🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9 Jan 1996 23:27:42 GMT, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood)
wrote:

>In article <30ECC158.5289@osu.edu>, Jeff Jasper <jasper.7@osu.edu> writes:
>|> > 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.
>
>|> Gee, kinda sounds like Windows NT.  Copeland isn't fully preemtive, 
>
>Copland (no 'e' -- its namesake was Aaron, not Stewart) is fully
>preemptive, in that nothing short of a kernel crash will circumvent
>the preemptive tasks from executing.  Legacy applications can only
>block other legacy applications (and even in the event of a
>misbehaving legacy application locking up the user interface, the user
>can force the blue-box to restart, and Copland-savvy applications will
>continue on as if nothing ever went wrong). In Win95, a mis-behaving
>legacy app can take down the whole system.

You're talking about it's stability.  Copland is not fully pre-emptive
in that the Toolbox is not pre-emptive, legacy apps co-operatively
multitask with each other.

>
>Unlike WinNT, Copland won't be a resource pig.

Of course, you've used it?  Or are you going by Apple hype?

Will it have security?  Cross-platform portability?  I don't think
it's in NT's leauge yet- we'll have to wait for Gershwin for that.