🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher C. Wood (christw@meaddata.com) wrote:
: In article <4gckcj$de3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, veakblad@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) writes:
: |> Mel Martinez (mem@jhu.edu) wrote:

: |> : Whoever is saying this is quite wrong.  Copland will provide full
: |> : preemptive multitasking and protected memory for processes.  Old
: |> : legacy apps will run cooperatively within one larger process, but
: |> : that process will be isolated from all other Copland processes.

: |> Why does this sound Win95-ish?

: Last time I checked, a misbehaving Win16 process can lock up the
: machine, and the user loses all unsaved work in Win32/95 apps.  In
: Copland, a misbehaving MacOS 7 can at very worst lock up the Blue Box.
: The user can restart the Blue Box, and all Copland apps keep right on
: going. 

: Not similar at all.

To say that it's not similar would be wrong, but what you can say is that 
the similarity is limited, then give your example as to the difference, 
but the goal of backward compatibility forces both companies down similar 
paths.   One other question, as to the behavior/features of Copland.  
Isn't it true that the features really haven't been officially announced 
by Apple, and all this are just educated guesses as to the possible 
behavior of Copland?


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