1. "Stock" Mac OS 8 applications will run on Mac OS X under
compatibility mode, which I believe is much like Win16 apps did
under Win32 OSes. This should work fine for all except a handful
of apps that try to grab hardware, which a multi-tasking OS doesn't
allow. This is basically the same technology in Rhapsody's "Blue
Box" (except the apps aren't stuck in a single visual 'Box').
2. "Carbon-ized" Mac OS 8 applications can be compiled to run
either on Mac OS 8 (like they do now), or on Mac OS X (with all the
modern OS benefits)
> Why not binary-level compatibility?
Without committing one way or the other, let me ask you "Why
couldn't Win32 apps run directly on Win 3.1, rather than having to
be recompiled with Win32s?"
Now are you going to say 'Uncle' and admit that the Mac OS API
transition is cleaner and smoother than Win16->Win32? : -)
-- Ernie P.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe Barrera <joebar@MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: RE: OS X & Rhapsody
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:19:37 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> Huh? They did. The interface is called Carbon, and it was
> provided in draft form at WWDC. Methinks you assume too much.
Methinks you're right. Methinks also the SJM article screwed up the
bit, particularly the two paragraphs I quoted. Well, I guess it's
to know that it's not just Microsoft that they get stories wrong about.
For anyone else still following this conversation, see
http://gemma.apple.com/macosx/carbon/ for info on Carbon.
> can be compiled to run on either Mac OS 8 or Mac OS X.
Hmm. Why not binary-level compatibility? It would be a lot more
both for app-writers and users.
Actually, now I'm really confused. Will a Mac OS 8 app binary just
on Mac OS X? How about older Mac OS apps? Will no old apps work on
Mac OS X?
Or will all old apps EXCEPT carbon apps work on Mac OS X? Or is it
carbon apps will run more efficiently if recompiled for Mac OS X?
Joseph S. Barrera III
Work: (415) 778-8227, Home: (650) 588-4801