BeOS and NextStep in Macs
cro...@kuentos.guam.net
So we all heard the news.
But I have a lot of questions.
1.) How will BeOS now stand in the Mac scheme of things?
2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
a.) If Apple still acquires BeOS, along with Next, will there be a
rivalry?
1.) Will personality problems make Jobs and Gassee go for
each other's throats?
2.) Will NeXT and Be developers go for each other's throats?
a.) Which is the better OS--Be or Next?
3.) What is this negotiation with Sun?
a.) Is Apple still interested to license Solaris?
b.) Is Apple still interested to license JavaOS?
4.) What's going to happen with MacOS Nukernel?
5.) Is Jobs smiling?
a.) Take revenge on the Newton---Archenemy Sculley's pet.
b.) How much did Jobs get by the way?
c.) Loving the poetic irony.
6.) Is Sculley frowning?
7.) Is Gassee frowning?
8.) Is it an Apple OS strategy, or shall we call it an Apple Multi-OS strategy?
Stay tuned for the next episode of Days of our Macs.
Rgds,
Chris
Famous People on the Day Windows 95 is Launched---
Neil Armstrong---"One Small Fortune for Bill Gates,
One Giant Leap backward for Mankind."
President Roosevelt---"This day shall live in infamy."
*** cro...@kuentos.guam.net *** TKS for the Contributions.
Roger Hsu
In article <59g526$a...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net> , cro...@kuentos.guam.net
writes:
>Subject: BeOS and NextStep in Macs
>From: crobato
>Date: 21 Dec 1996 07:53:42 GMT
>>
>So we all heard the news.
>
>But I have a lot of questions.
>
>1.) How will BeOS now stand in the Mac scheme of things?
I think it's pretty much over between Apple and Be, at least insofar
as Apple acquiring the Be OS. Apple investigated NeXT, Be, and Sun's
Solaris and decided to go with NeXT. The Be OS will still run on
upcoming PowerMacs as currently planned, but I think it's chances of
becoming a high volume, mainstream OS have been severely dampened. It
will probably be relegated to some niche market.
>2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
I'm assuming so. What does Be offer that Apple hasn't now acquired
through NeXT?
> a.) If Apple still acquires BeOS, along with Next, will there be a
> rivalry?
> 1.) Will personality problems make Jobs and Gassee go for
> each other's throats?
> 2.) Will NeXT and Be developers go for each other's throats?
> a.) Which is the better OS--Be or Next?
>
>3.) What is this negotiation with Sun?
> a.) Is Apple still interested to license Solaris?
> b.) Is Apple still interested to license JavaOS?
I think Solaris is now out of the picture along with Be. Apple still
has a keen interest in Java though and will be merging it into the new
Copland/Gershwin/NeXT OS.
>4.) What's going to happen with MacOS Nukernel?
>
>5.) Is Jobs smiling?
> a.) Take revenge on the Newton---Archenemy Sculley's pet.
> b.) How much did Jobs get by the way?
> c.) Loving the poetic irony.
I'm sure he is, or else he wouldn't have agreed to the $400 million
deal.
>6.) Is Sculley frowning?
Don't know, I haven't seen him.
>7.) Is Gassee frowning?
I haven't seem him either, but I imagine he is since it will now be
much more difficult for him to gain developer support and market
adoption of his company's OS.
>8.) Is it an Apple OS strategy, or shall we call it an Apple Multi-OS strategy?
It is an Apple OS strategy since Apple has acquired NeXT.
Dave Coker
cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote:
.
.
.
: 6.) Is Sculley frowning?
Sculley is a moron; his sole "day in the sun" (whilst in Jobs
shadow BTW) was while actively participating in Apple's decline.
What's he done lately? Another law-suit ridden startup? Anyone else
remember the great LI based Spectrum?
So much for this "visionary".
Let Jobs KICK ASS!!!!!!!!!
Long live the Mac!!!!!!!!!! Apple Forever!
Andrew Shieh
[Newsgroups trimmed]
In article <59g526$a...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>,
BeOS for powermacs will still be released, and will still be in next month's
MacTech.
>2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
>
Probably. I don't think they could afford it.
> a.) Which is the better OS--Be or Next?
Debatable, but for 400 million, Next is a better deal. The OS is mature
and there has already been much developed for it. It's much less risky
of a purchase.
>
>7.) Is Gassee frowning?
Yes. Wouldn't you frown if you just missed an opportunity for
$100+ million? Hopefully, Be should still prosper.
Michael Brian Bentley
cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote:
>2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
Yes, they're not.
> a.) If Apple still acquires BeOS, along with Next, will there be a
> rivalry?
They had a problem between Apple folks back in the late '80s. The
divergence between the two OS efforts then, in the form of fundamental
design decisions, and the subsequent redirection of development by IBM
without much apparent contribution by Apple mgt, lead to the current OS
problem in the first place.
They are focused on solving their OS problem. They have no desire to
perpetuate it.
>3.) What is this negotiation with Sun?
> a.) Is Apple still interested to license Solaris?
> b.) Is Apple still interested to license JavaOS?
Some of this will likely still happen.
>4.) What's going to happen with MacOS Nukernel?
We'll find out shortly when the strategies start to jump out. I'm more
interested about how OpenDoc will fit than Nukernel. I'm just as curious
about what it is going to take to reconcile the Objective C world of NeXT
with the Pascal/Object Pascal/C/THINK C with Objects/C++ world of Apple
and the Java world. [Not to mention OLE and ActiveX.] Oy, Headache.
>5.) Is Jobs smiling?
He's probably somewhere between puzzled, quizzical, euphoric, and
relieved, all of which are tempered by the realization that it's nearly
time to get back to work merging two entire OS spheres of influence. This
comes after he faces the employees of NeXT Inc.
> a.) Take revenge on the Newton---Archenemy Sculley's pet.
Not an issue. Read Don Crabb's current article about PDAs in MacWeek.
Sculley has made legitimate contributions.
> b.) How much did Jobs get by the way?
How much does he need? Not much, since he's a primary investor in Pixar
well before Toy Story. It's the journey. On the other hand, NeXT may owe
some investors.
> c.) Loving the poetic irony.
Jobs does what he wants to do, and Amelio's team was free of the burden of
bias from the mid 80's. I don't see irony per se; I see someone who tries
to go on, learn from mistakes, and doesn't like to have to say: been
there, done that, got the tee...a lot of people leave Apple to do
interesting things elsewhere: General Magic, NeXT, Taligent, WebTV. This
seems like a quintessential Silicon Valley story.
>6.) Is Sculley frowning?
No. He's a pro, and all that's water under the bridge from years ago.
Everyone gets to make mistakes, but keep in mind that there might be other
folks around who wish to minimize the impact of those mistakes. Jobs was
clearly having trouble dealing with the ballooning interests of a growing
Apple. And Sculley who backed that Laserwriter, a Good Move. I expect that
Sculley is smiling.
Big business is not exactly like a chess game, where all you can do is
start with the pieces you get, and trade or lose pieces until you win or
lose. It is possible to gain back a piece, or to pick up a piece from the
opponent.
>7.) Is Gassee frowning?
That's a really difficult one to say. For him I'd say that this whole
thing was a damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned if Apple does,
damned if Apple doesn't. He might have frowned when the possibility first
came up. He's probably satisfied that the whole thing's over. Money's one
thing, doing what you want to do is another.
>8.) Is it an Apple OS strategy, or shall we call it an Apple Multi-OS strategy?
I call it an acquisition for now. The strategies will come to the fore
when everyone comes back after taking a deep breath and after reading an
_awful_ lot of documents. I personally plan to be reading a lot of
NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP manuals during the next couple of weeks.
--
Michael Brian Bentley / Crenelle Inc. / ben...@crenelle.com
1935 West Pratt Blvd. Suite Three / Chicago, IL / 60626-3133
Voice (773)-508-9009 Fax (773)-465-2399
Network Product Development Specializing in Mac OS
Rick McDaniel
> >1.) How will BeOS now stand in the Mac scheme of things?
>
> as Apple acquiring the Be OS. Apple investigated NeXT, Be, and Sun's
> Solaris and decided to go with NeXT. The Be OS will still run on
> upcoming PowerMacs as currently planned, but I think it's chances of
> becoming a high volume, mainstream OS have been severely dampened. It
> will probably be relegated to some niche market.
Didn't Power Computing buy the use of Be. I think they are the big loser
in this deal.
--
Rick McDaniel
Douglas H. Borsom
>
> 2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
Word is Apple offered $100 million and Gassee wanted $300 million.
Apple walked.
Instead they paid $300 million (and assumed some debt) for Next.
I hope Be still makes it, but Gassee might have missed his chance.
-doug
Don Leslie
In article <59g74a$6...@epic18.Stanford.EDU>, shan...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Andrew Shieh) wrote:
snip snip nsip
> >
> >7.) Is Gassee frowning?
>
> Yes. Wouldn't you frown if you just missed an opportunity for
> $100+ million? Hopefully, Be should still prosper.
I'll bet he is. Apple offered $120 million, he wanted $300 million, and I
think he prices himself right out of the market. Next for $400 million is
a much better buy than Be for $300 million. I would not be surprised to
see Be turn up the heat on getting its system on to Intel, which has been
encouraging just that. I would be willing to be Gassee had now idea Apple
was also dealing with Jobs. In fact, I'll bet Steve was a very willing
partner. I somehow think a lot of the Next investors will now chalk up
their losses. Didn't Canon sink a pile of dough into Next (something like
$600 million a few years ago)?
--
Don
Mike Paquette
ben...@crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) wrote:
>>5.) Is Jobs smiling?
>He's probably somewhere between puzzled, quizzical, euphoric, and
>relieved, all of which are tempered by the realization that it's nearly
>time to get back to work merging two entire OS spheres of influence. This
>comes after he faces the employees of NeXT Inc.
Smiling? You bet. All the NeXT (and ex-NeXT) employees I know seem
pretty darn happy.
>> b.) How much did Jobs get by the way?
>How much does he need? Not much, since he's a primary investor in Pixar
>well before Toy Story. It's the journey. On the other hand, NeXT may owe
>some investors.
That's all spelled out pretty well in the wire service stories. Check
out http://www.sjmercury.com/ for details, for example. (I can't
believe I'm promoting the Smirky News here...)
>>8.) Is it an Apple OS strategy, or shall we call it an Apple Multi-OS strategy?
>I call it an acquisition for now. The strategies will come to the fore
>when everyone comes back after taking a deep breath and after reading an
>_awful_ lot of documents. I personally plan to be reading a lot of
>NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP manuals during the next couple of weeks.
Both. They get a new OS for the future, a lot of cool technology, a
foot in the door of the Enterprise marketplace (Fortune 50, US Govt,
etc), and a bunch of sharp people (he said modestly).
No comment on the rest for now. Gotta save SOMETHING for MacWorld
Expo, eh?
Mike Paquette
--
I don't speak for my employer, whoever it is, and they don't speak for me.
mpa...@wco.com
mpa...@next.com NeXT business mail only, please
Garance A Drosehn
> > b.) How much did Jobs get by the way?
>
> How much does he need? Not much, since he's a primary investor
> in Pixar well before Toy Story. It's the journey. On the other
> hand, NeXT may owe some investors.
If you read around enough, you'll find out that the $400 million
that Apple pays out includes $50 million to pay off all debts.
The investors in NeXT are probably covered.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer (MIME & NeXTmail capable)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
Garance A Drosehn
Most likely it is out of the running. Gasse held out for too much,
and in some ways BeOS isn't as good a fit for Apple as NeXTSTEP is.
> 2.) Does this mean Apple will not buy BeOS anymore?
We probably can't say for certain just yet, as theoretically Jobs
could decide he wants the kernel from BeOS as the underpinnings
for the OpenStep that Apple sells. Still, given that Apple just
paid $400 million for NeXT, it is not likely that they intend to
spend another big wad of money for something from BeInc.
> 3.) What is this negotiation with Sun?
> a.) Is Apple still interested to license Solaris?
> b.) Is Apple still interested to license JavaOS?
More likely for JavaOS.
> 4.) What's going to happen with MacOS Nukernel?
My own guess is that this is why Apple bought NeXT. Supposedly
they (Apple) have this perfectly fine kernel, it was the various
ToolBoxes that they were having trouble with. Here NeXT has a
very good replacement for the ToolBoxes (namely OpenStep), but
the kernel in NeXTSTEP is looking a bit old by now.
My guess is that they will put OpenStep on top of the kernel
that Apple developed for Copland. That kernel already supports
all the hardware they need to suppprt, and it is supposed to
include all the latest things one would want from a modern
operating system. I think this may be a very good matchup.
> 5.) Is Jobs smiling?
I doubt that he's crying.
> a.) Take revenge on the Newton---Archenemy Sculley's
> pet.
I see no reason for him to do anything to Newton. It is a separate
product line, and I don't think he's in a positition to kill it
even if he wanted to. He does not run Apple, he's just an advisor
and technology guru. And why would he bother to kill it? If it's
making money, let it stay. If it's not, then it will fall of it's
own weight.
Note that the newton has continued along just fine long after
Sculley's departure. It is not wedded to Sculley. It is in
better shape now than it has ever been. The new Newtons (are
they released yet?) are considerably interesting, actually.
Both the handheld one, and the new form factor (the name of
which escapes me right now).
> 6.) Is Sculley frowning?
Not sure I care. Offhand, I doubt he cares one way or the
other.
> 7.) Is Gassee frowning?
Not necessarily. He may have kept the price of Be Inc high precisely
because everyone at Be was very uneasy about working with Apple.
He has claimed (many times) that he was to be a "microbrewery" in
the world of computing, and not caught up in the big-company
environment.
> 8.) Is it an Apple OS strategy, or shall we call it an Apple
> Multi-OS strategy?
I think it's safe to say that Apple is operating on several fronts.
They'll have mklinux and this new OS to help sell PowerPC-based
machines. They'll have the newton group. Their servers will
probably continue to run AIX.
Garance A Drosehn
dco...@panix.com (Dave Coker) wrote:
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote:
> : 6.) Is Sculley frowning?
>
> Sculley is a moron; his sole "day in the sun" (whilst in Jobs
> shadow BTW) was while actively participating in Apple's decline.
This is rubbish. When Scully managed to get Jobs out of the
company, the Macintosh was on the verge of disappearing. It
was during Scully's reign that the Mac *became* big, even
though the original Mac was due to the vision of Jobs.
It'd be more accurate to say that Scully was at the helm for
both the rise and the decline of the Mac. Still, I don't
believe Apple ever saw the kinds of massive losses that they
saw at the end of the Spindler regime, so I'm not even sure
that Scully deserves that much contempt.
At the same time, I don't believe the guy really has any
vision when it comes to computers or technology.
Garance A Drosehn
ric...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rick McDaniel) wrote:
> > >1.) How will BeOS now stand in the Mac scheme of things?
> >
> > insofar as Apple acquiring the Be OS. Apple investigated NeXT,
> > Be, and Sun's Solaris and decided to go with NeXT. The Be OS
> > will still run on upcoming PowerMacs as currently planned, but
> > I think it's chances of becoming a high volume, mainstream OS
> > have been severely dampened. It will probably be relegated to
> > some niche market.
>
>
> Didn't Power Computing buy the use of Be. I think they are the
> big loser in this deal.
Not at all. For one, I don't think they paid any huge bundle of
money to Be.
For two, this *still* differentiates PowerComputing hardware
from Apple hardware, and if you're competing with Apple then
that's a good thing. They will ship systems that run *both*
the Apple OS (whatever it is), and BeOS.
Hmm, I guess that'd be AOS and BeOS... :-)
Christopher Wolf
>Expo, eh?
Speaking of which... how do those of us in Silly-con Valley who might want to
attend this thing get passes to the Expo and the keynote speech?
> Mike Paquette
>--
>I don't speak for my employer, whoever it is, and they don't speak for me.
>mpa...@wco.com
>mpa...@next.com NeXT business mail only, please
--
Garance A Drosehn
cw...@wolfware.com (Christopher Wolf) wrote:
> On 12/21/96, Mike Paquette wrote:
> > No comment on the rest for now. Gotta save SOMETHING for
> > MacWorld Expo, eh?
>
> Speaking of which... how do those of us in Silly-con Valley who
> might want to attend this thing get passes to the Expo and the
> keynote speech?
This is a good point... It may finally be time for me to risk a
quick flight out to CA for a MacWorld Expo. Maybe I could wear
some of my T-shirts that came from NeXTWORLD Expo's. :-)
So, what's the deal on MacWorld expo? Probably too late to get
decent prices on airline tickets.
mmalcolm crawford
On 12/22/96, Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> One interesting avenue of discussion is how this affects the fate of
> Objective C.
>
That's already decided, I think -- Metrowerks wasted no time posting an
announcement indicating that they'll be supporting it ASAP.
Best wishes,
mmalc.
--
Alan Lovejoy
Douglas H. Borsom wrote:
>
> In article <59g526$a...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>, cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote:
> heme of things?
> >
>
> Apple walked.
>
> Instead they paid $300 million (and assumed some debt) for Next.
>
> I hope Be still makes it, but Gassee might have missed his chance.
Shakespeare had it right: To Be, or not to Be: That is the Question. And now
we know Apple's answer...
Be would have been a good choice. NeXT is probably the best possible one,
it seems to me. The plot thickens.
One interesting avenue of discussion is how this affects the fate of Objective C.
--
Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================|
Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! |
alov...@concentric.net |==============================================|
CONPUTE
: > Is Power Computing a big loser in this deal.
: Not at all. For one, I don't think they paid any huge bundle of
: money to Be.
: For two, this *still* differentiates PowerComputing hardware
: from Apple hardware, and if you're competing with Apple then
: that's a good thing. They will ship systems that run *both*
: the Apple OS (whatever it is), and BeOS.
: Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
There is a real market for BeOS with the clones and VARS, it lets them
offer solutions that Apple does not presently have! So for the next 6-12
months if you are a cloner of Macs you want BeOS to help you compete
against Apple.
E.C. Pottinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Visit our "Do-It-Yourself!" Website http://web.idirect.com :
: Easy, Fun & Affordable Webspace rental for less than $10 per month :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Brown
In article <bentley-2112...@news.well.com>, ben...@crenelle.com
(Michael Brian Bentley) wrote:
>We'll find out shortly when the strategies start to jump out. I'm more
>interested about how OpenDoc will fit than Nukernel. I'm just as curious
>about what it is going to take to reconcile the Objective C world of NeXT
>with the Pascal/Object Pascal/C/THINK C with Objects/C++ world of Apple
>and the Java world. [Not to mention OLE and ActiveX.] Oy, Headache.
I thought that NeXT had already solved some of the OLE/Active X problems
with WebObjects (it claims to support them).
I don't really see Objective C being a problem, since it supports C and C++
already, and Metrowerks is already adding Obj-C support. The Obj-C is
quite easy to learn, even easier if all you want to do is write the
interface code neccesary to get your C++/C/Pacal code running on OpenStep.
OpenDoc seems less needed on OpenStep than on the Mac, due the rich
interaction of objects, which already support CORBA. That doesn't mean
that OpenDoc has nothing to offer OpenStep. It'll be interesting to see
what happens to the clash of NeXT and Apple APIs, as NeXT has offerings
that compete with QuickDraw3D, QuickDraw GX, OpenTransport, and the entire
Apple Development library just to name a few.
Hmm...I wonder when we'll see a beta of OpenStep running on Mac hardware.
It took two engineers one month to make a pre-alpha demo of NeXTSTEP
running on Intel hardware. I wonder if NeXT started the port during the
talks? I also remember a rumor of a NeXT engineer porting the 040 NeXTSTEP
to his Quadra. It'll be interesting if Apple's next OS supports older 040
macs. And I wonder if Apple will support x86 and PA-RISC hw since
OpenStep supports them (not to mention the OpenStep/Solaris and
OpenStep/NT).
--
Ted Brown tbr...@netset.com
Communicating at an unknown rate -- PPP 1.0fc9
I was not looking forward to living in Columbus, Ohio anyway.
-- Jean-Louis Gassée, CEO of Be, Inc.
John Kheit
tbr...@netset.com (Ted Brown) wrote:
> Hmm...I wonder when we'll see a beta of OpenStep running on Mac
> hardware. It took two engineers one month to make a pre-alpha
> demo of NeXTSTEP running on Intel hardware. I wonder if NeXT
> started the port during the talks? I also remember a rumor of
> a NeXT engineer porting the 040 NeXTSTEP to his Quadra. It'll
> be interesting if Apple's next OS supports older 040 macs. And
> I wonder if Apple will support x86 and PA-RISC hw since OpenStep
> supports them (not to mention the OpenStep/Solaris and OpenStep/NT).
That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well given
enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the economics might
be an issue... How many Quadra type users, with equipment that at
least could be brought up to spec, would bother upgrading?
Here's a cool trick... Use DayDream on a NeXT to run the latest
mac version of the operating system :)
--
Thanks, later, John Kheit
monoChrome, Inc. | ASCII, MIME, PGP, SUN, & NEXTmail OK
NEXT/OPENSTEP Developer | mailto:jkh...@cnj.digex.net
Telepathy, It's coming... | http://cnj.digex.net/~jkheit
New York Law School | Opinions expressed represent me only
Douglas H. Borsom
In article <tbrown-ya0230800...@news.netset.com>,
tbr...@netset.com (Ted Brown) wrote:
>And I wonder if Apple will support x86 and PA-RISC hw since
> OpenStep supports them (not to mention the OpenStep/Solaris and
> OpenStep/NT).
Who cares about Intel and PA-RISC? Port it to Alpha, where I
can get a 12.6/12.0 SPECint95/SPECfp95 *today* for under $4K,
complete system, including monitor.
And in 6 months, a 14/17 SPECint95/SPECfp95 system is expected
to be available for less than that.
-doug
Rick Sanford
In <59i2e6$i...@duke.squonk.net> Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> cw...@wolfware.com (Christopher Wolf) wrote:
> > On 12/21/96, Mike Paquette wrote:
> > > No comment on the rest for now. Gotta save SOMETHING for
> > > MacWorld Expo, eh?
> >
> > Speaking of which... how do those of us in Silly-con Valley who
> > might want to attend this thing get passes to the Expo and the
> > keynote speech?
>
> This is a good point... It may finally be time for me to risk a
> quick flight out to CA for a MacWorld Expo. Maybe I could wear
> some of my T-shirts that came from NeXTWORLD Expo's. :-)
>
> So, what's the deal on MacWorld expo? Probably too late to get
> decent prices on airline tickets.
>
> ---
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
>
Kheit makes a third...what'll we need, 350 more to charter a flight out of
NY? Hotels are probably harder to find even than the flight. I'm gonna try!
Hope to see you there.
Rick Sanford
John Kheit
den...@precipice.com (Rick Sanford) wrote:
> In <59i2e6$i...@duke.squonk.net> Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> > cw...@wolfware.com (Christopher Wolf) wrote:
> > > On 12/21/96, Mike Paquette wrote:
> > This is a good point... It may finally be time for me to risk
> > a quick flight out to CA for a MacWorld Expo. Maybe I could
> > wear some of my T-shirts that came from NeXTWORLD Expo's. :-)
> >
> > So, what's the deal on MacWorld expo? Probably too late to
> > get decent prices on airline tickets.
> I was wondering the same thing. Let's see you and I make two,
> maybe John Kheit makes a third...what'll we need, 350 more to
> charter a flight out of NY? Hotels are probably harder to find
> even than the flight. I'm gonna try! Hope to see you there. Rick
Speaking of which...that is a great idea. I really am pretty
broke...but maybe we could get some kind of group discount... I
bet there are a lot of people that could get to Newark airport or
JFK for it. Anyone up to finding out organizing a group go? Let
me be one of the first to say, I'll go if something can be put
together (I'd be thrilled to meet all of the people behind the
posts [even though I have a lot of your pictures in NeXTmail :] :)
This will be the biggest Geek/technology event of the decade.
So who has a Tecra 720 or 730 so they can bring NeXTSTEP on a laptop
for all to see and ditz with?
Garance A Drosehn
bor...@netcom.com (Douglas H. Borsom) wrote:
> tbr...@netset.com (Ted Brown) wrote:
>
> > And I wonder if Apple will support x86 and PA-RISC hw since
> > OpenStep supports them (not to mention the OpenStep/Solaris
> > and OpenStep/NT).
>
> Who cares about Intel and PA-RISC? Port it to Alpha, where I
> can get a 12.6/12.0 SPECint95/SPECfp95 *today* for under
> $4K, complete system, including monitor.
For what it's worth, in years past there were people who had claimed
to have seen, with their own eyes, NeXTSTEP running on Alpha-based
machines in the back-rooms of NeXT. That doesn't mean they have
a version of *today's* NeXTSTEP which will run on *today's*
Alpha-based hardware, but it does mean that if there was enough of
a demand for NeXTSTEP on Alpha then it would not be out-of-the-question.
I'd say it is a very safe bet that there will be no NeXTSTEP for
any Alpha-based machine this year though, not unless someone wants
to pay Apple a fairly huge sum of money. Apple has to worry about
getting it's act together on it's own hardware base before running
off to some new and unrelated platform.
Martin-Gilles Lavoie
In article <59n7or$2...@news4.digex.net>, jkh...@cnj.digex.net wrote:
[...]
> That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well given
> enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the economics might
> be an issue... How many Quadra type users, with equipment that at
> least could be brought up to spec, would bother upgrading?
[...]
I would. My Quadra 840AV was destined to the dust bin. If I could run an
"AppleSTEP" on it as well as on my PowerMac, I'd be happy.
But I'd be happy to run a decent OS on my PowerMac only too.
=================================================================
Please reply using the following address, rather than the
"reply-to" address (my mail box is being filled with junk mail).
=================================================================
Martin-Gilles Lavoie | Opinions expressed herein are just that.
mou...@zercom.net | "No! Do, or do not. There is no try."
Globimage, inc. | --Yoda on error handling
Rick Hatton
John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
> That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well given
> enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the economics might
> be an issue... How many Quadra type users, with equipment that at
> least could be brought up to spec, would bother upgrading?
What would it take to run NextSep on an 040??
Does anyone think nextStep could run on an LC040 with 12-16 megs of RAM
and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet youd see a lot of 040 people
upgrade.
Scott Knaster
> (Lots of enthusiastic discussion about being at Gil Amelio's (and Steve
Jobs's? ;-) )
> keynote at MacWorld)
If you can't make it in person, you can virtually attend via the webcast on
<http://live.apple.com> -- check there for details.
--
Scott Knaster
Macintosh Internet Team
Microsoft Corporation
John C. Randolph
"Scott Knaster" <skna...@best.com> writes:
>Scott Knaster
>Macintosh Internet Team
>Microsoft Corporation
>sco...@microsoft.coimi
So, Scott!
Now that the Macintosh has a hope of survival, are you going to quit working for
the Evil Empire?
Come Home, Scott! Come Home! The mac Still sucks, but it will suck *much* less
when it's an emulation box running under Mach/Berkeley 4.4/NeXTSTEP/OpenStep.
-jcr
Henry McGilton
Rick Hatton wrote:
* John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
* That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run
* it well given enough ram and large enough screen. I
* imagine the economics might be an issue... How many
* Quadra type users, with equipment that at least could
* be brought up to spec, would bother upgrading?
* What would it take to run NextSep on an 040??
* Does anyone think nextStep could run on an LC040 with
* 12-16 megs of RAM and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet
* youd see a lot of 040 people upgrade.
I'm running NextStep right here on a MC68040 with 20MB RAM
and a one Gig hard disk. It's called a NextStation. Has been
doing sterling work since 1991.
Cheers,
........ Henry
Garance A Drosehn
hat...@aug.com (Rick Hatton) wrote:
> John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
>
> > That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well
> > given enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the
> > economics might be an issue... How many Quadra type users,
> > with equipment that at least could be brought up to spec, would
> > bother upgrading?
>
>
> of RAM and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet youd see a lot of
> 040 people upgrade.
My guess is that an LC wouldn't be enough.
For one, you'd probably want a machine with at *least* 16 meg
of RAM, and to be honest it'd probably be a bit slow unless
you had more than that.
Also, I don't remember what speed the 68040's were on an LC.
The NeXTstations I use all have 25MHz 68040's, and if an LC
uses something slower than that then I'd say it's really not
up to the task. Of course, there are other people who swear
that NeXTSTEP runs fine on the older (68030-based) NeXT cubes,
but my personal opinion is that *that* hardware is too slow.
The 1-gig disk would certainly be plenty.
My guess is the fate of a version of MacStep for 68040-based machines
depends on how much Apple thinks it is needed. If it looks like
a version for 68040's would help all Mac-users feel more comfortable
to committing to this new OS, then it is certainly feasible for
Apple to create one.
However, I personally agree with Apple's decision that they should
first concentrate on deciding what they *want* in MacStep, and on
getting whatever that is available for PowerMacs first. Don't
spend time on a version for 68040 Macs until the PowerMac version
is least pretty far along (and preferrably after it is shipping).
Nik
>Hmm...I wonder when we'll see a beta of OpenStep running on Mac hardware.
>It took two engineers one month to make a pre-alpha demo of NeXTSTEP
>running on Intel hardware. I wonder if NeXT started the port during the
>talks? I also remember a rumor of a NeXT engineer porting the 040 NeXTSTEP
>to his Quadra. It'll be interesting if Apple's next OS supports older 040
>macs. And I wonder if Apple will support x86 and PA-RISC hw since
>OpenStep supports them (not to mention the OpenStep/Solaris and
>OpenStep/NT).
OPENSTEP on Quadra ? that would be pretty cool.
Certainly would beat NetBSD to a pulp..
..just need to get the black spray paint !! :)
Happy Holidays...
Nik.
John Kheit
hat...@aug.com (Rick Hatton) wrote:
> John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
> > That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well
> > given enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the
> > economics might be an issue... How many Quadra type users,
> > with equipment that at least could be brought up to spec, would
> > bother upgrading?
> What would it take to run NextSep on an 040??
> Does anyone think nextStep could run on an LC040 with 12-16 megs
> of RAM and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet youd see a lot of
> 040 people upgrade.
Depends on the LC... NeXTSTEP needs either a FULL 040, or an 030
and a math coprocessor (at least based on old NeXT hardware). It
COULD run with 16megs, but it'd be painful. YOU WANT 64Mb of ram
for it. You can use it ok w/ 32Mb. Of course this is based on a
system using 16bit color or greater on a decent size monitor. If
you use 8bit color, the requirements (all the backing stores) go
down and you can get by w/ less memory and still have a usable
system.
Ted Brown
In article <19961224114224606505@[206.30.205.200]>, hat...@aug.com (Rick
Hatton) wrote:
>John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
>
>> That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well given
>> enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the economics might
>> be an issue... How many Quadra type users, with equipment that at
>> least could be brought up to spec, would bother upgrading?
>
>What would it take to run NextSep on an 040??
>
>Does anyone think nextStep could run on an LC040 with 12-16 megs of RAM
>and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet youd see a lot of 040 people
>upgrade.
Since I used NeXTSTEP on a 8MB 030 with a 850MB HD, I'd think that the
LC040 would do just fine. Hmm...I was doing 2 bit greyscale though, the
overhead of color graphics might be too much.
I'm sure that there are plenty of 040 mac (in the millions) that'd upgrade,
it might be on the same order as the number of PowerMacs that are out
there. Unfortunately, Hancock was quoted recently saying that the new os
would run on the PPC only. I guess they don't see enough profit in the
ugrading of machines that are several years old. Hopefully that will
change as the Apple becomes more familiar with NeXT's history.
Jason S.
> hat...@aug.com (Rick Hatton) wrote:
> > John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
> > > That is interesting... A higher end Quadra could run it well
> > > given enough ram and large enough screen. I imagine the
> > > economics might be an issue... How many Quadra type users,
> > > with equipment that at least could be brought up to spec, would
> > > bother upgrading?
>
> > What would it take to run NextSep on an 040??
>
> > Does anyone think nextStep could run on an LC040 with 12-16 megs
> > of RAM and a 1 gig HD ?? If it could, I bet youd see a lot of
> > 040 people upgrade.
>
> Depends on the LC... NeXTSTEP needs either a FULL 040, or an 030
> and a math coprocessor (at least based on old NeXT hardware). It
> COULD run with 16megs, but it'd be painful. YOU WANT 64Mb of ram
> for it. You can use it ok w/ 32Mb. Of course this is based on a
> system using 16bit color or greater on a decent size monitor. If
> you use 8bit color, the requirements (all the backing stores) go
> down and you can get by w/ less memory and still have a usable
> system.
> --
Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require a FPU for
the OS to run?
J.
Mark Eaton
In article <59i2e6$i...@duke.squonk.net>, Garance A Drosehn
<g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
] So, what's the deal on MacWorld expo? Probably too late to get
] decent prices on airline tickets.
http://www.macworld.com/expo/index.html
you missed the pre-registration, but you can register on-site
exhibits only pass is $40
exhibits plus conferences is $195
--
--->
ma...@nwlink.com
Glen Warner
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
(*snip*)
> > --
> > Scott Knaster
> > Macintosh Internet Team
> > Microsoft Corporation
>
> Hmm. Hey, might you be the guy who wrote some Macintosh
> programming books, once-upon-a-time?
That's probably him ... I saw him at a BMUG meeting recently ... he's
working for Microsoft these days (on a Mac-programmers only Internet
project) at a company called, I think, Microsoft Bay.
--gdw
Garance A Drosehn
"Scott Knaster" <skna...@best.com> wrote:
> > (Lots of enthusiastic discussion about being at Gil Amelio's
> > (and Steve Jobs's? ;-) ) keynote at MacWorld)
>
> If you can't make it in person, you can virtually attend via the
> webcast on <http://live.apple.com> -- check there for details.
Oooo, thanks for the information!
> --
> Scott Knaster
> Macintosh Internet Team
> Microsoft Corporation
Hmm. Hey, might you be the guy who wrote some Macintosh
programming books, once-upon-a-time?
---
Jerome Chan
>Since I used NeXTSTEP on a 8MB 030 with a 850MB HD, I'd think that the
>LC040 would do just fine. Hmm...I was doing 2 bit greyscale though, the
>overhead of color graphics might be too much.
>
>I'm sure that there are plenty of 040 mac (in the millions) that'd upgrade,
>it might be on the same order as the number of PowerMacs that are out
>there. Unfortunately, Hancock was quoted recently saying that the new os
>would run on the PPC only. I guess they don't see enough profit in the
>ugrading of machines that are several years old. Hopefully that will
>change as the Apple becomes more familiar with NeXT's history.
>
I don't think working on an 040 solution is wise. Apple does not produce
any 040 machines at this point(?). I'd rather Apple get a working version
of NeXTStep with Apple Extensions out as soon as possible for the PPC
machines and not split resources.
---
The Evil Tofu (Only Human)
David Rehring
In article <jhsterne-ya023280...@news.earthlink.net>,
jhst...@earthlink.net (Jason S.) wrote:
... stuff deleted
>>
>>
>>Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require a FPU for
>>the OS to run?
>>
>>J.
I believe the main reason is for improved performance for Display
PostScript. But I could be wrong...
Later,
--
David Rehring
Senior Software Engineer
GDT Softworks, Inc.
And all around insane guy!
Andrew Carol
In article <bw-251296...@bwyman.tiac.net>, b...@tiac.net (Bruce
Wyman) wrote:
> In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she mentioned that
> first priority was to get the new OS available for currently shipping
> powermacs. So, I think that limits it to 603, 604(e) chips. I'm betting
> that 601 would be easy to do at the same time, though since NeXT had a
> version running in-house.
While I personally really don't know, I would speculate that if 601
is later than the others it's for the same reason Be is later with
601.
It's really the NuBus vs PCI issue. I'd bet 601 itself is a nobrainer.
Oh well.....
--
Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
I do not speak for Apple. All opinions are my own.
Garance A Drosehn
jhst...@earthlink.net (Jason S.) wrote:
> Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require
> a FPU for the OS to run?
Probably for some floating-point calculations in display postscript.
But really, that's just a guess on my part.
Bruce Wyman
In article <jchan-ya02358000...@news.apk.net>, jc...@apk.net
(Jerome Chan) wrote:
>I don't think working on an 040 solution is wise. Apple does not produce
>any 040 machines at this point(?). I'd rather Apple get a working version
>of NeXTStep with Apple Extensions out as soon as possible for the PPC
>machines and not split resources.
In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she mentioned that
first priority was to get the new OS available for currently shipping
powermacs. So, I think that limits it to 603, 604(e) chips. I'm betting
that 601 would be easy to do at the same time, though since NeXT had a
version running in-house. And, I would expect to see 680x0 support around
6-9 months after the ppc release. But, that certainly makes it obvious why
Apple is going with the dual OS strategy for a few more iterations of sys
7.x...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bruce Wyman bwy...@neaq.org / b...@tiac.net
Webmaster, New England Aquarium <http://www.neaq.org/>
"I like reality, It tastes of bread." -J. Aliyoueh
E. Deans
Nik <N...@broken.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<AEE5F1799...@broken.demon.co.uk>...
>
> OPENSTEP on Quadra ? that would be pretty cool.
>
>
Hmmm... for a long while there was a company that sold the same paint that
NeXT used on their cube's & slabs.
Any body remember?
--Ed.
Scott Knaster
In article <jcr.85...@idiom.com>, j...@idiom.com (John C. Randolph)
wrote:
>
>So, Scott!
>
>Now that the Macintosh has a hope of survival, are you going to quit
working for
>the Evil Empire?
But I just started! Can't I wait until I vest? ;-)
Scott
--
Scott Knaster
Macintosh Internet Team (MS Bay)
Microsoft Corporation
Ted Brown
>>I'm sure that there are plenty of 040 mac (in the millions) that'd upgrade,
>>it might be on the same order as the number of PowerMacs that are out
>>there. Unfortunately, Hancock was quoted recently saying that the new os
>>would run on the PPC only. I guess they don't see enough profit in the
>>ugrading of machines that are several years old. Hopefully that will
>>change as the Apple becomes more familiar with NeXT's history.
>>
>
>I don't think working on an 040 solution is wise. Apple does not produce
>any 040 machines at this point(?). I'd rather Apple get a working version
>of NeXTStep with Apple Extensions out as soon as possible for the PPC
>machines and not split resources.
On the balance I have to agree with you. In practice, it'd depend upon
what path Apple actually takes. If they release OpenStep/Mach for the
PowerMacs, well OpenStep/Mach for the 040 should *already* exist, you'd
just need drivers for the 040 Macs. It's also something that could be done
in parallel with the OpenStep PPC porting (the teams wouldn't need much
crosstalk).
But, since Apple is prolly going to create OpenStep/NuKernel or something,
they're going to be changing to many things to make an 040 project work.
We already know that some kernel modifications are being made, as Avie
Tevian is talking about adding SMP.
I also have to admit that I don't have an 040 mac, so it doesn't matter to
me in the slightest -- it's just that Apple seems to be writing off the 040
as too anemic to run a modern OS, which is patently untrue.
Jack Howarth
In article <carol1-2512...@macip-ara-18.apple.com>,
car...@apple.com (Andrew Carol) wrote:
>In article <bw-251296...@bwyman.tiac.net>, b...@tiac.net (Bruce
>Wyman) wrote:
>
>> In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she mentioned that
>> first priority was to get the new OS available for currently shipping
>> powermacs. So, I think that limits it to 603, 604(e) chips. I'm betting
>> that 601 would be easy to do at the same time, though since NeXT had a
>> version running in-house.
>
>While I personally really don't know, I would speculate that if 601
>is later than the others it's for the same reason Be is later with
>601.
>
>It's really the NuBus vs PCI issue. I'd bet 601 itself is a nobrainer.
>
>Oh well.....
>
>--
>Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
>
> I do not speak for Apple. All opinions are my own.
>
>car...@apple.com ca...@woz.org
Apple had better be REALLY careful about providing support for the
original Nubus PowerMacs
in the first release of OpenStep for the PowerMac. If they don't an awful
lot of people
(including myself) will probably walk from the platform. I have owned 6
Macs since 1984
and while I appreciate the nature of the decision Apple had to make (i.e.
taking Copland out
back and 'shooting' it in the head); it trully is sad. Apple squandered
something like five
years of development time seeking the Holy Grail of a perfectly compatible
upgrade path.
They should have realized back in 1990 that the original Mac APIs were
based on too many hacks
and were basically unreformable into a modern OS. Now NT is all the rage
and we are asked
to stick with the platform while they basically start from ground zero.
Well, I'm sorry but
if it even smells like they are going to orphan me even in the first
iteration of the new OS
its over. I can defend Apple not porting to the 68K machines (they should
have stop making
those two years earlier than they did) but to fragment their user base a
third time is
unacceptable. Here we sit with Apple at barely a 5% market share. Roughly
half of that is on the 68K.
I suspect half of them walk in their next computer purchase. Of the other
half I would not be
surprised if almost half of those PowerMacs are Nubus or non-PCI. Do you
think they won't
walk if their first new Mac OS is in '98 or '99. Apple had better
understand that they will
NEVER survive if they fragment the PowerMac user base. No way.
Jack
--
Jack W. Howarth, Ph.D. 231 Bethesda Avenue
NMR Facility Director Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
Dept. of Molecular Genetics phone: (513) 558-4418
Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine fax: (513) 558-8474
Martin-Gilles Lavoie
In article <david_rehring-ya0235...@news.aurora.net>,
david_...@gdt.com (David Rehring) wrote:
> In article <jhsterne-ya023280...@news.earthlink.net>,
> jhst...@earthlink.net (Jason S.) wrote:
>
> ... stuff deleted
> >>
> >>
> >>Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require a FPU for
> >>the OS to run?
> >>
> >>J.
>
> I believe the main reason is for improved performance for Display
> PostScript. But I could be wrong...
You said it: Display PostScript. DSP (as any PostScript) is heavilly
floating-point-oriented. Not having aq FPU would induce a tremendous
slowdown (as if PostScript wasn't slow enough).
Bill Eldridge
> Apple had better be REALLY careful about providing support for the
> original Nubus PowerMacs
> in the first release of OpenStep for the PowerMac. If they don't an awful
> lot of people
> (including myself) will probably walk from the platform.
> half of that is on the 68K.
> I suspect half of them walk in their next computer purchase. Of the other
> half I would not be
> surprised if almost half of those PowerMacs are Nubus or non-PCI. Do you
> think they won't
> walk if their first new Mac OS is in '98 or '99. Apple had better
> understand that they will
> NEVER survive if they fragment the PowerMac user base. No way.
> Jack
Yeah, I'll be mad if they don't support the 800K
floppy and the NextCube optical as well. After
all, this is the 80's. Oops, I mean 90's.
Now the contention is that 75% of Macs in use are
either 68K or NuBus, and that Apple has to support
them. How many of those 68K/NuBus machines will
still be usable in 1 year when the Next/Mac OS
is available, how many boards will be made and sold
for NuBus by then, and how much of Apple/Next's
resources/production time will it drain to do this
while Be only worries about PowerPC/PCI/Firewire
and Microsoft only worries about Intel/PCI/Firewire.
Sorry, I just don't see why a 68K/NuBus machine
can't be happy playing 7.5/7.6 until it dies, and
then you can upgrade to a whole new world when
it does. The reality is that most PC owners have
to upgrade to Pentiums to run Win95 in any sort
of reasonable fashion. We just sold our old PowerMac
and upgraded to a new flashy system to take advantage
of the improvements over the last 2 years (including
changes in memory and the PCI bus). Any machine over
3 years old should be regarded as dead as far as
any upgrade considerations.
--
Bill Eldridge
Radio Free Asia
bi...@rfa.org
David Every
> Now the contention is that 75% of Macs in use are
> either 68K or NuBus,
I beleive it is already under 1/2 of all machines that are 68K (not
75%), and will be substantially less in another year with another 6
million machines sold.
Also older legacy machines are often not kept up anyways.... so it
ends up not being a big deal.
I don't understand why anyone should care if they are NuBus or not.
Most people in the Mac world never have to put in a single card -
unlike the intel world.
> and that Apple has to support
> them. How many of those 68K/NuBus machines will
> still be usable in 1 year when the Next/Mac OS
> is available, how many boards will be made and sold
> for NuBus by then, and how much of Apple/Next's
> resources/production time will it drain to do this
> while Be only worries about PowerPC/PCI/Firewire
> and Microsoft only worries about Intel/PCI/Firewire.
Intel and MS still support ISA, EISA, PCI, cheapo parallel ports,
serial ports, game ports, USB, many different video drivers, etc.,
etc.... so I dont understand your point.
> Sorry, I just don't see why a 68K/NuBus machine
> can't be happy playing 7.5/7.6 until it dies, and
> then you can upgrade to a whole new world when
> it does. The reality is that most PC owners have
> to upgrade to Pentiums to run Win95 in any sort
> of reasonable fashion. We just sold our old PowerMac
> and upgraded to a new flashy system to take advantage
> of the improvements over the last 2 years (including
> changes in memory and the PCI bus). Any machine over
> 3 years old should be regarded as dead as far as
> any upgrade considerations.
Agreed.
--
David K. Every
MacKiDo Warrior - The Power of the Macintosh Way!
--
=A91996 DKE. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute is
granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By distributing
this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.
Jack Howarth
>> Apple had better be REALLY careful about providing support for the
>> original Nubus PowerMacs
>> in the first release of OpenStep for the PowerMac. If they don't an awful
>> lot of people
>> (including myself) will probably walk from the platform.
>> Here we sit with Apple at barely a 5% market share. Roughly
>> half of that is on the 68K.
>> I suspect half of them walk in their next computer purchase. Of the other
>> half I would not be
>> surprised if almost half of those PowerMacs are Nubus or non-PCI. Do you
>> think they won't
>> walk if their first new Mac OS is in '98 or '99. Apple had better
>> understand that they will
>> NEVER survive if they fragment the PowerMac user base. No way.
>> Jack
>
>
>Yeah, I'll be mad if they don't support the 800K
>floppy and the NextCube optical as well. After
>all, this is the 80's. Oops, I mean 90's.
>
>Now the contention is that 75% of Macs in use are
>either 68K or NuBus, and that Apple has to support
>them. How many of those 68K/NuBus machines will
>still be usable in 1 year when the Next/Mac OS
>is available, how many boards will be made and sold
>for NuBus by then, and how much of Apple/Next's
>resources/production time will it drain to do this
>while Be only worries about PowerPC/PCI/Firewire
>and Microsoft only worries about Intel/PCI/Firewire.
>
>Sorry, I just don't see why a 68K/NuBus machine
>can't be happy playing 7.5/7.6 until it dies, and
>then you can upgrade to a whole new world when
>it does. The reality is that most PC owners have
>to upgrade to Pentiums to run Win95 in any sort
>of reasonable fashion. We just sold our old PowerMac
>and upgraded to a new flashy system to take advantage
>of the improvements over the last 2 years (including
>changes in memory and the PCI bus). Any machine over
>3 years old should be regarded as dead as far as
>any upgrade considerations.
>
>--
>Bill Eldridge
>Radio Free Asia
Bill,
You misread my post. What I am saying is that it IS understandable the
68K Macs will
be orphaned. However, that being the case Apple can ill aford to orphan the
Nubus PowerMac
owners as well. Lets be frank. Apple is and has basically be selling into
the same pool of
users for a while now (this is my 6th Mac). For everyone of us that walks
from the platform
Apple has to expend a rather large amount in advertising to find a new
user will to take a
risk on what is widely preceived these days as a marginal platform. My
point is that Apple
must make sure that the new OS allows the entire Powermac community to
participate.
I sincerely doubt that my Powermac 6100 clockchipped to 80 MHZ with a 40
MHz 64-bit
databus and 256K sram cache is going to be too underpowered for OpenStep.
The 68K
machines are a total different kettle of fish since we have a different
processor involved.
Jack
Tom L. Davis
:In article <tbrown-ya0230800...@news.netset.com>,
:tbr...@netset.com (Ted Brown) wrote:
:
:>Since I used NeXTSTEP on a 8MB 030 with a 850MB HD, I'd think that the
:>LC040 would do just fine. Hmm...I was doing 2 bit greyscale though, the
:>overhead of color graphics might be too much.
:>
:>I'm sure that there are plenty of 040 mac (in the millions) that'd upgrade,
:>it might be on the same order as the number of PowerMacs that are out
:>there. Unfortunately, Hancock was quoted recently saying that the new os
:>would run on the PPC only. I guess they don't see enough profit in the
:>ugrading of machines that are several years old. Hopefully that will
:>change as the Apple becomes more familiar with NeXT's history.
:>
:
:I don't think working on an 040 solution is wise. Apple does not produce
:any 040 machines at this point(?). I'd rather Apple get a working version
:of NeXTStep with Apple Extensions out as soon as possible for the PPC
:machines and not split resources.
:
:---
: The Evil Tofu (Only Human)
I disagree. A port to 040 can be a completely separate effort that does
not involve hundreds of programmers working on a single product. If Apple
is smart, they will get the Next OS running on current shipping machine
ASAP and then spawn small software projects to port to PPC/NuBus and then
040 machines.
Tom
Jonathan W. Hendry
CONPUTE wrote:
> There is a real market for BeOS with the clones and VARS, it lets them
> offer solutions that Apple does not presently have!
Solutions to what? What to do with disposable income?
--
Jonathan W. Hendry President, Steel Driving Software, Inc.
OpenStep, Delphi, and Java Consulting in Cincinnati
http://www.steeldriving.com
Alan Lovejoy
A port to 040 should be done eventually (not much later than the last and
final update to System 7) unless the effort required turns out to be really
obnoxious--or most 040 owners have trashed their machines by then and gotten
something better.
--
Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================|
Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! |
alov...@concentric.net |==============================================|
Jim Cooper
> In article <jhsterne-ya023280...@news.earthlink.net>,
> jhst...@earthlink.net (Jason S.) wrote:
>
> ... stuff deleted
> >>
> >>
> >>Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require a FPU for
> >>the OS to run?
> >>
> >>J.
>
> I believe the main reason is for improved performance for Display
> PostScript. But I could be wrong...
>
> Later,
>
> --
> David Rehring
> Senior Software Engineer
> GDT Softworks, Inc.
> And all around insane guy!
Yes, Display Postscript *REQUIRES* floating point hardware. Display
Postscript arithmetic is all done in floating point, and software floating
point doesn't make it.
Mike Zulauf
In article <howarth-ya0240800...@news.ececs.uc.edu>,
how...@nitro.med.uc.edu (Jack Howarth) wrote:
> Apple had better be REALLY careful about providing support for the
> original Nubus PowerMacs
> in the first release of OpenStep for the PowerMac. If they don't an awful
> lot of people
> (including myself) will probably walk from the platform.
Ditto, ditto, ditto. They've screwed with us long enough - it's time for
them to start treating their customers a little better.
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@atmos.met.utah.edu
Mark Alan Cirino
Someone asked:
> > > Speaking of which... how do those of us in Silly-con Valley who
> > > might want to attend this thing get passes to the Expo and the
> > > keynote speech?
> >
Someone answered:
>
> Show up at Moscone Center Tuesday and get in line (_behind_ me, please).
> Forty bucks gets you into the exhibits - $195 gets you exhibits and
> presentations (including the keynotes, theoretically, but those are usually
> such a zoo that I don't think they check badges too carefully).
>
If you attended last year, you should be getting a $10 discount card with
your name on it from Apple. A nice touch, I thought. Also, do yourself a
favor, and don't get in line in the morning. Wait a few hours and the line
will die down, I promise. Of all the trade shows I go to, MacWorld is by
far the most efficient - they even let you type in your own info. (Which
is how I could tell that Apple used last year's attendee list - the only
place where I listed myself as CEO!) Hope this helps,
- mark alan
Garance A Drosehn
"Jonathan W. Hendry" <j...@exnext.com> wrote:
> CONPUTE wrote:
>
> > There is a real market for BeOS with the clones and VARS, it
> > lets them offer solutions that Apple does not presently have!
>
> Solutions to what? What to do with disposable income?
If a customer is buying a Mac clone, they already have bought the
hardware. BeOS is bundled with the hardware, along with the MacOS.
There's not much of an income issue there. I'm sure the cost of
the machine is more than if BeOS was not included, but it's still
probably less than buying similar hardware from Apple.
Jonathan W. Hendry
Garance A Drosehn wrote:
>
> "Jonathan W. Hendry" <j...@exnext.com> wrote:
> > CONPUTE wrote:
> >
> > > There is a real market for BeOS with the clones and VARS, it
> > > lets them offer solutions that Apple does not presently have!
> >
> > Solutions to what? What to do with disposable income?
>
> If a customer is buying a Mac clone, they already have bought the
> hardware. BeOS is bundled with the hardware, along with the MacOS.
>
> There's not much of an income issue there. I'm sure the cost of
> the machine is more than if BeOS was not included, but it's still
> probably less than buying similar hardware from Apple.
Ah. Didn't realize it was being bundled along with MacOS.
There's still the 'solution to what' issue, however. Are there
any solutions that a BeBox can provide today? Or in the next
six months? I guess I don't yet see BeOS as an OS that you
can use to do anything serious with (except, perhaps,
writing Be apps). In 12-18 months, perhaps, but not now.
Tim
In article <tom-l-davisdavis...@pppsb8.itg.ti.com>,
Well, considering that NeXTSTEP allready runs quite well on 68040's, there's
no issue of CPU support to speak of. That's not true with the PPC stuff,
and given the way things are with Apples hardware efforts, it makes
complete sense to focus initaly on PPC's. The real issue is supporting
the hardware that surrounds the CPU, not supporting the CPU itself.
NeXT has core technology to build from allready for the PPC CPU, so
that makes things quite a bit easier in that respect. Drivers, and all
the rest of the stuff, from vid to printing to bus architecture are
the real things to be concerned about. On the other hand NeXT has an
excellent driverkit & system built for putting the OS on new platforms,
so this isn't a discussion about something that's going to be hidiously
difficult to do technicly.
BTW, speed & performance of the OS on 040's, while not blindingly fast,
is very, very nice. I find it quite adequate for DTP stuff, excepting
of course massive image rendering type bs, as well as most other typical
tasks I do that range from billing to work in X-Windows (via a 3rd party
X software app)
It's interesting to watch hordes of Apple people express their concerns
about what's going on, but it's totaly drowned out similar concerns by
us NeXT people about support for ~our various~ platforms.
Tim Scanlon
--
________________________________________________________________
t...@vampire.science.gmu.edu (NeXTmail, MIME) Tim Scanlon
t...@epic.org (PGP key aval.) crypto is good
Seal Technologies Inc. I own my own words
mmalcolm crawford
On 12/27/96, Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> A port to 040 should be done eventually (not much later than the last and
> final update to System 7) unless the effort required turns out to be really
> obnoxious--or most 040 owners have trashed their machines by then and
> gotten something better.
>
supported so it'd mainly be drivers... however:
Are all the machines up to spec? Are they fast enough; do they have enough
RAM (16MB+); is the graphics subsytem fast enough?
If not, maybe Apple will make the same decision NeXT did when faced with a
port to the i386: yes, it could run, but it would be so slow that it would
actually be too much of an embarassment and hurt the product.
Assuming adequate h/w support: the tradeoff then comes down to developer
time/cost in porting and the possibility that some people then won't upgrade
to PPC when they might have done vs. user demands and the possibility that a
number of native NEXTSTEP/m68k apps would then run native right off the
bat...
If this is still considered a win for the port at the moment, then the
longer-term perspective is that Apple will have to support the m68k for even
longer than it had wanted.
For 040-owners I'd love it if Apple ported, however I could understand it if
they didn't...
Best wishes,
mmalc
(typing at an 25MHz 040-based NeXTstation color, which has been providing
excellent service since 1991.)
--
ssch...@inlink.com
On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:35:44 -0500, b...@tiac.net (Bruce Wyman) wrote:
>I
>In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she mentioned that
>first priority was to get the new OS available for currently shipping
>powermacs. So, I think that limits it to 603, 604(e) chips
Does that mean that a straight 604 would not run it?
Kim Cary
In article <59rkdj$9...@duke.squonk.net>, Garance A Drosehn
<g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
jhst...@earthlink.net (Jason S.) wrote:
> Here's another "just curious" post. Why does NeXTSTEP require
> a FPU for the OS to run?
Probably for some floating-point calculations in display postscript.
But really, that's just a guess on my part.
Doesn't UNIX in general want the FPU? My impression is that you'd have to
do something very un-funny to UNIX to have it get on without one.
Awaiting informative corrections,
=k.
Ishir Bhan
>>The one which will not be supported in the first system will be
>>the 601-based machines.
Do we even know this? I think people are reading too much into the initial
announcements. I'm sure there is a priority list for which machines need
to be supported, but we don't know what the minimal list will be. I think
even on Jan. 7 we won't really know. We'll probably know closer to 9
months down the road.
--
Ishir Bhan
ib...@student.med.harvard.edu
Chris Hanson
In article <5a2271$3...@duke.squonk.net>, Garance A Drosehn
<g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any of
> the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have.
I thought the Cube used NuBus...
--
"I always find myself wondering how people who
can't code manage to get through life."
-Steve Gifford
Joel Lingenfelter
>Well, considering that NeXTSTEP allready runs quite well on 68040's, there's
>no issue of CPU support to speak of. That's not true with the PPC stuff,
>and given the way things are with Apples hardware efforts, it makes
>complete sense to focus initaly on PPC's. The real issue is supporting
>the hardware that surrounds the CPU, not supporting the CPU itself.
>NeXT has core technology to build from allready for the PPC CPU, so
>that makes things quite a bit easier in that respect. Drivers, and all
>the rest of the stuff, from vid to printing to bus architecture are
>the real things to be concerned about. On the other hand NeXT has an
>excellent driverkit & system built for putting the OS on new platforms,
>so this isn't a discussion about something that's going to be hidiously
>difficult to do technicly.
Nextstep is already one of the most cross platform operating systems out
there. Apple would be foolish to throw that compatibility away. Most
software available for NeXT will install and run on:
HP
Sparc
Intel
Motorola 68030/68040
Rumor has it that NeXT created a port to the Powerpc a few years back, but
it was never released when they canned their new hardware and went with
intel instead. If this is truly the case, then it shouldn't be too
difficult to add PowerPC to that list. Essentially if the things that are
added by Apple are added with the same tools that Next uses, it would make
sense that it should be quite simple to have these additions work on all
five platforms.
Apple instantly goes from two supported hardware platforms to five, and
the world becomes a better place ;-)
Joel
| Joel Lingenfelter
-=+=-
| Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be
| transformed by the renewing of your mind. - Romans 12:2a
Garance A Drosehn
t...@gravity.science.gmu.edu ( Tim) wrote:
> Tom L. Davis <tom-l-da...@ti.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. A port to 040 can be a completely separate effort
> > that does not involve hundreds of programmers working on a
> > single product. If Apple is smart, they will get the Next OS
> > running on current shipping machine ASAP and then spawn small
> > software projects to port to PPC/NuBus and then 040 machines.
>
> 68040's, there's no issue of CPU support to speak of. That's not
> true with the PPC stuff, and given the way things are with Apples
> hardware efforts, it makes complete sense to focus initaly on
> PPC's. The real issue is supporting the hardware that surrounds
> the CPU, not supporting the CPU itself.
In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any of
the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have. I would like to see
support for PowerPC machines with Nubus, and perhaps also 68040
machines, but certainly there will be work before those could be
released. By the time they could do it, there might not be much
of a demand for it.
I know there are people here who claim they would pay "BIG BIG
BUCKS" for a version of this new operating system running on their
old 68040 hardware, but I'm not sure that is really going to be
true for the average customer who is still running a 68040 machine.
Garance A Drosehn
No. The above is shorthand for 603, 603e, 604, and 604e.
The one which will not be supported in the first system will be
the 601-based machines.
---
Garance A Drosehn
> calculations in display postscript. But really, that's just
> a guess on my part.
>
> Doesn't UNIX in general want the FPU? My impression is that you'd
> have to do something very un-funny to UNIX to have it get on
> without one.
>
> Awaiting informative corrections,
No. Systems programming generally avoids floating point
calculations. There usually isn't any need for it, and
it's always slower than integer arithmetic. I'm pretty
sure things like linux or FreeBSD do not require an FPU.
They might use some floating point, but not so much so
that they can't get away with emulating it.
Troy Dawson
ssch...@inlink.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:35:44 -0500, b...@tiac.net (Bruce Wyman) wrote:
>
> >I
> >In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she mentioned that
> >first priority was to get the new OS available for currently shipping
> >powermacs. So, I think that limits it to 603, 604(e) chips
> Does that mean that a straight 604 would not run it?
The e was added parenthetically.
=td=
John Kheit
cha...@mcs.com (Chris Hanson) wrote:
> In article <5a2271$3...@duke.squonk.net>, Garance A Drosehn
> <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> > In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any
> > of the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have.
> I thought the Cube used NuBus...
I think you're right...It was somekind of modified NuBus... Was
it supposed to get something like 100Mb/sec throughput? I forget...
I'm sure someone else will remember.
DON'T DRINK AND USENET :))) Well, til they make a law, this class
of wine will stay firmly (woops) in hand :) He he :)))
--
Thanks, later, John Kheit
monoChrome, Inc. | ASCII, MIME, PGP, SUN, & NEXTmail OK
NEXT/OPENSTEP Developer | mailto:jkh...@cnj.digex.net
Telepathy, It's coming... | http://www.cnj.digex.net/~jkheit
New York Law School | Opinions expressed represent me only
Garance A Drosehn
cha...@mcs.com (Chris Hanson) wrote:
> In article <5a2271$3...@duke.squonk.net>, Garance A Drosehn
> <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any of
> > the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have.
>
> I thought the Cube used NuBus...
No, it had it's own architecture. I don't remember what it was
called, but it's definitely true that there were mighty close to
zero expansion cards available for NeXTSTEP (now it wasn't zero,
but I'd almost bet it was under ten, and perhaps under five). If
NeXT hardware had supported NuBus, the number would have gotten a
bit higher.
Garance A Drosehn
"Ishir Bhan" <ib...@student.med.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>The one which will not be supported in the first system will
> >>be the 601-based machines.
>
Certainly there have been comments to this effect coming from
Apple/NeXT. Not a lot of them.
As others have suggested, I suspect the issue is not the 601 chip
per se, as it is PowerPC machines with NuBus (instead of PCI)
expansion slots. This, of course, is just speculation on my part.
I'm sure many Mactintosh owners would be happy if I'm wrong, and
on this particular issue I wouldn't mind being wrong.
Donald R. McGregor
In article <5a2g9h$3...@duke.squonk.net>,
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>> I thought the Cube used NuBus...
>
>No, it had it's own architecture. I don't remember what it was
>called, but it's definitely true that there were mighty close to
>zero expansion cards available for NeXTSTEP (now it wasn't zero,
>but I'd almost bet it was under ten, and perhaps under five).
The cubes did have NuBus, but it was in a different form factor
than the Mac version. NeXT was making some argument that their
larger form factor allowed for more hardware to be stuffed onto
the board. They fiddled with a bunch of other things in the spec,
too. One of the sillier things they did.
--
Don McGregor |"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single chicken,
mcg...@crl.com | being possessed of a good fortune and presented with a good
| road, must be desirous of crossing."
Mike Paquette
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any of
>the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have. I would like to see
And what do you think NeXTBus is? (Answer: overclocked NuBus. We
even got the form factor wedged into the NuBus spec as a 'Workstation'
form factor.)
>support for PowerPC machines with Nubus, and perhaps also 68040
>machines, but certainly there will be work before those could be
>released. By the time they could do it, there might not be much
>of a demand for it.
We'll just have to wait and see. Tune in Jan 7...
>I know there are people here who claim they would pay "BIG BIG
>BUCKS" for a version of this new operating system running on their
>old 68040 hardware, but I'm not sure that is really going to be
>true for the average customer who is still running a 68040 machine.
"BIG BIG BUCKS"... Man, if I had a share of stock for every time I've
heard this from would-be customers on USENET...
Mike Paquette
--
I don't speak for my employer, and they don't speak for me.
Mike Paquette
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>No. The above is shorthand for 603, 603e, 604, and 604e.
>The one which will not be supported in the first system will be
>the 601-based machines.
Folks, I think you're reading WAY too much into the announcements.
Yes, first priority is to support currently shipping systems. That
DOES NOT mean that the 601 won't be supported. This statement does
not mean that it WILL be supported. The Engineering team doesn't know
just yet.
If adding 601 support would add a month to the port, then I'd bet it
wouldn't be in the first release. If it's a no-brainer, I'd bet it
will be in there. I honestly couldn't say til I've digested about
5000 pages (no kidding!) of PowerPC and hardware documentation. (Not
my idea of a fun winter break, BTW.)
Mike Paquette
--
Let them find out you can work on hardware without hurting it,
and you'll be typecast for life as a "hardware person," which
means Personnel will think you're equivalent to a ditch-digger,
and you'll never see another promotion. Always insist that
you are a Systems Programmer. No one from Personnel will be
able to tell the difference, and you'll make a LOT more money.
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
Kris & Scott Gant
Donald R. McGregor <mcg...@crl.com> wrote in article
<5a41l9$i...@crl.crl.com>...
> In article <5a2g9h$3...@duke.squonk.net>,
> >
> >No, it had it's own architecture. I don't remember what it was
> >called, but it's definitely true that there were mighty close to
> >zero expansion cards available for NeXTSTEP (now it wasn't zero,
> >but I'd almost bet it was under ten, and perhaps under five).
>
> The cubes did have NuBus, but it was in a different form factor
> than the Mac version. NeXT was making some argument that their
> larger form factor allowed for more hardware to be stuffed onto
> the board. They fiddled with a bunch of other things in the spec,
> too. One of the sillier things they did.
It was called NeXTBus, by the way.
Karl Sierka
> I thought the Cube used NuBus...
I think you're right...It was somekind of modified NuBus... Was
it supposed to get something like 100Mb/sec throughput? I forget...
I'm sure someone else will remember.
I have a cube, and have no idea how fast it goes, in numbers.
DON'T DRINK AND USENET :))) Well, til they make a law, this class
of wine will stay firmly (woops) in hand :) He he :)))
How about, if you drink and USENET, drink COFFEE! :)
Karl Sierka
http://amaze.labyrinth.com
--
Karl Sierka
http://amaze.labyrinth.com
e...@cc.usu.edu
> > <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In particular, NeXT hardware did not have NuBus cards, or any of
> > > the "processor-direct" cards that Macs have.
> >
>
The cubes did use a NuBus. You couldn't plug Apple NuBus cards into
it - the NeXT NuBus had faster timing than the Apple NuBus. But NuBus
it certainly was.
Garance A Drosehn
e...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> > No, it had it's own architecture. I don't remember what it was
> > called...
> >
> > Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
>
> The cubes did use a NuBus. You couldn't plug Apple NuBus cards
> into it - the NeXT NuBus had faster timing than the Apple NuBus.
> But NuBus it certainly was.
I guess my measure was whether you could use standard nubus
cards in it. I looked at history, and noticed that the only
cards that were available for NeXT cubes were *only* available
for NeXT cubes. Whatever the technical merits of NeXT's
changes to Nubus, the practical effect was that it was
incompatable with everything else.
However, it is encouraging that the NeXTbus was so similar to
Nubus, so maybe as far as the operating-system is concerned
there won't be much work to do to support Nubus.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Mike Zulauf
> > Apple had better be REALLY careful about providing support for the
> > original Nubus PowerMacs
> > in the first release of OpenStep for the PowerMac. If they don't an awful
> > lot of people
> > (including myself) will probably walk from the platform.
> Sorry, I just don't see why a 68K/NuBus machine
> can't be happy playing 7.5/7.6 until it dies, and
> then you can upgrade to a whole new world when
> it does.
Try again, Bill. If you read it again you should see that he said Nubus
_Power_Macs. Apple has to keep the good will of the millions of people
who own these machines. We were promised that the next major OS from
Apple would run on our machines, and 7.x ain't it.
I think most people would agree that developing the OS for the 68K
machines might be more problematic (though I feel Apple would be better
off doing it), there is no reason to orphan the Nubus PowerMacs.
mmalcolm crawford
On 12/30/96, Mike Zulauf wrote:
> I think most people would agree that developing the OS for the 68K
> machines might be more problematic (though I feel Apple would be better
> off doing it), there is no reason to orphan the Nubus PowerMacs.
>
question is "by how much", and then what's the payback?
The main job in supporting the Mac 68k series would I guess not be the port
itself -- since NeXT's own 68k-based machines are still supported, but the
extra drivers for the different buses, video systems etc.
The payback might be "more happy customers", but even this has to be
examined: how well will these old Apple systems support "AppleStep"? Will
performance be adequate? Current NeXT-users are starting to feel the age of
the black h/w -- I'm typing this at a 25MHz NeXTstation color w 32MB RAM...
it's adequate, but I'd prefer a PowerPC; my system, however, has a 17" screen
1152x832 pixels, 16-bit colour. What sort of display will Mac-68k-users get,
and will they feel it worthwhile?
Best wishes,
mmalc.
--
Tim Olson
In article <x7g20pt...@amaze.labyrinth.com>
ka...@amaze.labyrinth.com (Karl Sierka) writes:
>
>
> > I thought the Cube used NuBus...
>
> I think you're right...It was somekind of modified NuBus... Was
> it supposed to get something like 100Mb/sec throughput? I forget...
> I'm sure someone else will remember.
>
> I have a cube, and have no idea how fast it goes, in numbers.
"Standard" NuBus from TI was spec'ed at 10MHz; the cube's
implementation was 20MHz.
-- Tim Olson
Apple Computer, Inc.
(t...@apple.com)
Garance A Drosehn
mazu...@atmos.met.utah.edu (Mike Zulauf) wrote:
> bi...@rfa.org wrote:
> > Sorry, I just don't see why a 68K/NuBus machine can't be happy
> > playing 7.5/7.6 until it dies, and then you can upgrade to a
> > whole new world when it does.
>
> Try again, Bill. If you read it again you should see that he
> said Nubus _Power_Macs. Apple has to keep the good will of the
> millions of people who own these machines. We were promised that
> the next major OS from Apple would run on our machines, and 7.x
> ain't it.
Before we get too worked up about this, we should realize the
difference between what Apple said and what we're talking about.
What apple said was that the *initial* release of this new OS would
support the hardware they are currently shipping. They did not
say that the initial release would *not* support PowerMacs with
nubus cards. And even if that is true for the initial release,
they did not say that the new OS would never support NuBus PowerMacs.
They just said that (obviously) their first priority would be to
get the new system running on hardware that they are currently
selling.
L. Todd Heberlein
> >> > In a recent forum, Ellen Hancock was very specific when she
> >> > mentioned that first priority was to get the new OS available
> >> > for currently shipping powermacs. So, I think that limits it
> >> > to 603, 604(e) chips
> Folks, I think you're reading WAY too much into the announcements.
Hancock HAD to say the new OS will run on currently shipping Macs. If she
didn't, the sales of current hardware would plummet.
Todd
Eelco Houwink
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> They did not
> say that the initial release would *not* support PowerMacs with
> nubus cards. And even if that is true for the initial release,
> they did not say that the new OS would never support NuBus PowerMacs.
Oh, they're so careful about what they say.
They've never said a powerbook 500 (68k) series would be supported, but
they've indicated that a 500 would be upgradable to PPC.
However, if that upgrade is tied into OS7 then what's the value anyway??
They've never said they wouldn't support the DMA slot on the Nubus PPC
computer, but they've never shipped a product for it either.
The bottom-line: how ever take a serious comment from a company that
hasn't made up its own mindset about the future of things..?
--
Yours Sincerely,
Eelco Houwink
eelco_...@spidernet.nl
Loren Bandiera
In <rickeym-2112...@10.0.2.15>, ric...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rick McDaniel) writes:
>> >1.) How will BeOS now stand in the Mac scheme of things?
>>
>> I think it's pretty much over between Apple and Be, at least insofar
>> as Apple acquiring the Be OS. Apple investigated NeXT, Be, and Sun's
>> Solaris and decided to go with NeXT. The Be OS will still run on
>> upcoming PowerMacs as currently planned, but I think it's chances of
>> becoming a high volume, mainstream OS have been severely dampened. It
>> will probably be relegated to some niche market.
>
>Didn't Power Computing buy the use of Be. I think they are the big loser
>in this deal.
>
>--
>Rick McDaniel
I think they came out ahead in the deal. It was my
understanding that they would ship their boxes with
two CDs, one the BeOS and the other the MacOS. They
pretty much have the best of both worlds.
------------------------------
Loren Bandiera
loren.b...@istar.ca
iSTAR Internet Inc.
------------------------------
John Stevens
In article <tom-l-davisdavis...@pppsb8.itg.ti.com>,
Tom L. Davis <tom-l-da...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>I disagree. A port to 040 can be a completely separate effort that does
>not involve hundreds of programmers working on a single product. If Apple
>is smart, they will get the Next OS running on current shipping machine
>ASAP and then spawn small software projects to port to PPC/NuBus and then
>040 machines.
The nice thing about the Mach kernel, is that if you do everything right,
(have your higher levels written to be hardware independent), then all
you really have to do is port the hardware specific parts of the kernel,
then recompile the upper layers.
I expect that the 68040 port will be relatively simple.
John S.
Steve Kellener
Has anyone loaded Be onto their Mac yet? I got a copy of the disc but
I'm sorta scared to install the thing. Any problems? Or did it go off
without a hitch? I am not a developer, just curious about the new
system. Can't wait for Rhapsody!
STEVE K.
************************************
“Sorry Bill, I don’t do Windows!”
************************************
Matthew Vaughan
In article <5b64af$1...@bamboo.verinet.com>, jste...@bamboo.verinet.com
(John Stevens) wrote:
Of course, Next OS was originally written for 68030 and 68040 hardware, as
was MacOS.
Pete Fraser
>Has anyone loaded Be onto their Mac yet? I got a copy of the disc but
>I'm sorta scared to install the thing. Any problems? Or did it go off
>without a hitch? I am not a developer, just curious about the new
>system. Can't wait for Rhapsody!
>
>
>
8500/180 with external Quantum GrandPrix drive.
OS loaded beautifully, no problem and has never crashed.
It took me a few hours of incompetent bumbling before
I got on-line though. It doesn't have serial drivers yet,
so you're SOL for on-line unless you have an ISDN
router.
The only problems I've had are with contributed third-
party 0.001 Alpha software some of which has crashed.
Downloaded the midi player today, and it works well -
nice touches like when you quit the app, the music fades out.
Do an altavista search of this newsgroup for others experiences.
The main problem seems to be with non-multisync monitors
not working during initial set-up. I've got an old NEC 5FG
which will sync to anything.
--
Pete Fraser
Don Potter
I just obtained a copy of MacTech magazine from the newstand. The
curosity was overwheming... What could this 'Be' all about??
After a few minutes of partitioning a spare hard drive and loading the
BeOS, I fired it up. The only problem I had intially was the screen was
difficult to read on my 8500 untill I adjusted my screen refresh rate in
the preferences.
"And this is slicker than..."
I see what the fuss was all about. This is truliy the direction apple
should have gone. The speed, the multitasking, the protected memory (it
hasn't crashed on me yet - not bad for a developer release), the UI is
quite Mac-like. Obviously not perfect match, but not bad. I configured
it on my company's Intranet in a matter of minutes and was web surfing
in no time. I downloaded several QT mov's from the web and had them
playing simultaneously, while flying a flight simulator.!
Of course it needs quite a few items such as: printing, PPP,
Applications, etc. But I think Be has a solid foundation here. With the
announced Mac compatibility program/emulator they may have a bridge to
the past.
While I continue to wish Apple sucess with it's Next project, I wiil be
openly urging everyone of my Mac brethern to support the BeOS
.
Timothy A. Seufert
In article <pfraser-ya0240800...@news.dnai.com>,
pfr...@dnai.com (Pete Fraser) wrote:
>Do an altavista search of this newsgroup for others experiences.
>The main problem seems to be with non-multisync monitors
>not working during initial set-up. I've got an old NEC 5FG
>which will sync to anything.
I have actually gotten my 5FG to sync to the 1600x1200 mode supported by
BeOS on the 7600 video hardware. All the specification and documentation
I've ever seen for the 5FG states that 1280x1024 75 Hz is the maximum
supported resolution, but it handles 1600x1200 fine.
I do kind of wonder whether it would work at a refresh rate higher than
the 60 Hz maximum supported by BeOS for that mode.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|Tim Seufert, bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu | UselessWastedSpace(tm) |
| "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and they |
| think it is hell." -Harry S Truman |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Thomas Barta
If I were you, I'd go to Http://www.macintouch.com or
http://www.maccentral.com A few people describe their experiences.
Basically, you want to make sure you back up your harddrive-- you COULD
lose all your data. Also, some hardware (eg some PCI cards may need to
be removed. You will be unable to use your floppy drive, because that's
not supported yet. In short, you should probably wait for BEOS 1.0
before getting into this, unless you're a mac whizz and feel really
comfortable re-installin system softawre and such.
Nervous
In article <5bddto$f...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, mmalcolm crawford
<m.cra...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
€On 01/13/97, Don Potter wrote:
€> While I continue to wish Apple sucess with it's Next project, I wiil be
€> openly urging everyone of my Mac brethern to support the BeOS
€>
€Could I urge you to do a side-by-side comparison of BeOS and NEXTSTEP before
€you continue?
You get NeXTStep running on a Mac and we'll test away.
€Could you for now please list all those features you think BeOS has which
€NEXTSTEP lacks, and which are essential to AppLE's future.
It currently runs on the Mac.
€You have not mentioned anything yet (speed, multitasking, protected memory,
€GUI, multiple QT movies) which is not a facet of NeXT's OS.
BeOS runs on the Mac today.
€You have, however, mentioned a number of non-trivial aspects of BeOS
€(printing, PPP, Applications) which NEXTSTEP *does* have.
And the trivial fact that it runs on the Mac today.
€You didn't mention NeXT's outstanding development environment, based on a
€language which has more in common with Java than with C++, a presence in
€Fortune 1000 companies, a Web<->database connectivity solution, a networking
€architecture...
€Bear in mind that AppLE needs to get an OS out of the door *within a year*.
We're all waiting for this, mmalc.
€Could you also give us a bit of an idea as to your background? It seems that
€AppLE's engineers rated NEXTSTEP 50% better than any of the other
€alternatives; they seem to have done a pretty in-depth evaluation...
Nobody is saying that BeOS is better then NeXTStep (which it isn't). All
anybody is saying is that if you want to check out what multitasking,
multithreading and protected memory are all about on the Mac (today),
check out the BeOS.
€Best wishes,
To you too.
€mmalc.
€
€--
--
rhapsody: rhap.so.dy \'rap-s*d-e-\ n recitation of selections from epic poetry; a highly emotional utterance or literary work; RAPTURE, ECSTASY; the new Macintosh OS.
Ted Brown
In article <nervous-1301...@ascend34.netrover.com>,
ner...@system.net (Nervous) wrote:
>In article <5bddto$f...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, mmalcolm crawford
><m.cra...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>€On 01/13/97, Don Potter wrote:
>€> While I continue to wish Apple sucess with it's Next project, I wiil be
>€> openly urging everyone of my Mac brethern to support the BeOS
>€>
>€Could I urge you to do a side-by-side comparison of BeOS and NEXTSTEP before
>€you continue?
>
>You get NeXTStep running on a Mac and we'll test away.
>
>€Could you for now please list all those features you think BeOS has which
>€NEXTSTEP lacks, and which are essential to AppLE's future.
>
>It currently runs on the Mac.
There is a certain validity to what you say, "It runs on a Mac today.".
Ok, well try to print something, access the web though a PPP connection, or
do a host of simple things like try to use the floppy disk drive. This is
not a finished product, it does show the promise of one.
On the other hand, you are knocking NS because the NeXT engineers couldn't
manage to port the OS from Dec. 20 to Jan 7 (remember the nice holiday in
between)?
Hopefully (esp for people such as yourself), Apple will put a small team to
port OpenStep/Mach to the PCI hw. For a history lessson, two engineers
ported an alpha version of NeXTSTEP to the 486 in one month (note that a
different bus, video, and endian processor made this really interesting).
OpenStep current runs on Intel, 040, Sparc, HP, and (not sold) Dec Alpha.
A version for a SMP PPC exists, but the product was shelved when NeXT got
out of hw before the machine was finished.
Apple will have to screw up totally if they can't manage to get
OpenStep/Mach ported to the PPC (or for that matter 040 macs). Of course,
Apple will prolly manage to do so, by focusing on making changes, trying a
new kernel, etc ignoring the fact that a small team could do the port,
separated from the other efforts.
>€You have not mentioned anything yet (speed, multitasking, protected memory,
>€GUI, multiple QT movies) which is not a facet of NeXT's OS.
>
>BeOS runs on the Mac today.
Ok, again, that is something. To which I add, it's missing non simplistic
things like printing, a real font renderer, foreign lang support, etc. I
trust the Be wizards to do awesome things in all those areas, but, as you
say, it doesn't do them today.
OpenStep does. It lacks one thing, running on Macs. In it's favor, it's
been ported to just about every chip arch. Which is an safer bet, that an
OS with a proven porting record, can be ported yet again, or that a
fledgling OS can add a host of non-trivial features in under a year.
>Nobody is saying that BeOS is better then NeXTStep (which it isn't). All
>anybody is saying is that if you want to check out what multitasking,
>multithreading and protected memory are all about on the Mac (today),
>check out the BeOS.
This is much better than saying "it runs on the mac today" over and over
again. I'm all for checking out the BeOS, I hope they do well. I would
suggest all developers to give Be the once over, it will help learn what
multi-threading/tasking and protected memory can offer.
That's another vital reason why apple should port OpenStep/Mac. They
should be able to make alpha in a month, stable beta in three months, and
a final copy in 6. That's a much faster way for devlopers to get a real
taste of what to expect than waiting till the end of the year.
Well it'd make me feel safer, knowing at least there was *something* done,
in case Apple manges to screw up Rhapsody.
--
Ted Brown tbr...@netset.com
mmalcolm crawford
On 01/13/97, Nervous wrote:
> Nobody is saying that BeOS is better then NeXTStep (which it isn't). All
> anybody is saying is that if you want to check out what multitasking,
> multithreading and protected memory are all about on the Mac (today),
> check out the BeOS.
>
No, the point is that the original poster said
> While I continue to wish Apple sucess with it's Next project, I wiil be
> openly urging everyone of my Mac brethern to support the BeOS
>
i.e. distracting from what should be the main focus of what all those who
wish to support AppLE should be doing, supporting AppLE's decision, and
moving forward.
If you want to "check out what multitasking, multithreading and protected
memory are all about on the Mac (today)", check out NEXTSTEP -- it's a lot
closer to what AppLE will be delivering in a short while than is BeOS.
If you don't have access to a PC on which to install NEXTSTEP, try to find
out if there's a NeXT User group in your area, or find someone who is using
it. I'm sure they'll be happy to give a demo (anyone in Sheffield/London UK,
I will certainly try my best if anyone asks) .
Best wishes,
mmalc.
--
David Moles
Ted Brown wrote:
>
> On the other hand, you are knocking NS because the NeXT engineers couldn't
> manage to port the OS from Dec. 20 to Jan 7 (remember the nice holiday in
> between)?
>
> Hopefully (esp for people such as yourself), Apple will put a small team to
> port OpenStep/Mach to the PCI hw. For a history lessson, two engineers
> ported an alpha version of NeXTSTEP to the 486 in one month (note that a
> different bus, video, and endian processor made this really interesting).
>
It shouldn't even take that long as the Mach kernel already
runs on most PPC Mac hardware (see MkLinux) -- though I don't
know enough about the differences between Mach 3.0 (which I
belice MkLinux is based on) and 2.5 (which I'm told NextStep
is based on) to know how much of a pain that would be. The
support is at about the same level as BeOS/Mac AFAIK (several
missing features), but enough for a quick proof of concept.
(Gee, wouldn't it be nice if Apple/NeXT made the work they
do on porting the Mach kernal -- maybe even Mach 4.0, since
I'm told the last non-released version of NeXTSTEP was based
on that -- and getting every last vital system service up
and every last bit of hardware operational -- available to
the MkLinux community? That would be the day...)
------------------------------------------------
Being afraid of monolithic organizations
especially when they have computers is like
being afraid of really big gorillas especially
when they are on fire.
-- Bruce Sterling
------------------------------------------------
David Moles
Silicon Surf
http://www2.eccosys.co.jp/~deivu/
------------------------------------------------
joe@dol.net (Joe.ragosta@dol.net (joe)
Path: wil105.dol.net!user
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:31:23 -0500
From: joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and NextStep in Macs
Message-ID: <joe.ragosta-15...@wil105.dol.net>
References: <6476....@dol.net>
Organization: Graver Chemical
Lines: 81
In article <6476....@dol.net>, ner...@system.net wrote:
>
> In article <5bddto$f...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, mmalcolm crawford
> <m.cra...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> €On 01/13/97, Don Potter wrote:
> €> While I continue to wish Apple sucess with it's Next project, I wiil be
> €> openly urging everyone of my Mac brethern to support the BeOS
> €>
> €Could I urge you to do a side-by-side comparison of BeOS and NEXTSTEP before
> €you continue?
>
> You get NeXTStep running on a Mac and we'll test away.
Actually, NeXTStep already runs on PPC -- certainly better than BeOS in
many respects (see below). Most knowledgeable people report that Rhapsody
will be ready long before a BeOS-based MacOS would have been.
>
> €Could you for now please list all those features you think BeOS has which
> €NEXTSTEP lacks, and which are essential to AppLE's future.
>
> It currently runs on the Mac.
Well, I guess that's correct. The OS runs. No apps. No printing. No
networking, but at least the OS runs. Sounds really useful.
>
> €You have not mentioned anything yet (speed, multitasking, protected memory,
> €GUI, multiple QT movies) which is not a facet of NeXT's OS.
>
> BeOS runs on the Mac today.
See above.
>
> €You have, however, mentioned a number of non-trivial aspects of BeOS
> €(printing, PPP, Applications) which NEXTSTEP *does* have.
>
> And the trivial fact that it runs on the Mac today.
To what purpose? What good is an OS which won't network, won't print and
has no apps? Which do you think would be faster, completing the NeXT port
(which most people are convinced can be done by year end) or fixing all
the problems with BeOS AND getting applications written?
>
> €You didn't mention NeXT's outstanding development environment, based on a
> €language which has more in common with Java than with C++, a presence in
> €Fortune 1000 companies, a Web<->database connectivity solution, a networking
> €architecture...
>
> €Bear in mind that AppLE needs to get an OS out of the door *within a year*.
>
> We're all waiting for this, mmalc.
True. But it's much likelier than with BeOS.
>
> €Could you also give us a bit of an idea as to your background? It
seems that
> €AppLE's engineers rated NEXTSTEP 50% better than any of the other
> €alternatives; they seem to have done a pretty in-depth evaluation...
>
> Nobody is saying that BeOS is better then NeXTStep (which it isn't). All
> anybody is saying is that if you want to check out what multitasking,
> multithreading and protected memory are all about on the Mac (today),
> check out the BeOS.
Sure. If you want a preview of what it will be like, fine. But it's not a
solution for the problems Apple was facing.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Check out the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/ComplMac.htm
David Moles
mmalcolm crawford wrote:
>
> If you want to "check out what multitasking, multithreading and protected
> memory are all about on the Mac (today)", check out NEXTSTEP -- it's a lot
> closer to what AppLE will be delivering in a short while than is BeOS.
>
You missed two important phrases in that sentence: 'on the Mac'
and '(today)'. WHEN was Copland's original ship date?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> mmalc.
>
> --
--
Shimpei Yamashita
In article <5a22go$3...@duke.squonk.net>,>> [The FPU requirement is] Probably for some floating-point
>> calculations in display postscript. But really, that's just
>> a guess on my part.
>>
>> Doesn't UNIX in general want the FPU? My impression is that you'd
>> have to do something very un-funny to UNIX to have it get on
>> without one.
>>
>> Awaiting informative corrections,
>
>No. Systems programming generally avoids floating point
>calculations. There usually isn't any need for it, and
>it's always slower than integer arithmetic.
Depends. How do you compare floating point and fixed-point speeds?
The integer unit will be obviously much slower emulating floating point
operations.
I understand that this myth came about in part because the 486 had
such a bad FPU that it was indeed almost not worth using it at
all. Pentium and PPro both have good FPU's now, and PowerPC (like many
other RISC processors) had very good FPUs from day one.
The real reason you do not want to use floating point operations
is because floating point math is inherently noisy and the behavior
across different CPUs is nowhere as uniform as it is for integer
operations.
>I'm pretty
>sure things like linux or FreeBSD do not require an FPU.
>They might use some floating point, but not so much so
>that they can't get away with emulating it.
I don't know about FreeBSD, but the Linux kernel does not do any
floating point math for reason mentioned above. It does, however, use
the floating point *registers* for various kernel parameters--loading
data into or out of the registers is not lossy; it's only the
mathematical operations on them that causes bits to drop. I'm sure
this had partly to do with the fact that x86 has a pathetically small
number of registers, but it gives performance gains on RISC processors
as well: on MkLinux for PowerPC, the floating point registers are used
to buffer console output. The console scroll is many times faster than
in the original release, which did not use this optimization.
The Linux and *BSD distributions for Intel processors contain FPU
emulators to get around this problem. It isn't the greatest thing in
the world, but it does work.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.cco.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
Graduate Student, Caltech Dept. of Physics shi...@socrates.caltech.edu