🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <adtDKMpqD.7s8@netcom.com>, adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:
|> Christopher C. Wood (christw@meaddata.com) wrote:

Anthony D. Tribelli deleted an attribution, so it looks like I said:
|> : |> Are you thinking of Gershwin, I would agree that it is built "from
|> : |> the ground up" for PPC. Copland, IMHO, sounds like a wimpy
|> : |> Win95-ish upgrade. A lot of cosmetics, but little new technology,
|> : |> compared to System 7.5.

When someone else wrote that.  I wrote this:
|> : I see.  A brand-new fully preemptive, protected-memory microkernal
|> : operating system backward-compatible with todays' applications is
|> : "little new technology".  Whatever you say, cap'n.

|> "brand-new fully preemptive"? 

Yes.  Copland is based on a Mach microkernel.

|> I thought threads have all sorts of restrictions as to what they
|> can call. Only one application thread can call quickdraw at a time,
|> similar for parts of the toolbox. Sounds like parts of copland are
|> not reentrant.

A reentrant rewrite of the existing quickdraw toolbox is not part of
Copland.

|> Why would the bright programmers at Apple handicap a "brand-new" OS like
|> that? 

Because they want to deliver it a year (or more) earlier than
Gershwin.  One of the major components of Gershwin is the reentrant
rewrite of all the toolbox.

|> Could it be that copland is a bit closer to System 7.5 + popular
|> extensions (like thread manager) + some new code? 

That "+ some new code" is the brand-new, fully-preemptive,
protected-memory microkernel.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@eworld.com