From: nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu (Nicholas C. Weaver)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued Dec 1992
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:41:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: apple, IBM, NeXTstep, NT, Kibo

In article <9212162327.54@rmkhome.UUCP} rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
}In article <1992Dec16.180320.13556@gallant.apple.com} cheryl@gallant.apple.com (Cheryl Lins) writes:
}}In article <9212151730.20@rmkhome.UUCP} rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
}}}There seems to be two "rumors" floating around.
}}}
}}}1. PowerOpen, which will run on the PowerPC, will be a base OS consisting
}}}   of a mixture of AIX and A/UX, with a MacOS emulation and Multifinder
}}}   running on top.
}}}
}}}2. Taligent, which will run on the PowerPC, will be released without any
}}}   application compatibility to any other OS.
}}}
}}}Why would Apple base an OS on a processor chip that they no longer support
}}}in their product line?
}}
}}If i were writing a _new_ OS, i'd agree that that would be a Dumb Idea. But
}}there happens to be millions of existing Macs out there with lots of software.
}
}Well, that depends on how literally the emulate the 68020, and if it wouldn't
}be better to emulate the 68030.

	They don't really need to.  If I recall, the only real difference
between the 020 and the 030 is the PMMU is built into the 030.  Motorola's
chip designations are that even numbers are major increases, odd numbers are
minor upgrades.  You don't hear about the 68010.  (Although the 68060 isn't
as bing a leap over the 040 as the 040 was over the 030).  There may be
other differences, but I don't thinky they will be too significant.

}}Now, do you want to know a _really_ Dumb Idea? Produce a new personal
}}computer running a brand new computer chip and a new OS and don't have any
}}application software to run on it at introduction (let alone thousands of
}}software titles). Apple engineers are not that dumb. Even Apple managers aren't
}}that dumb. :-)

	It's not necessarily dumb.  Having a sub-feature that's backwards
compatibility is nice these days, but is not required per-se.  Witness
NeXTstep for an example, although they are going to have some sort of
DOS/Windoz function on NeXTstep 486 (For those who bought the wrong computer
in the first place, and are regretting their decision  :)

}Which machine is that?  Alpha?  Between OpenVMS and UNIX they have plenty of
}apps.
}
}DEC is only planning to sell NT on one low-end model.
}
}}Some of us do have a clue, even if the rest of the world hasn't figured that
}}out yet.
}
}When the Mac ships with a real command line shell, then maybe some people
}will look on it more favorably.

	They do, it's called A/UX.  And it is something that they seem to be
letting languish at the sideline.  Apple today could release something that
is 95% of what talegent promisses to be if instead, two years ago, they
built something GOOD on A/UX, and started making it multi-platform.  Also
make a decent development environment (C++ or Objective-C, a solid interface
builder and debugger.  Hey, just hack GCC for the compiler).

	The biggest uglyness that I see with NT and Taligent is the emulator
approach.  Both promise to be multi-platform, but they both emulate a chip
for cross computer work.  I think the fat binary concept (the application
wrapper has binaries for all different computers, and just uses the one
appropriate for the job.  Of course, make it strippable), works better
because of the performance bottleneck from emulation.  This requires
slightly more work for the developer.  (He has to go somewhere to compile on
the other architectures, but that is simply the few hours it takes to
compile soemthing), and a slight lag when a new architecture is announced
for the OS, but the end user benefits from better performance.  Emulation
should only be used for backwards compatability to a previous
OS/architecture, such as System 6*/680x0 software for an Apple RISC machine,
although it is better to just make cross compilation painless in the long
run.

	However, this does also complicate the job for the OS manufacturer,
dependong on how much the manufacturer is relying on the emulation to run
his GUI/OS if the manufacturer is going the emulation route.  

-- 
Nicholas C. Weaver                                nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu
It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, .signifying nothing.