🚀 go-pugleaf

don winsby (donw@38north.com) wrote:
: > Copland is a partial, not a complete rewrite. Copland apps have to live
: > with some handicaps due to this. Read some of the other postings in this
: > thread, this has already been discussed quite a bit, I'm sure discussion
: > is not over yet. Yes, copland is an improvement. But it seems more like a
: > Win3.1 to Win95 sort of improvement, not a Win3.1 to WinNT sort of
: > improvement.

: hmmm.  its been stated many times that copland will be entirely native. copland's I/O 
: system, including interrupt handlers, will be entirely native.  open transport will also 
: be entirely native. the file manager, entirely native.  are you suggesting that since 
: system 7.5 is partially native and apple will be using some of that code that this is not 
: a rewrite?

I think copland (the OS, not the kernel) will have much more native code
than 7.5, especially in critical areas, but not 100% PPC. PPC vs 68K code
is not what I was referring to when I said copland was a partial rewrite.
Old source code (QuickDraw for example), recompiled for PPC, introduces
some limitation in how copland applications can use preemptive
multitasking. 

Tony

-- 
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtribelli@acm.org