> > [ from Greg's SJM article ]
> > OS X will run traditional Mac programs, or at least most of them,
> > says the plan. There may be minor rewriting involved for some,
> > though nothing like the scale that Rhapsody had been demanding.
> > The traditional programs won't get all the benefits of OS X, though.
> > For example, a traditional program that crashes won't crash the entire
> > Mac, but it will crash other traditional Mac programs running at the
> > same time.
> So basically,
> OS 8.x and below ~= Win16 (Windows 3.11 and below) - cooperative
> multitasking, single address space
> OS X = Win32 (Windows NT) - preemptive scheduling, separate address spaces
> So again, it's unfortunate that when Steve/Avie/et. al. showed up, they
> didn't spec out an interface for OS X, and that they didn't provide a
> thunking (translation) layer to that interface on top of System 8 when they
> shipped System 8. (Yes, there are real-world advantages to the separation of
> interface and implementation.)
> I suppose it's akin to what would have happened if Microsoft continued to
> expect app developers to write to OS/2, and never came up with Win32.
Your so completely wrong about this it isn't even funny. Apple spec. in (as
I remember) 1989 was for 32 bit clean apps. Apple started shipping 32bit
ROM with the Ci. If you had written software for the IIci and above you
would yes, have to re-write some of the apps header files to support the
new memory structure. If you followed the programming guidelines correctly
(and if you didn't that isn't Apple's fault) your app written in 1982 will
run just fine on OSX.
Say that about an app written for the Microsoft world. Hell, try to tell
me how an app written for Win98 runs well now.
People like Apple and would like them to succeed,
but that doesn't mean they will succeed. - Bill Gates
That's OK. He'll burn in hell. - Steve Jobs
<> firstname.lastname@example.org <>