Copland is previewed in MacWorld!
sincl...@cobra.uni.edu
-Peter
Joseph H. Kim
sincl...@cobra.uni.edu wrote:
> The July issue of MacWorld has a preview of the Copland OS with screen shots..
The latest issue of BYTE also has an excellent article by Tom Thompson on
Copland, including a good description of the run-time model.
Joe
--
// Joseph H. Kim (joe...@cs.utexas.edu, joe...@vind.com)
// Perpetual student, professional bum
// For info on "MachTen/Mac Toolbox" and "MachFrame++"
// surf to "http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/joehkim/"
bobby
Robert K.-Z. Tan
>The July issue of MacWorld has a preview of the Copland OS with screen shots..
>
>
>
>-Peter
Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
--
Robert K.-Z. Tan ------------------------ t...@neptune.cmc.uab.edu
If it can't be done with ClarisWorks, it is not worth doing
Michael M Eilers
> In article <1995May24.1...@cobra.uni.edu>,
> sincl...@cobra.uni.edu wrote:
>
> >The July issue of MacWorld has a preview of the Copland OS with screen shots..
> >
> >
> >
> >-Peter
>
>
> Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
Kinda like the game package that has 3-d rendered graphics on the
outside, and cruddy stick figures within: beware of pretty pictures
created by PR men...
michael
<-===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---==->
The reason the word FUCK is in this .sig is twofold:it stands for Freedom
Under Constitutional Knowledge, and it sets off government imposed and
created "decency monitors" (censorship devices) intended to "clean up"
the internet, criminalizing free expression and endagering free speech.
Write your congressman and demand that James Exon's S 314 bill be removed
from the telcom deregulation act, or mail vtw-an...@vtw.org.
<-===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---==->
Andrew Johnston
<Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 1995, Robert K.-Z. Tan wrote:
>
>> In article <1995May24.1...@cobra.uni.edu>,
>> sincl...@cobra.uni.edu wrote:
>>
>> >The July issue of MacWorld has a preview of the Copland OS with screen
shots..
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-Peter
>>
>>
>> Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
>> windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>
>This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>
>Kinda like the game package that has 3-d rendered graphics on the
>outside, and cruddy stick figures within: beware of pretty pictures
>created by PR men...
Considering that they haven't announced a formal ship date and haven't
begun alpha testing outside of Cupertino, I think it's a low blow to sound
a vaporware alarm--we all know Apple is previewing Copland to try and
steal some thunder away from the Windoze 95 bandwagon, and who can blame
them for that? Considering how many Americans will be hypnotized into
thinking Win95 is the best thing since sliced bread, Apple needs to do
everything it can to remind people that something better is on the horizon
.
--
Andrew Johnston and...@panix.com
New York City.....where life is cheap, but toilet paper is expensive
Matt Peterson
<Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>
Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
> > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>
> This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
Matt Peterson - University of Kansas, Experimental Psychology
cricket
> > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>
> This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
Ummm... if you're talking about the pictures on page 194 which show
possible multiple desktop designs under Copland, the caption states that
these are future options and won't even be *part* of Copland... rather,
they will be provided by third parties (and Apple) as add-ons. From the
caption: "Apple and other companies will provide collections of styles
that determine not just the look of the interface, but also the animations
and sounds associated with actions."
And the Finder in the bottom picture counted wrong... dumb mistake :)
cricket
Joseph H. Kim
cri...@cybernetics.net (cricket) wrote:
> > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
> >
> > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>
> Ummm... if you're talking about the pictures on page 194 which show
> possible multiple desktop designs under Copland, the caption states that
> these are future options and won't even be *part* of Copland... rather,
> they will be provided by third parties (and Apple) as add-ons. From the
> caption: "Apple and other companies will provide collections of styles
> that determine not just the look of the interface, but also the animations
> and sounds associated with actions."
Surely, the Appearance Manager will be a standard part of the distribution
and Copland will come bundled with many such "appearances" that users can
examine readily in addition to the commercial and share/freeware versions
they can add later.
Jay
>> > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
>> > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>>
>> This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>Ummm... if you're talking about the pictures on page 194 which show
>possible multiple desktop designs under Copland, the caption states that
>these are future options and won't even be *part* of Copland... rather,
>they will be provided by third parties (and Apple) as add-ons. From the
>caption: "Apple and other companies will provide collections of styles
>that determine not just the look of the interface, but also the animations
>and sounds associated with actions."
>And the Finder in the bottom picture counted wrong... dumb mistake :)
>cricket
Now that we've seen it, the race is on for shareare developers to make
utils that make 7.5 look like copeland. (kinof like System 6->7) Comon
guys: that assistant thing that launches stuff looks real cool....
someone want to make an interface for chris's cron to look like that...
or copy some of those window styles. Go to work guys. :-))) Progress
reports/requests for beta testing welcome.
--
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) Jay Thomas, 1995
Jay Thomas, jth...@pluto.njcc.com http://pluto.njcc.com/~jthomas
Portions of this .sig licencsed from Joe Ragosta (doc...@interramp.com)
Gregory D. Landweber
> Now that we've seen it, the race is on for shareare developers to make
> utils that make 7.5 look like copeland. (kinof like System 6->7) Comon
> guys: that assistant thing that launches stuff looks real cool....
> someone want to make an interface for chris's cron to look like that...
> or copy some of those window styles. Go to work guys. :-))) Progress
> reports/requests for beta testing welcome.
I'm working on it. If you look closely at the screen shots in MacWorld or
MacWeek, you'll find that the system font is Espy Sans 10 Bold (a variant
of which I offer as a system font in Greg's Buttons), and that the 3D button
style resembles the "Darken" style in Greg's Buttons. In place of Geneva 9,
most windows use Espy Sans 10, which you can get from the eWorld software
(you don't have to sign on to eWorld, you just need to install the fonts
that come with it).
I have just finished a hack that draws the Finder window header info
(the "## items" and "name size kind..." lines) with a gray background
and a subtle 3D effect, and I have also hacked the menus so that they
highlight in blue (like in the MacWorld screen shot).
I know someone who is working on Copland-style windows, scroll bars, and
a few other interface elements, too.
-- Greg Landweber
gr...@math.harvard.edu
(author of "Greg's Buttons" and "Greg's Browser")
John M. Cole
is concerned. I wonder if there will be any major OS upgrades for these machines,
or is 7.5.1 it?
Gregory D. Landweber
mat...@stat1.cc.ukans.edu (Matt Peterson) wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
>
> > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
> >
> > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>
> OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
The "## items" display at the top of Finder windows should only count those
files that are actually displayed in the window. So, the count should ignore
invisible files.
Michael M Eilers
> In article
> <Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
>
> > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
> >
> > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>
> OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
>
I just got out ResEdit and tried this trick--invisible files do *not*
show up in the item number count, so I'm afraid we can't cut them any
slack there...
Keith E. Jackson
> On 25 May 1995, Matt Peterson wrote:
>
> > Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
> >
> > > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
> > >
> > > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
> >
> > OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
>
> I just got out ResEdit and tried this trick--invisible files do *not*
> show up in the item number count, so I'm afraid we can't cut them any
> slack there...
But...if a folder has a blank icon pasted in, and a single space for the
name, it would show up in the count, but would not be visible...
Or, are we just over-analyzing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith E. Jackson ke...@cec.wustl.edu
"I'm a born lever-puller"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Fyock
gr...@math.harvard.edu (Gregory D. Landweber) wrote:
> I know someone who is working on Copland-style windows, scroll bars, and
> a few other interface elements, too.
All 3 themes? :-) Animated menus? That was way cool at the WWDC...
Have fun!
Lee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Fyock The MathWorks, Inc.
fy...@mathworks.com Natick, Massachusetts
Lee Fyock
At the WWDC, Apple reps stated that they were pushing hard to get Copland
for the PPC out the door as quickly as possible. After that's done,
they'll find out from users what they want on 68K machines, but they
probably won't be moving _all_ of Copland to the 68K.
Sevenfive1
name, it would show up in the count, but would not be visible...
very good point!! notice that it doesn't even have to be a sinble space;
it could be just an invisible character or a few spaces...
>Or, are we just over-analyzing?
no way. who knows, maybe Apple did that on purpose to trick us. =)
Keith Adams
: In article
: <Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>
: Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
: > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
: > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
: >
: > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
: OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
Invisible files don't show up in Finder counts. That's why freshly
initialized disks have zero items, although they obviously also have
desktop files.
Keith Adams
fe...@conan.ids.net
Mike Schwartz
Copland are in?
--
Michael Schwartz
ru...@wimsey.com
"In cyberspace, nobody knows you're canadian, eh?"
---------
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c), Michael Schwartz, 1995. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation to Postm...@microsoft.com and ru...@wimsey.com. Portions of this .sig licencsed from Joe Ragosta (doc...@interramp.com)
Tim Ambler
(Mike Schwartz) wrote:
> Does anyone know which issue of MacWorld/MacUser these screen shots of
> Copland are in?
Check the July issue of MacUser. There is a long article on the proposed
new system.
(It seems strange to get the July issue in May)
Cheers!
--
Tim
It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality that I accept.
---------- Calvin
Stan Lobunets
> Does anyone know which issue of MacWorld/MacUser these screen shots of
> Copland are in?
>
> --
> Michael Schwartz
MacUser, July '95. Looks pretty cool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
n...@interport.net | stan lobunets | this space for rent (cheap)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Wille
in the June 1995 Byte.
Steve Wille
s...@mcs.com
Sevenfive1
yeah, why the odd dating scheme??
Louis Gerbarg
(Keith E. Jackson) wrote:
> Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 25 May 1995, Matt Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > > > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
> > > >
> > > > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell
vaporware!
> > >
> > > OR, some of those files have the "invisible" flag set...
> >
> > I just got out ResEdit and tried this trick--invisible files do *not*
> > show up in the item number count, so I'm afraid we can't cut them any
> > slack there...
>
> But...if a folder has a blank icon pasted in, and a single space for the
> name, it would show up in the count, but would not be visible...
>
> Or, are we just over-analyzing?
>
Copeland is a complete rewrite, they could just have a simple bug in the
routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
Louis
--
bla...@blaster.microserve.com
Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code
Lawson English
[snipt]
: Copeland is a complete rewrite, they could just have a simple bug in the
: routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
Has anyone considered the possibilty that this is a security measure?
Maybe different "screen shots" were distributed internally with different
mis-counts to keep track of any potential leaks, and one of those was
given to the press?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rosenberg
Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
> > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
> > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>
> This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
--------
Mike Rosenberg
Macintosh Consultant/Instructor
mrose...@electriciti.com
San Diego
"If you ever get annoyed, look at me, I'm self-employed..."
Jason Untulis
In article <3qarkl$k...@news4.primenet.com>, eng...@primenet.com (Lawson
English) wrote:
:Louis Gerbarg (bla...@blaster.microserve.com) wrote:
:[snipt]
:: Copeland is a complete rewrite, they could just have a simple bug in the
:: routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
:
:Has anyone considered the possibilty that this is a security measure?
Good answer, but I doubt it's correct.
:Maybe different "screen shots" were distributed internally with different
:mis-counts to keep track of any potential leaks, and one of those was
:given to the press?
As a real leak or as a sanctioned Apple "leak"?
Considering MacWeek only published this stuff two weeks ago and MacUser
(who's the same company) needed to have it at least a month, and probably
two months for the cover story, it smells like a coordinated job. Since
Apple was going to show developers a lot of Copland at WWDC and some
developer was inevitably going to leak something, TPTB probably decided to
give the mags access beforehand, given the stipulation that it was
published after WWDC.
It may explain the quickness in which we received "July" issues in the
middle of May (which is faster than normal preprinting for computer
mags)...
--
#include <std/disclaimer> (C) 1995. All rights reserved.
Jason Untulis untulis@ (netcom.com) (tower.tandem.com)
* Fight S.314, Sign the Petition, Support S.714, Phone Your Senators *
2<S/N: Scientology CoS Kibo C&S Green Card CyberSell Exon Judges-L
<next grepper enter name here>
Unsolicited commercial email or email not related to a previous message will be proofread at US$100/hour (one (1) hour minimum)
Nelson Morris
The screen in dispute are the ones showing the different appearances
windows can take. My guess, someone cut and pasted the file count info
and when creating the pict for the "future" metallic looking window view,
they added some folders but didn't think to change the item count.
Did Apple show Copland running with different appearances, or have they
left the cute features for last?
--
@===@ Nelson Morris
||| Harvard University
||| Dept. Of Classics
^^^^^
Jason Glass
shots there depicting Copland's three screen variations. All of which
show an innacurate number, but also have active scroll bars. I haven't
seen MacWorld or MacUser yet, but could it be that some of the items
were outside of the window's borders?
Personaly I think Copland's default window is rather attractive, but
there other two look stupid. the icon's are pretty neat though.
Just my $0.02
--Jason
Howard S Schumacher
be a big winner! It will be 95% native. WILL BE! It hasn't been written yet.
The pictures in the latest MacUser were mock-ups and were not generated by any
existing copy of Copland. So, if the Finder appeared to have made a few
mistakes, then blame the art department and not the programmers.
Apple will do the same thing a certain somebody whose initials are BG is doing
with that other graphic interface that begins with a W, rhymes with Win-doze,
and runs on those IBM machines. They'll ship tens of thousands of beta version
copies for hackers to test for bugs. The first release of System 8 should be
essentially bug-free. I am somewhere between a mainstream and advanced user of
the Mac. People like me will never encounter whatever bugs are in the first
release of System 8. The only people likely to encounter any bugs are the
highest-end users who go looking for ways to make the OS do things it can't do
due to the limitations of the applications running at the time. Copland will
also have all of the functionality benefits of the latest system 7.x, will have
much better multitasking handling, and use less memory. I cannot risk fully
comprehending just how impressive is the list of brand new improvements to
system 8 because my human brain might become damaged or something.
Wherever you read about it, be sure to read about it. It is going to be so
cool! Can't wait.
L8R, HSS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk: Spock, where the hell's that power you promised me?
Spock: One damn minute, Admiral.
Star Trek IV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cricket
> : routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
>
> Has anyone considered the possibilty that this is a security measure?
I think I'll try again at settling this. :) The caption clearly states
that the two screen shots on that page are what potential desktop add-ons
*may* look like *when they are provided* ... they are obviously completely
artistically rendered and are not real screen shots. I think we should be
glad that Apple is concentrating on getting the system out the door and
not wasting time with *really* ugly desktop design variations. :)
Cheers,
cricket
+___________________________________________________________________+
| The trees all waved their giant arms ... |
| And happiness bled from every street corner ... |
| And biplanes bombed with fluffy pillows. |
| _____________________________________ |
| cri...@cybernetics.net |
+___________________________________________________________________+
Steve Kanefsky
Russ Leach <aw...@tiac.net> wrote:
> But they move the zoombox left and put the *new* element where
>the *very familiar* zoombox has been in every Mac window since System 1.
There was no zoombox in System 1. It wasn't added until much later.
--
Steve Kanefsky
Jay
>I saw the article about Copland in the latest MacUser. System 8 is destined to
>be a big winner! It will be 95% native. WILL BE! It hasn't been written yet.
>The pictures in the latest MacUser were mock-ups and were not generated by any
>existing copy of Copland. So, if the Finder appeared to have made a few
>mistakes, then blame the art department and not the programmers.
They DID show it to developers at WWDC so I don't know how fake it is...
--
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) Jay Thomas, 1995
Jay Thomas, jth...@pluto.njcc.com http://pluto.njcc.com/~jthomas
Matt Peterson
of a mixture of Windows 3.1 and the grey 3-d buttons from Greg's
buttons.
Apple:take a hint from me, I have Greg's button's, and the only parts
of the interface I have changed has been to change the system font from
Chicago to Tecton 12, and to change the white background in the menus
to a pale manila. Don't make System 8 that hideous Trash-80/Windows
grey. Ugggghhhhhh!!!!!!
Matt Peterson - University of Kansas, Experimental Psychology
Andre Bolen
: > Now that we've seen it, the race is on for shareare developers to make
: > utils that make 7.5 look like copeland. (kinof like System 6->7) Comon
: > guys: that assistant thing that launches stuff looks real cool....
: > someone want to make an interface for chris's cron to look like that...
: > or copy some of those window styles. Go to work guys. :-))) Progress
: > reports/requests for beta testing welcome.
: I'm working on it. If you look closely at the screen shots in MacWorld or
: MacWeek, you'll find that the system font is Espy Sans 10 Bold (a variant
: of which I offer as a system font in Greg's Buttons), and that the 3D button
: style resembles the "Darken" style in Greg's Buttons. In place of Geneva 9,
: most windows use Espy Sans 10, which you can get from the eWorld software
: (you don't have to sign on to eWorld, you just need to install the fonts
: that come with it).
: I have just finished a hack that draws the Finder window header info
: (the "## items" and "name size kind..." lines) with a gray background
: and a subtle 3D effect, and I have also hacked the menus so that they
: highlight in blue (like in the MacWorld screen shot).
: I know someone who is working on Copland-style windows, scroll bars, and
: a few other interface elements, too.
So when will these be released? In the absence of being able to make my
computer more current (read, PPC) making my computer seem more current by
installing these little hacks are sure fun! (:
Jay
btw: I found something the other day that woudl copelandize menus (3-d
effect). Menubar pattern. BUT: It crashes on startup! Is there a version
of it or a similari utility that does not do so?
Philip Machanick
bla...@blaster.microserve.com (Louis Gerbarg) wrote:
> Copeland is a complete rewrite, they could just have a simple bug in the
> routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
It would be an improvement if it fixed the long-standing bug where the
free space on disk is occasionally overwritten without clearing the old
number in Finder windows.
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa
phone 27(11)716-3309 fax 27(11)339-7965
Jim Nash
v076...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard S Schumacher) wrote:
> I saw the article about Copland in the latest MacUser. System 8 is
destined to
> be a big winner! It will be 95% native. WILL BE! It hasn't been
written yet.
> ... Copland will
> also have all of the functionality benefits of the latest system 7.x,
will have
> much better multitasking handling, and use less memory. I cannot risk fully
> comprehending just how impressive is the list of brand new improvements to
> system 8 because my human brain might become damaged or something.
As a data acquisition programmer I worry about the full pre-emptive
multitasking that Apple plans for version 9.0 (only partially implemented
in 8.0). Will a data acquisition program be able to lock up the computer
for a time? The current method (7.1) works well and only requires all
tasks to be courteous (like the internet).
Also, 7.5 is slower than 7.1. The claim I heard was that 8.0 would be
much faster. That would be nice.
Does anyone have an idea about compatibility of version 8.0 and 9.0 with
data acquisition programs? Or will we have to rewrite our tasks?
- Jim Nash
--
____________________________________________________________________
James W. Nash, Synergistic Research Systems
4409 Mahan Court, Silver Spring, MD 20906, USA
(301) 942-6601, fax: (301) 942-6656
____________________________________________________________________
Allen Newman
>In article <kej2-26059...@128.252.112.41>, ke...@cec.wustl.edu
>(Keith E. Jackson) wrote:
>
>> >
>> > > Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell
>vaporware!
>> > >
>> >
>> > I just got out ResEdit and tried this trick--invisible files do *not*
>> > show up in the item number count, so I'm afraid we can't cut them any
>> > slack there...
>>
>> But...if a folder has a blank icon pasted in, and a single space for the
>> name, it would show up in the count, but would not be visible...
>>
>> Or, are we just over-analyzing?
>>
>routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
Oh, please. The screen shots are fake, OK? They're something like 18 *months*
away from release! I just got the new MacUser with their own Copeland "screen
shots" and from the looks of things they put some new icons and window
definitions in System 7.5, slapped together some dialog boxes in ResEdit, and
at the last minute decided to run the shareware Greg's Buttons on top of it.
These are pictures of Copland's *design*, not pictures of Copland itself, which
probably only runs in bits and pieces on specific machines at this point.
They're illustrations of what they're planning, released early so that
Windows 95 doesn't start columnists whining about the Mac's aging OS.
----------------------- _ | | ___ | | --------------
Allen G. Newman |_| | | |__ |\| Finger for
ane...@charlie.usd.edu | | |__ |__ |__ | | PGP public key
Joe Ragosta
v076...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Howard S Schumacher) wrote:
> I saw the article about Copland in the latest MacUser. System 8 is
destined to
> be a big winner! It will be 95% native. WILL BE! It hasn't been
written yet.
Actually, it has. It's still in alpha form, but it was demo'd a couple of
weeks ago.
> The pictures in the latest MacUser were mock-ups and were not generated by any
> existing copy of Copland. So, if the Finder appeared to have made a few
> mistakes, then blame the art department and not the programmers.
Probably true.
> Copland will
> also have all of the functionality benefits of the latest system 7.x,
will have
> much better multitasking handling, and use less memory. I cannot risk fully
> comprehending just how impressive is the list of brand new improvements to
> system 8 because my human brain might become damaged or something.
Don't forget much better performance. That's number one on my list.
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
cricket
*months*
> away from release!
This is now the third time I'm tried to settle this! <grin> Not only are
they obviously fake, but the CAPTION SAYS THEY ARE! geesh, learn how to
read!
Ishir Bhan
>Oh, please. The screen shots are fake, OK? They're something like 18 *months*
>away from release! I just got the new MacUser with their own Copeland "screen
>shots" and from the looks of things they put some new icons and window
>definitions in System 7.5, slapped together some dialog boxes in ResEdit, and
>at the last minute decided to run the shareware Greg's Buttons on top of it.
>These are pictures of Copland's *design*, not pictures of Copland itself, which
>probably only runs in bits and pieces on specific machines at this point.
Do you have any evidence for this? What about the reasoning that the
item count was a bug. As Copland was displayed recently at the WWDC, I
wouldn't be surprised if those really were screen shots.
--
Ishir Bhan
ib...@digitas.org http://www.digitas.org/ibhan
Jeffrey S. Shulman
> Did Apple show Copland running with different appearances, or have they
>left the cute features for last?
At WWDC, during the new appearance talk, all appearances shown (the three in
the mags) were shown *live* running on Copland.
Jeff Shulman
Apple New Appearance Team
#include <StdDisclaimers.xh>
Lawrence DąOliveiro
mrose...@electriciti.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950525...@aruba.ccit.arizona.e,
>Michael M Eilers <eil...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
>> > windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
>>
>> This is an obvious sign of FAKED SCREEN SHOTS--beware, I smell vaporware!
>
>Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
>don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei and
atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
anybody...?
Jason Untulis
In article <jimnash-3005...@synergy.his.com>, jim...@his.com
(Jim Nash) wrote:
:As a data acquisition programmer I worry about the full pre-emptive
:multitasking that Apple plans for version 9.0 (only partially implemented
:in 8.0). Will a data acquisition program be able to lock up the computer
:for a time? The current method (7.1) works well and only requires all
:tasks to be courteous (like the internet).
If the routines doing the acquisition take advantage of Open Transport
(Apple's new networking scheme), the you could spawn those acquisition
tasks off into their own protected memory space with preemptive
multitasking, which should remove any lockups.
You should check out the white papers on
<URL:ftp://ftp.seeding.apple.com/> or on Apple's Web servers
<URL:http://www.info.apple.com/> (My Web browser's broke at the moment, so
I can't get you any closer... they're in there!) A beta OT should be on
the June or July Developer CDs, if you get those as a programmer.
:Does anyone have an idea about compatibility of version 8.0 and 9.0 with
:data acquisition programs? Or will we have to rewrite our tasks?
The Communications Toolbox will survive (but Copland will be it), but I
don't know if OT's preemptiveness will spread to the CommToolbox.
Robert K.-Z. Tan
cri...@cybernetics.net (cricket) wrote:
>> Oh, please. The screen shots are fake, OK? They're something like 18
>*months*
>> away from release!
>
>This is now the third time I'm tried to settle this! <grin> Not only are
>they obviously fake, but the CAPTION SAYS THEY ARE! geesh, learn how to
>read!
>
It is not so obvious. MacWorld said that they were invited to view a
pre-alpha version of Copland. These could be real screen shots from
pre-alpha software. Or they are just mock-ups.
>cricket
>
>+___________________________________________________________________+
>| The trees all waved their giant arms ... |
>| And happiness bled from every street corner ... |
>| And biplanes bombed with fluffy pillows. |
>| _____________________________________ |
>| cri...@cybernetics.net |
>+___________________________________________________________________+
--
Robert K.-Z. Tan ------------------------ t...@neptune.cmc.uab.edu
If it can't be done with ClarisWorks, it is not worth doing
Robert Cassidy
> So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei and
> atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
> anybody...?
Actually, I think we're way before Plasmaware. I'm not even sure if we
know what particles are out there and what state they're in - perhaps
"DarkMatterware"
--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine
Nicolas Tamburri
> As a data acquisition programmer I worry about the full pre-emptive
> multitasking that Apple plans for version 9.0 (only partially implemented
> in 8.0). Will a data acquisition program be able to lock up the computer
> for a time?
In all my years of using pre-emptive systems, I have yet to run
across one that does not allow you to set the priority of specific
programs so they get as much time as they need. Copland will have
32 levels of priority. I assume that the top level tells the OS
to not even think about updating the mouse position, much less
running other programs. The lowest level runs the screen saver.
On a different topic:
While it is fun to read all this speculation on Copland, I remember
previewing System 7. It was supposed to have printer icons on the
desktop to allow printing ala QDGX, and cut and paste between
application windows ala the Drag Manager. Needless to say, some
of those features were late. :) That's ok, I'd have hated if
they had delayed releasing System 7 until all those parts worked;
mostly because Apple would no longer be in existence, and they are
of little use to me other than as a curiosity. (NOTE: I said ME.)
If System 8 contained only memory protection and pre-emptive
multitasking and could come out months earlier, with the most
important DTP applications and programming environments ported,
it would be enough for me to trade my Quadra in for a PMac.
Everything else, including the much hyped appearance manager
can come in later updates as far as I'm concerned. But then,
I like my Mac's appearance pretty much as it is, except for
my addition of New Look for shaded buttons.
Just my $.02.
/nt
Gene
Nash) writes:
> Also, 7.5 is slower than 7.1. The claim I heard was that 8.0 would be
> much faster. That would be nice.
As a general rule System 7.5 (and especially 7.5.1) is faster than 7.1 in
many ways, especially Finder related tasks. If you have experienced the
reverse, you may have a system extension conflict or a problem with your
installation that needs to be addressed.
If you can tell me more about your situation ,maybe I can assist you
further.
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"
David Lewis
the following URL...
<http://www.info.apple.com/dev/appledirections/jun95/newsstratmos.html>
________________________________________________________
David Lewis Halifax
lew...@tuns.ca Nova Scotia
http://www.tuns.ca/~lewisda Canada
________________________________________________________
Robert Rubinoff
Lawrence DąOliveiro <l...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>In article <ABEE21CB...@slip08.cs1.electriciti.com>,
>mrose...@electriciti.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>>Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
>>don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
>So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei and
>atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
>anybody...?
How about "cosmic dust"?
Robert
Jay
>Ugh, what an ugly interface ( as seen in Byte magzine. It reminds me
>of a mixture of Windows 3.1 and the grey 3-d buttons from Greg's
>buttons.
>Apple:take a hint from me, I have Greg's button's, and the only parts
>of the interface I have changed has been to change the system font from
>Chicago to Tecton 12, and to change the white background in the menus
>to a pale manila. Don't make System 8 that hideous Trash-80/Windows
>grey. Ugggghhhhhh!!!!!!
The shade of gray is everything. Trash windows gray is horrible. A light,
barely noticable shade of gray is best. But: itsa mute point. The
appearance manager will let you choose whatever colors you want.
--
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
Gabriel Rotskos
>... Considering how many Americans will be hypnotized into
>thinking Win95 is the best thing since sliced bread, Apple needs to do
>everything it can to remind people that something better is on the horizon
>.
Actually, Win95 is pretty good. Compared to Windows 3.1x, of course,
because it still lacks many things that the Mac OS has. I saw the
Win95 interface in the May issue of NautilusCD and I couldn't believe
how many things Microsoft has copied from the Mac's interface: the
Start button (Apple menu), shortcuts (aliases), icons on the desktop,
renaming files by clicking on their names, recycler (trash can), font
preview when clicking on the font's icon, a control panels folder etc.
I guess Win00 (that's 2000) may offer System 7.5 functionality (speech
recognition, GX-like typography, Apple Guide-like help, soft power
on/off, automatic mounting of inserted disks etc.) Hopefully, we will
have Gershwin by then.
BTW, I didn't see anything really innovative in Win95, but that is to
be expected from a Microsoft product.
Gabriel
H. Chou
>BTW, I didn't see anything really innovative in Win95, but that is to
>be expected from a Microsoft product.
>
>Gabriel
>
the only thing win95 has got going for it is that you can
delete, open, and quickview (kind of like a thumbnail view, or
Read-only Application of most types of files) from win95-savvy
File Open, File Save As dialog boxes. i'm sure there's some
third-party app for the mac taht does this from which ms
nabbed this idea. plus, although the whole idea of copying and
pasting files into different folders in win95 is nice, it's a
bit muddled from a philosophical standpoint (are you copying
and pasting files to and from the clipboard?)
but, it does look like a mac, and i know some folks who have
set it up like their mac (recycle bin in the right bottom
corner, hard drive icon i nthe top right corner). and the
shortcuts concept sucks because if you move original
applications around, the shortcuts can't find them, anda stupid
flashlight appears supposedly searching for the application.
aliases are much more elegant. ch...@notis.com
Cdsforsale
anybody...?
how about "quarkware"? what about "microsoftware"?
Michael Weiss
> In article <ldo-310595...@130.217.96.144>,
> Lawrence D=B9Oliveiro <l...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>=20
> >So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei an=
d
> >atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
> >anybody...?
>=20
> How about "cosmic dust"?
>=20
> Robert
"Quark-confinement-ware"?
Nah. Too wordy.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Weiss "Got my mojo working!" Darwin College |
| mk...@cam.ac.uk -- Muddy Waters Cambridge CB3 9EU |
| WWW Home page: http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/home1/mkw21/www/home.html |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Matt Peterson
jth...@pluto.njcc.com (Jay) writes:
> The shade of gray is everything. Trash windows gray is horrible. A light,
> barely noticable shade of gray is best. But: itsa mute point. The
> appearance manager will let you choose whatever colors you want.
I was hoping so. I believe the gray was introduced to reduce contrast,
and ease up on the eyes (or maybe to look "cool"). I find, in many
(i.e. Windows) has, that the overuse of grey has not only reduced
contrast, but reduced discriminability. A GUI should not be hard to
read; objects should stand out.
I'm glad they didn't get rid of round-rectangles. Its much easier
to discriminate a button (from something else that is rectangular and
has a word on it), when it is a round-rectangle, than when it is
uniquely identified as a button by pseudo 3-d shading.
Stephen Banks
>(the "## items" and "name size kind..." lines) with a gray background
>and a subtle 3D effect, and I have also hacked the menus so that they
>highlight in blue (like in the MacWorld screen shot).
>
>a few other interface elements, too.
Would love to get this hack when it becomes available... thanks :-) and
keep up the great work.
--
Stephen R. Banks € OneStop Desktop
sba...@printnet.com
http://www.printnet.com/
ftp.printnet.com € /pub/incoming
Bret Indrelee
>>In article <ABEE21CB...@slip08.cs1.electriciti.com>,
>>mrose...@electriciti.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>>>Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
>>>don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
>
>>atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
>>anybody...?
>
Even better yet, how about 'Pixie Dust'?
Not real, but if sprinkled over a person and that person thinks happy
thoughts then they can fly!
-Bret
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Indrelee | ...and if I feel a rage, I won't deny it.
br...@winternet.com |
Hugh D. Gamble
: btw: I found something the other day that woudl copelandize menus (3-d
Wow! Authentic emulation too! ;-)
--
# Hugh D. Gamble, NTT Systems Inc. (at DCIEM (416) 635-2156) Std. Disclaimers #
# hu...@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca, hu...@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca #
# "automata da vida, honey" - CA Butterfly #
David Lewis
<http://www.info.apple.com/dev/appledirections/adtoc.html>
have the wrong info in one of the headers as well.
Wayne Bostow
Mike Rosenberg says:
>Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
I don't think there even is a "targeted release" but Apple obviously
released the pictures with the intention to fool people into thinking
that there was some pre-release version already operating well enough
to at least dispaly Finder windows. Perhaps this shows the reason Apple
does poorly vis a vis Microsoft. Gates would have gotten the picture
right, or had an excuse that the people who buy from him would believe.
A typical Gates strategy IMHO would be to not release any picture and
not really explain why, but somehow drop the hint that he didn't want
the competition to see it.
As for vaporware. Apple has announced that is exactly their new fighting
strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
a strategy.
--
__________________________________________________________
Wayne Bostow "The HangulMan"
10558 Alcott, Houston, TX 77043 ph. (713)468-6546
wbo...@hounix.org
Brad Taylor
>> atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
>> anybody...?
>
>know what particles are out there and what state they're in - perhaps
>"DarkMatterware"
"Vacuumware?"
--Brad
--
--
Brad Taylor/br...@netcom.com
--
Lawson English
: In article <rmcassid-310...@dante.eng.uci.edu> rmca...@uci.edu
: >In article <ldo-310595...@130.217.96.144>, l...@waikato.ac.nz wrote:
: >
: >> So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei and
: >> atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
: >> anybody...?
: >
: >Actually, I think we're way before Plasmaware. I'm not even sure if we
: >know what particles are out there and what state they're in - perhaps
: >"DarkMatterware"
"SuperStringware," "VirtualParticleware," and "ShadowMatterware" all come
to mind...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cole
]
] At the WWDC, Apple reps stated that they were pushing hard to get Copland
] for the PPC out the door as quickly as possible. After that's done,
] they'll find out from users what they want on 68K machines, but they
] probably won't be moving _all_ of Copland to the 68K.
Well, they could always write a PPC emulator for their 68k machines, and
run big chunks of Copland in emulation :-)
Writing a PPC emulator in 68k will be relatively simple compared to writing
a 68k emulator in PPC.
brian
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______ _____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian A. Cole |_ _ | | ___| visit Brian's Repository
U. Wisconsin | | | |__| |___ of Macintosh Information
t...@cs.wisc.edu |_| |__________| http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~tuc/mac/
John Norstad
Bostow) wrote:
> I don't think there even is a "targeted release" but Apple obviously
> released the pictures with the intention to fool people into thinking
> that there was some pre-release version already operating well enough
> to at least dispaly Finder windows. Perhaps this shows the reason Apple
> does poorly vis a vis Microsoft. Gates would have gotten the picture
> right, or had an excuse that the people who buy from him would believe.
Wrong on both points.
Apple has officially announced a targeted release data of summer 1996 for
Copland. They've done this many times, to many different groups of people,
officially and in public. Whether they will meet this target is an
interesting question, but there's no question that this is their target.
Copland is nowhere near finished, but it's not vaporware. I spent a week
in San Jose at the WWDC looking at real live Macs running the real live
Copland OS demonstrating the new features of the OS. These demos were not
faked pictures or screen shots. Apple has shown live Copland OS demos
using real (not faked) versions of the OS many times, to many different
groups of people, officially.
There are many reasons why Apple "does poorly vis a vis Microsoft". Most
of them have nothing to do with technology. One big reason is that people
are stupid, easily fooled, and seem to be extraordinarily willing to spend
their money on inferior products. This is not something unique to the
computer industry.
--
John Norstad
Academic Computing and Network Services
Northwestern University
j-no...@nwu.edu
http://charlotte.acns.nwu.edu/jln/jln.html
Richard R. Hardy
> As for vaporware. Apple has announced that is exactly their new fighting
> strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
> for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
> a strategy.
>
FUD, Fear, Uncertanty, Doubt (I think); what you want to instill in the
Wintel/Windows95 crowd, I guess...
--
R. Hardy
Member, Institute for Cancer Research,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
(215) 728-2463
Robert Cassidy
> Mike Rosenberg says:
> >Considering that the targeted release of Copland is well over a year away,
> don't you think it's extremely premature to refer to it as vaporware?
>
> I don't think there even is a "targeted release" but Apple obviously
> released the pictures with the intention to fool people into thinking
> that there was some pre-release version already operating well enough
> to at least dispaly Finder windows. Perhaps this shows the reason Apple
> does poorly vis a vis Microsoft. Gates would have gotten the picture
> right, or had an excuse that the people who buy from him would believe.
There most certainly is a targeted release and it is not now. Apple is not
trying to fool anybody. All of the pictures that I have seen have quite
clearly stated that they were mock-ups. Apple wasn't trying to pull the
wool over anybody's eyes when they sent out the Knowledge Navigator video,
either.
> A typical Gates strategy IMHO would be to not release any picture and
> not really explain why, but somehow drop the hint that he didn't want
> the competition to see it.
No, that's an Apple strategy. Apple hides its developments far better than
MS. MS targets products with no release info, then doesn't ship - Apple
has done one better and stated that it is not due to ship for a year, but
here's what were shooting for.
> As for vaporware. Apple has announced that is exactly their new fighting
> strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
> for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
> a strategy.
FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - it's a marketing term.
Basically, rather than allow MS to go off and tell the world that they
will ship Win95 (originally slated for '93, I believe) and never have any
intention of ever shipping when they state, Apple will tell people what
they are planning and when to expect to see it. They might miss, but at
least they intend to meet the deadline.
No, Microsoft does boneheaded things like announcing they will crush any
company that gets in their way - or that they want their software to run
on every computer on the planet - what a way to turn people off.
Louis Gerbarg
Michael Weiss <mk...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 31 May 1995, Robert Rubinoff wrote:
>
> > In article <ldo-310595...@130.217.96.144>,
> > Lawrence D=B9Oliveiro <l...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
> >=20
> > >So what's the next step down from vapourware? How about if the nuclei an=
> d
> > >atoms haven't come together to form atoms of vapour yet? "Plasmaware",
> > >anybody...?
> >=20
> > How about "cosmic dust"?
> >=20
> > Robert
>
> "Quark-confinement-ware"?
>
> Nah. Too wordy.
How about:
Gluon-ware
--
bla...@blaster.microserve.com
Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code
John Mintz
:> Notice how the Finder got the number of items wrong in one of the
:> windows. Hope the shipping version can count properly.
Maybe Apple has made Copland compatible with the x86 line and the screen
shots were taken of a Pentium running Copland. That would explain the
counting problem.
just my .019999999 Cents
JP
Wayne Bostow
John Norstad says:
>Apple has officially announced a targeted release data of summer 1996 for
Copland.
I was basically aware of that. If an employer asks for my birthdate, I
don't think he will be happy with "fall of '48", but your point is well
taken.
re: Microsoft
You are correct to read some antipathy toward Apple, but not the reasons.
I see them becoming more like Microsoft and now doing so openly (which is
actually a contradiction). Read MacWeek's May 15 issue of David Nagel being
interviewed about positive FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). He sure
has scared me as a small Apple developer!
If Apple becomes as bad as Microsoft in treatment of customers and developers
why would there be any reason to work on Macs? Plug and play is not enough.
Tim Seufert
Cole) wrote:
> Well, they could always write a PPC emulator for their 68k machines, and
> run big chunks of Copland in emulation :-)
>
> Writing a PPC emulator in 68k will be relatively simple compared to writing
> a 68k emulator in PPC.
NOT! Writing a 68K emulator in PPC is much, much easier. Why?
One word: registers.
The 68K has 16 32-bit registers, not all of which are available for you to
play with. The PowerPC has 32 32-bit general purpose registers, enough to
hold the entire 68K register set and have lots left over for your own
uses.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| *UselessWastedSpace*(tm) Tim Seufert, bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do the environment a favor. Use goat-flavored floppy disks. |
| Think about it, won't you? Thank you. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Cohen
>In article <1995Jun02....@hounix.org>, wbo...@hounix.org (Wayne
>Bostow) wrote:
>> As for vaporware. Apple has announced that is exactly their new fighting
>> strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
>> for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
>> a strategy.
>>
>FUD, Fear, Uncertanty, Doubt (I think); what you want to instill in the
>Wintel/Windows95 crowd, I guess...
IBM invented it the mainframe days and Microsoft raised it to an art form.
--
Mike Cohen - is...@netcom.com
Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/is/isis/home.html
PUSH THE BUTTON... SOMEONE
Brett Norris
phi...@cs.wits.ac.za (Philip Machanick) wrote:
> In article <blaster-2805...@blaster.microserve.com>,
> bla...@blaster.microserve.com (Louis Gerbarg) wrote:
>
> > Copeland is a complete rewrite, they could just have a simple bug in the
> > routines that count files (though that seems pretty pathetic).
>
> It would be an improvement if it fixed the long-standing bug where the
> free space on disk is occasionally overwritten without clearing the old
> number in Finder windows.
Ah, well it's nice to see someone else has noticed that. It rarely
happens to me, but has always made me at least consider reinstalling the
system software. Sounds like that wouldn't help and it's a bug.
--
dec...@halcyon.com <---- preferred
bre...@aol.com
AOL: BrettN
Brett Norris
(Jim Nash) wrote:
> Also, 7.5 is slower than 7.1. The claim I heard was that 8.0 would be
> much faster. That would be nice.
Copland will almost certainly HAVE to faster than System 7.5, as it will
be mostly native PPC code. Ninety-five percent is a figure often quoted
(and stated by the project leader), but some insiders have said it will be
less.
I'm using a Power Mac 6100 now after having a Classic II for years, so
everything seems pretty fast now to me.
Chik
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> > As for vaporware. Apple has announced that is exactly their new fighting
> > strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
> > for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
> > a strategy.
>
> FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - it's a marketing term.
>
> Basically, rather than allow MS to go off and tell the world that they
> will ship Win95 (originally slated for '93, I believe) and never have any
> intention of ever shipping when they state, Apple will tell people what
> they are planning and when to expect to see it. They might miss, but at
> least they intend to meet the deadline.
>
> No, Microsoft does boneheaded things like announcing they will crush any
> company that gets in their way - or that they want their software to run
> on every computer on the planet - what a way to turn people off.
Has anyone read the Gates biography "hard drive"? In it, there's a story
of how Windows 1.0 was vaporware for 2-3 years! And by FUD, MS managed to
keep people away from alternatives: a product called Vision.
Over time, MS have managed to get people to stay away from so many better
alternatives: Geoworks, OS/2 Warp, Mac OS. Isn't that a familiar story?
Isn't that what they're doing for Win95? Isn't that what they managed to
do for WIn NT?
Altho I dislike MS for their practices, I hate the way Apple does nothing
to counter such MS propaganda with promises of their own, and sits by
meekly. You have to admire MS, for their ability to have taken on the OS
heavyweights, and later the application heavyweights: Wordperfect, Lotus,
Borland. And won.
I believe computer mags like FUD, since they can sell more mags to people
who get into trouble configuring their PCs. And they can go one making
empty promises to those same people.
Tim Seufert
Cole) wrote:
> What about registers? Sure, the PPC's register file is larger than the
> 68k's, this will make register tuning harder. However, PPC instructions
> are all the same size and are consistently constructed. This is a RISC/CISC
> issue. Are you actually arguing that writing an emulator for a Complex
> processor on a Reduced one is easier than writing an emulator for a Reduced
> processor on a Complex one???
Yes, in this case, if your aim is to provide decent performance in both
cases. While the 68K is CISC, it is pretty straightforward CISC. There
are very few instructions to actually implement - most of the complexity
of the 68K instruction set is in the numerous addressing modes, and you
can write just a few subroutines to handle them. (I wouldn't be surprised
if the PowerPC had more instructions than the 68K, BTW.)
Jay
>bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Tim Seufert) writes:
>]
>] In article <3qmc3p$b...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, t...@sun38.cs.wisc.edu (Brian
>] Cole) wrote:
>]
>] > Well, they could always write a PPC emulator for their 68k machines, and
>] > run big chunks of Copland in emulation :-)
>] >
>] > Writing a PPC emulator in 68k will be relatively simple compared to writing
>] > a 68k emulator in PPC.
There already is a PPC emulator for 68ks. It was on one of the MacHACK CDs.
--
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) Jay Thomas, 1995
Jay Thomas, jth...@pluto.njcc.com http://pluto.njcc.com/~jthomas
Portions of this .sig licencsed from Joe Ragosta (doc...@interramp.com)
Brian Cole
]
] In article <3qmc3p$b...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, t...@sun38.cs.wisc.edu (Brian
] Cole) wrote:
]
] > Well, they could always write a PPC emulator for their 68k machines, and
] > run big chunks of Copland in emulation :-)
] >
] > Writing a PPC emulator in 68k will be relatively simple compared to writing
] > a 68k emulator in PPC.
] NOT! Writing a 68K emulator in PPC is much, much easier. Why?
]
] One word: registers.
What about registers? Sure, the PPC's register file is larger than the
68k's, this will make register tuning harder. However, PPC instructions
are all the same size and are consistently constructed. This is a RISC/CISC
issue. Are you actually arguing that writing an emulator for a Complex
processor on a Reduced one is easier than writing an emulator for a Reduced
processor on a Complex one???
brian
PS. Please note two things:
1) The smily in my original posting
2) I said "write an emulator", not "optimize an emulator" or "write
a fast emulator" :-)
PPS. That's not to say that writing a PPC emulator for 68k chips is a
completely unreasonable way to port infrequently-used parts of
Copland to 68k macs, though it would be kind of odd. I'll have
to think about it some more.
Hallux Valgus
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy - New York
Distribution:
Chik (cc_...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au) wrote:
: In article <rmcassid-020...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
: (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
: > > strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
Back in the recesses of my memory I seem to recall that MS-DOS itself was
also competing on the first generation PC's and XT's (lets call it
PC-DOS) with Digital Research's CPM/86. I'd love to know how Gates sold
PC-DOS to IBM when the operating system was a derivitave of the 8 bit
CP/M, and how could PC-DOS have been a better implementation of an X86
operating system than the originators of that OS? Can someone clear this
up for me? I'd appreciate any replys by email, as I'll never find this
thread again I'm sure.
Robert Cassidy
cc_...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au (Chik) wrote:
>
> Has anyone read the Gates biography "hard drive"? In it, there's a story
> of how Windows 1.0 was vaporware for 2-3 years! And by FUD, MS managed to
> keep people away from alternatives: a product called Vision.
>
> Over time, MS have managed to get people to stay away from so many better
> alternatives: Geoworks, OS/2 Warp, Mac OS. Isn't that a familiar story?
> Isn't that what they're doing for Win95? Isn't that what they managed to
> do for WIn NT?
>
> Altho I dislike MS for their practices, I hate the way Apple does nothing
> to counter such MS propaganda with promises of their own, and sits by
> meekly. You have to admire MS, for their ability to have taken on the OS
> heavyweights, and later the application heavyweights: Wordperfect, Lotus,
> Borland. And won.
>
> I believe computer mags like FUD, since they can sell more mags to people
> who get into trouble configuring their PCs. And they can go one making
> empty promises to those same people.
>
Apple has been crushed by the MS propoganda machine. Apple has decided in
the past to not play by MS rules and try to let their product sell itself.
Unfortunately, in such a rapid industry, that simply doesn't work. I hate
that fact that Apple needs to resort to such tactics - it certainly makes
my job harder now that I need to separate marketing from real life as it
concerns Apple, but I can't say that I blame them for fighting MS on their
own turf.
MS is very clever. Bill is very clever. Their software sucks but they own
the industry. They deliver what people *believe* they need. Apple needs to
do the same thing. We're a long way from an industry where truly informed
consumers drive the marketplace.
ROBERT JAMES GRIFFITHS
: "Vacuumware?"
: --Brad
Isn't this windows 95 release?!?!
;-)
Aron S. Spencer
writes:
>Back in the recesses of my memory I seem to recall that MS-DOS itself was
>also competing on the first generation PC's and XT's (lets call it
>PC-DOS) with Digital Research's CPM/86. I'd love to know how Gates sold
>PC-DOS to IBM when the operating system was a derivitave of the 8 bit
>CP/M, and how could PC-DOS have been a better implementation of an X86
>operating system than the originators of that OS? Can someone clear this
>up for me?
As I recall, Digital Research refused to sell CPM. oops.
Aron S. Spencer
Radix Consulting
(919) 596-0152 Voice
(919) 596-0081 Fax
aspe...@nando.net
AOL: Asspencer
CIS: 75407,125
Tim Seufert
Valgus) wrote:
> Back in the recesses of my memory I seem to recall that MS-DOS itself was
> also competing on the first generation PC's and XT's (lets call it
> PC-DOS) with Digital Research's CPM/86. I'd love to know how Gates sold
> PC-DOS to IBM when the operating system was a derivitave of the 8 bit
> CP/M, and how could PC-DOS have been a better implementation of an X86
> operating system than the originators of that OS? Can someone clear this
> up for me? I'd appreciate any replys by email, as I'll never find this
> thread again I'm sure.
Replies via both email and newsgroup.
Basically, Digital Research dropped the ball on that one. They were
confident that no OS could take over the micro market, because CP/M had
absolute dominance on the micros of the time. So they charged a lot of
money for the 8086 version of CP/M. IBM wanted a lower-cost OS they could
include with the machine, and they hired Microsoft to buy out and do a
rewrite of some other company's wannabe CP/M. (Yes, that's right,
Microsoft actually didn't invent DOS - they took it over from somebody
else.)
Anyhow, since DOS was good enough to run programs, etc., and I think
possibly even had a better filesystem than CP/M, and was cheap, people
never bought CP/M 86 along with their PC. They just got DOS with the
machine and that was it. The rest, as they say, was history. Once enough
IBM PCs sold to vastly outnumber the old 8-bit CP/M machines, CP/M was a
goner.
Wayne Bostow
Dream-onWare, FantasieWare, FoolumWare, UncertainFutureWare, PromiseWare,
P.T.BarnumWare, GuessWare, MaybeWare, WheneverWare, TrustMeWare,
PurgatoryWare, SomedayWare, HopeWare...
Michael Dahlstrom
> Back in the recesses of my memory I seem to recall that MS-DOS itself was
> also competing on the first generation PC's and XT's (lets call it
> PC-DOS) with Digital Research's CPM/86. I'd love to know how Gates sold
> PC-DOS to IBM when the operating system was a derivitave of the 8 bit
> CP/M, and how could PC-DOS have been a better implementation of an X86
> operating system than the originators of that OS? Can someone clear this
> up for me? I'd appreciate any replys by email, as I'll never find this
> thread again I'm sure.
MSDOS won because the CEO of DR decided to go flying in his airplane the
day IBM came a'callin'. Pretty boneheaded move in hindsignt. I have
asource for this, but am too lazy to find it unless you ask! :^)
Michael
Matthew Russotto
>
>Well, they could always write a PPC emulator for their 68k machines, and
>run big chunks of Copland in emulation :-)
>
>Writing a PPC emulator in 68k will be relatively simple compared to writing
>a 68k emulator in PPC.
That depends... does performance count?
Matthew L. Langford
<snip>
> Copland will have 32 levels of priority.
> I assume that the top level tells the OS
> to not even think about updating the mouse position, much less
> running other programs. The lowest level runs the screen saver.
Rumor/MacWeek (aren't they the same?) has it that Apple is finally going
to a hardware based cursor to minimize dropped frames on video capture.
I wonder if they couldn't add a little glue/extra logic to store
mouse-down regions...probably not worth it.
> On a different topic:
> While it is fun to read all this speculation on Copland, I remember
> previewing System 7. It was supposed to have printer icons on the
> desktop to allow printing ala QDGX, and cut and paste between
> application windows ala the Drag Manager. Needless to say, some
> of those features were late. :) That's ok, I'd have hated if
> they had delayed releasing System 7 until all those parts worked;
> mostly because Apple would no longer be in existence, and they are
> of little use to me other than as a curiosity. (NOTE: I said ME.)
> If System 8 contained only memory protection and pre-emptive
> multitasking and could come out months earlier, with the most
> important DTP applications and programming environments ported,
> it would be enough for me to trade my Quadra in for a PMac.
> Everything else, including the much hyped appearance manager
> can come in later updates as far as I'm concerned. But then,
> I like my Mac's appearance pretty much as it is, except for
> my addition of New Look for shaded buttons.
Hear, hear! While I do like the Appearance Manager stuff, and it may
"justify" to a non-technical market all the technical stuff under the
hood, it IS just candy. Waiting an extra year-and-a-half to release
Copland will hurt Apple badly. Things that most definitely should not
wait have gotten swept into the future--specifically natifying (rotten
word coinage warning) the System. And Windows95, while late, will have
many of Copland's enhancements for nearly a year while we wait. I'm sure
that if something could be done about this, though, Apple would try to do it.
Everything that Apple can possibly finish by late this year needs to be
swept into an interim release, IMHO. Come to think of it, isn't that
what they are supposed to be doing? Marconi, I think it was called...
But for all the dewy-eyed idealists out there, I'll forecast: those
nifty windows, 3D shading, 3D menus, etc. will slow down your smokin' PPC
604 machine to, well, Quadra speeds, which is what your hot PPC 601 is
toodling along at. Gotta hate that. Not only that, but unless done
extremely carefully and cleverly, all the preemptive multitasking and
protected memory and microkernel will be CPU, memory, and disk hogs,
too. Call me a cynic, but there's a reason why NT, OS/2, and Unixen of
all kinds have large resource requirements. And Microsoft didn't write
all of them.
--
MattLangford AU-09CSE
Matthew L. Langford
> Dream-onWare, FantasieWare, FoolumWare, UncertainFutureWare, PromiseWare,
> P.T.BarnumWare, GuessWare, MaybeWare, WheneverWare, TrustMeWare,
> PurgatoryWare, SomedayWare, HopeWare...
NoWare
ProphetWare
SheerWare (can see right through it)
Ware?
--
MattLangford AU-09CSE
John Norstad
L. Langford) wrote:
> Not only that, but unless done
> extremely carefully and cleverly, all the preemptive multitasking and
> protected memory and microkernel will be CPU, memory, and disk hogs,
> too.
Because of the extensive redesign, especially the use of shared libraries
for the entire Copland OS and the improved VM system, Copland will
actually reduce the memory requirements for the MacOS! In System 7.5, very
large portions of the OS have to be resident in the system heap, and
occupy large amounts of memory. In Copland, most system software is paged
in only when needed, and only very small portions of the microkernel, file
system, and I/O drivers need to be locked into permanent real memory.
At the WWDC, we saw 8 meg PowerMacs running Copland very nicely, and Apple
said many times that 8 megs would be the minimum memory requirement for
Copland.
Copland will also significantly reduce the CPU requirements of the OS,
because of the new microkernel and I/O architecture, and because of the
native rewrite of 95% of the OS code. Improved performance is in fact one
of the primary design goals of the whole Copland project.
Disk space requirements will probably be significant, however. I don't see
any way around this problem. All those system CFM libraries will need disk
space, and the VM system will require disk space for backing store.
We have to stop thinking of Copland as some kind of extension to the old
Mac OS or yet another layer hacked on top of the old Mac OS. This was true
with all previous new versions of the OS, but it's not true with Copland.
Copland is a completely new OS from the ground up.
Wayne Bostow
suckerware, enticementware, PRware, voodooware, ventureware,
strategyware, pre-emptiveware...
Rob Browning
> protected memory and microkernel will be CPU, memory, and disk hogs,
> all kinds have large resource requirements. And Microsoft didn't write
> all of them.
Linux can apparently boot and do some (albiet not much) useful work on
a *2MB* 386. Seems like the problem is with the implementation of
preemptive multitasking et. al., not the concept.
--Rob.
Matthew Langford
> Because of the extensive redesign, especially the use of shared libraries
> for the entire Copland OS and the improved VM system, Copland will
> actually reduce the memory requirements for the MacOS! In System 7.5, very
> large portions of the OS have to be resident in the system heap, and
> occupy large amounts of memory. In Copland, most system software is paged
> in only when needed, and only very small portions of the microkernel, file
> system, and I/O drivers need to be locked into permanent real memory.
I hope very much that the implication here is true: much of the System
is not needed, but kept in memory. And loading pieces of the System in
and out from disk won't slow things down at all. (Or, to be fair,
certain pieces are loaded so infrequently that the slowdown is trivial,
unnoticeable, definitely worth it, whatever.) But as I said, unless the
decisions about what stays loaded, the loading process, etc. are made
very, very carefully or even cleverly, we will end up with the same or
worse resource requirements and performance.
There is simply not enough "slack" in operating systems to use less memory
and run faster and be more robust and get more done. Any one of these
marketing promises can be kept, but trying to do all of them will result in a
system that is heavily delayed...uh...and desperate, rash decisions may get
made. It's not unreasonable to expect that PowerMacs would be able to
perform better than Pentium or P6 PCs in _all_ phases of performance, for
example, but I doubt that Copland will provide any great performance
advantages for 68K machines. We'll see, I guess. I would _love_ to be
proven wrong, though, and see Apple write a better OS ( _not_ the GUI,
the underlying OS) than anyone else has been able to do in several
decades (with the possible exception of Linux).
> At the WWDC, we saw 8 meg PowerMacs running Copland very nicely, and Apple
> said many times that 8 megs would be the minimum memory requirement for
> Copland.
Which PowerMacs were they? Which features of Copland did this particular
prototype support? Perhaps more importantly, what wasn't running? I'm
sorry I'm being such a cynic, and I would actually like to know. Again
being the devil's advocate, if the Copland microkernel were available, it
would run very quickly--especially since all the functionality has been
stripped off. The real test is when all that functionality is swapped in
and running. Maybe that _was_ the case, I don't know. But a prototype
shown more than a year before ship date must be missing a lot somewhere.
Come to think of it, maybe it would be instructive for Apple to fiddle
with Linux for a while. Then, they could produce a Linux-for-the-Mac
port quickly (maybe even unsupported), and might have added insight into
keeping things simple and resource-light.
> Copland is a completely new OS from the ground up.
I guess my point was: this could be good or it could be bad. I hope
good. I'll take mostly good. I'd like the mostly good sooner, if it
comes down to that.
--
MattLangford AU-09CSE
Mike Byrne
Bostow) wrote:
> suckerware, enticementware, PRware, voodooware, ventureware,
> strategyware, pre-emptiveware...
What, you mean Windows95? Oh, wait, that's "bugware"...
=========================================================================
Mike "Sunburn" Byrne |
by...@cc.gatech.edu, 404-894-8399 office | What if there were
PhD student in Psychology/Cognitive Science | no hypothetical
School of Psychology, Georgia Tech | situations?
Atlanta, GA 30332-0170 |
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/cogsci/students/Psych-students/Byrne/byrne.html
Michel Eftimakis
: In article <rmcassid-020...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
: (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
:
: > > strategy. They called it, I think, FUD, I forgotexactly what it stands
: > > for. Again, Microsoft never did anything bonehead like announcing it as
: > > a strategy.
: >
: > FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - it's a marketing term.
: >
: > Basically, rather than allow MS to go off and tell the world that they
: > will ship Win95 (originally slated for '93, I believe) and never have any
: > intention of ever shipping when they state, Apple will tell people what
: > they are planning and when to expect to see it. They might miss, but at
: > least they intend to meet the deadline.
: >
: > No, Microsoft does boneheaded things like announcing they will crush any
: > company that gets in their way - or that they want their software to run
: > on every computer on the planet - what a way to turn people off.
:
: of how Windows 1.0 was vaporware for 2-3 years! And by FUD, MS managed to
: keep people away from alternatives: a product called Vision.
:
: Over time, MS have managed to get people to stay away from so many better
: alternatives: Geoworks, OS/2 Warp, Mac OS. Isn't that a familiar story?
: Isn't that what they're doing for Win95? Isn't that what they managed to
: do for WIn NT?
:
: Altho I dislike MS for their practices, I hate the way Apple does nothing
: to counter such MS propaganda with promises of their own, and sits by
: meekly. You have to admire MS, for their ability to have taken on the OS
: heavyweights, and later the application heavyweights: Wordperfect, Lotus,
: Borland. And won.
:
: I believe computer mags like FUD, since they can sell more mags to people
: who get into trouble configuring their PCs. And they can go one making
: empty promises to those same people.
: --
: Chik cc_...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au
Roger Hill
j-no...@nwu.edu "John Norstad" writes:
>
> Disk space requirements will probably be significant, however. I don't see
> any way around this problem. All those system CFM libraries will need disk
> space, and the VM system will require disk space for backing store.
>
But at least disk space has been falling rapidly in price over the last few
years while RAM has been stuck at the same price. It's not too many years ago
that you could pay $5000+ for a 1GB hard drive. It's practically entry level
these days (well I expect it will be by next year when windows 95 arrives :-)
The new 5200 and 6200 machines from Apple come with 500MB disks as standard.
If Copeland take up even 100MB, I can't see that being a big problem as long
as it runs in 8MB RAM. (Although I hope that 16MB will be becoming entry level
by then).
--
Roger Hill -- AEG Postal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ///\\\ 00
We're making your snail mail go faster .. \\\/// //
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<///
Rob Browning
Matthew Langford <lan...@eng.auburn.edu> wrote:
There actually is enough "slack". You seem to assume that the current
system is already good, so that it'll be hard to improve it. Well,
take Apple's VM system as an example. Why does it allocate a file the
size of your entire "address space" whether it needs it or not? Look
at RAM Doubler. Even though they're an outside company, in most ways,
their system performs far better than Apple's.
Now, on my Mac, the system itself takes up 4MB of RAM all the time.
This cannot be paged out to disk, but only because of a
design that needs to be fixed. Since much of the code in that
4MB is not used most of the time, it's like I have a machine with
much less RAM than I actually do. Add a good VM system that can
page much of this out, and performance will improve. It's like
you got more RAM for free. That's one of the reasons that
Copeland is faster.
It's been shown that it's very very difficult to reliably
predict which code should be paged out and when. It's better to leave
it up to a general algorithm. Least Recently Used is the most common
one, and has been demonstrated to be pretty effective.
--Rob.
[...]
> I hope very much that the implication here is true: much of the System
> is not needed, but kept in memory. And loading pieces of the System in
> and out from disk won't slow things down at all. (Or, to be fair,
> certain pieces are loaded so infrequently that the slowdown is trivial,
> unnoticeable, definitely worth it, whatever.) But as I said, unless the
> decisions about what stays loaded, the loading process, etc. are made
> very, very carefully or even cleverly, we will end up with the same or
> worse resource requirements and performance.
>
> There is simply not enough "slack" in operating systems to use less memory
> and run faster and be more robust and get more done. Any one of these
> marketing promises can be kept, but trying to do all of them will result in a
> system that is heavily delayed...uh...and desperate, rash decisions may get
> made. It's not unreasonable to expect that PowerMacs would be able to
> perform better than Pentium or P6 PCs in _all_ phases of performance, for
> example, but I doubt that Copland will provide any great performance
> advantages for 68K machines. We'll see, I guess. I would _love_ to be
> proven wrong, though, and see Apple write a better OS ( _not_ the GUI,
> the underlying OS) than anyone else has been able to do in several
> decades (with the possible exception of Linux).
[...]
John Woods
>> protected memory and microkernel will be CPU, memory, and disk hogs,
>> too. Call me a cynic, but there's a reason why NT, OS/2, and Unixen of
>> all kinds have large resource requirements. And Microsoft didn't write
>> all of them.
>[...]
>Linux can apparently boot and do some (albiet not much) useful work on
>a *2MB* 386. Seems like the problem is with the implementation of
>preemptive multitasking et. al., not the concept.
Preemptive multitasking is not why Copland will require 8MB. Throw in
X windows and a useful workload and a 2MB linux box will roll over and
die, too. (The PPC chip also has less code density than the 386, making
the problem even worse.)
I'd certainly hate to assert, sight unseen, that Copland doesn't use even
one byte of memory more than it requires, but it's really quite pointless
to argue that one OS is better than another because it can successfully be
useless in less memory.
John Woods
>Because of the extensive redesign, especially the use of shared libraries
>for the entire Copland OS and the improved VM system, Copland will
>actually reduce the memory requirements for the MacOS! In System 7.5, very
>large portions of the OS have to be resident in the system heap, and
>occupy large amounts of memory. In Copland, most system software is paged
>in only when needed, and only very small portions of the microkernel, file
>system, and I/O drivers need to be locked into permanent real memory.
I am very impressed. Paging OS code is not easy to get right. (Not
impossible, of course, and it's been done before, but still.)
>Disk space requirements will probably be significant, however. I don't see
>any way around this problem. All those system CFM libraries will need disk
>space, and the VM system will require disk space for backing store.
If they did it right, they'll page code from the original object files, so
the VM system will only need (additional) backing store for data space
(and if they're very careful, they can get away with not allocating backing
store for never-referenced data pages; however, they might not do that
because it causes uncomfortable semantics (a program asks OS for a whole
gob of memory, OS says "Sure, why not?", program actually tries to *use*
said memory, OS says "APRIL FOOLS!" See the interminable comp.std.c thread
about "lazy malloc")).