[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Re: Mathematica 1

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg62089] Re: [mg62051] Re: Mathematica 1
• From: George Woodrow III <georgevw3 at mac.com>
• Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:51:52 -0500 (EST)
• References: <200511050653.BAA02078@smc.vnet.net> <dkks3c$r87$1@smc.vnet.net> <dksdbo$h65$1@smc.vnet.net> <200511100750.CAA07281@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

There *were* two versions, one that required the co-processor, and  
one that did not. I believe that they were sold separately. The  
student version was the one without co-processor support.

george

On Nov 10, 2005, at 2:50 AM, Dave Seaman wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 08:52:08 +0000 (UTC), Bob wrote:
>> Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>>> I once had version 1.2 for the Mac, but I used it on a 68K Mac II.
>>> Mathematica itself came on floppy disks and even if still had them
>>> (which I do not) it certainly would not run on any modern Mac.
>
>> Why not?  I have plenty of programs from the 68K Mac days that still
>> run fine on my current G5 Mac.  Granted, there are a few that don't,
>> but I can't see how you can be *certain* that early Mathematica
>> wouldn't run.
>
> My recollection is that Mathematica 1.2 required a 68881  
> coprocessor to
> run on a Mac II.  Such programs cannot run in the Classic environment.
> It's possible there may have been two versions of Mathematica for  
> the Mac
> back then, one requiring the coprocessor and one not.  It made a huge
> difference in performance on a Mac II.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Seaman
> Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
> <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
>

• References:
  • Mathematica 1
    • From: Daniele Lupo <danwolf80_no_spam_@libero.it>
  • Re: Mathematica 1
    • From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>