From: HK.MLR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark Rogowsky)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Power PC/68060/Taligent/Windows NT
Date: 20 Jan 1993 23:12:26 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan21.024645.18182@bilby.cs.uwa.edu.au>,
Quinn <quinn@cs.uwa.edu.au> writes:
>>raw performance, as the 601. It will be faster in real use because
>>only "native-mode" RISC applications will fully exploit the 601.
>
>You use of "native-mode" seems to imply some sort of sleeze on the
>part of the PowerPC to support 680x0 code (akin to the 386's
>Native, Protected, Real and Virtual 8086 modes (bletch)).  However
>the PowerPC processor won't have been contaminated with this sort
>of backward compatibility hack.  The '0x0 support will be done
>entirely in software, which is going to make it slow but at least
>it wont blight the world for years to come.
>
Completely true, I didn't mean in any way to disparage PowerPC. I
think it will be a standard through the early days of our third
millenium (A.D., of course)
>
>I think your analysis of Windows/NT vs Taligent is flawed for one
>big reason and that is that Taligent is producing a radically
>different operating system/user interface.  Windows/NT is basically
>Mach 3.0 with a standard operating system server bolted on top
>(and a Posix server too I suppose).  But it's not radical.  It's
>basically the same as unix except that it doesn't carry around all
>the baggage that unix carries around.  It's more like a classic
>"Operating System".  On top of that it runs (da da da!) the Windows
>user interface.  [Microsloth actually advertise it as "Has the same
>user interface as Windows 3.0" like it's something to be proud of.
>Shame shame shame.]  This is not an exciting product.
>
>Taligent's Pink on the other hand may well be exciting.  From what
>I understand it has been design (like the Mac) from the user interface
>down (not from the hardware up like most OSes).  Sure it has some
>sort of microkernal underneath but it's new and interesting.  For
>example it's unlikely you'll get applications under Pink (certainly
>not in the classic Macintosh sense).  Programs will come as objects
>that extend the basic user interface in a consists manner, telling
>the user interface how to deal with new forms of data.
>
Whoa! Nellie! Windows NT 3.1 (the first version for whatever reason)
is what you say but Microsoft is well on its way with Windows Cairo
(I think that's the development name of it anyway), a fully
object-oriented paradigm-shifting OS, like Taligent (I shan't call
it Pink, a silly development name that invokes images of bubble-gum
wads in my mind).

By the time we get to Taligent, NT will have a similar architecture
with modularized code (e.g. the table function of "Word" will
actually execute the code from "Excel"). Microsoft, like Taligent,
is attempting to remake the face of computers.

>For example take a look at how the Mac user interface is growing,
>with things like File Sharing, OCE and GX all extending the Finder
>to support the seamless integration of new forms of data.  This
>is all done through a technology called Finder extensions.  Apple
>wont tell us (programmers) how to do that (because they fear we'll
>run amock and destroy the user interface of the Mac).  However
>
>As for other operating system developments I think you'll find
>that the first PowerPCs from Apple will ship with PowerOpen,

Probably true, certaintly true for IBM's PowerPCs at first. Regular
users (i.e. those of us who think UNIX makes Klingon seem
comprehensible by comparison) won't be buying until microkernel
System 7 for RISC is available.
>