illustration and is
*not* being used as an attack. I'm making THAT statement because I've seen,
far too often, someone jump at something like that to say "See? He called me
a moron, because he can't debate!"
And my statement was *also* not saying BG is a communist, despite the way it
appears you took it in this quote:
Gates is anything but a communist... My logic is not flawed, ty.
It was, instead, an illustration of the leap you took in saying
"Compatibility mode is obviously broken because MS bought Connectix for
VPC." Similar, flawed leaps include things like "Wiccans/Buddhists/Hindus
worship Satan because they're not Christian," "That person's an Arab, he
must be a terrorist," "That person's unemployed, he must be lazy," or "That
person's got long hair, he must be on drugs." (Again, despite the quote
marks, they're not being attributed to you, nor are they personal attacks.)
