Apple's plans

[Poopie Diapers]

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

[Poopie Diapers]

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

[Poopie Diapers]

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

[Poopie Diapers]

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

[Thomas Reed]

In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:

> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb.

Hmm, something's stinky here. Is there perhaps a troll in poopie
diapers here?

> For
> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators.

Nobody's forcing you to upgrade. If your old software and hardware is
working fine, what are you complaining about?

--
-Thomas

e-mail me at thomasareed at philadelphia.net minus phil

[Thomas Reed]

In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:

> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb.

Hmm, something's stinky here. Is there perhaps a troll in poopie
diapers here?

> For
> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators.

Nobody's forcing you to upgrade. If your old software and hardware is
working fine, what are you complaining about?

--
-Thomas

e-mail me at thomasareed at philadelphia.net minus phil

[Michael Allbritton]

In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:

> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
> Mac users, they could care less.

I'm sure eventually, probably in 4-6 years, Classic will be eliminated
from Mac OS X. At some point in time there simply will be no need for
it. Right now there is a need for it, so it's there. If in that time
you have not upgraded all your old software to Mac OS X native versions
I will have no sympathy for you.

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
OS 8.5.

Personally I don't even have a copy of classic Mac OS installed on my
Pismo. I've been exclusively Mac OS X in my operating system and all of
my apps since 10.1 came out. I have no need for OS 9 and have not
looked back.
Michael

[snip]

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"...and on the 7th day, God turned off his Macintosh."
~ Anonymous

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72

[Michael Allbritton]

In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:

> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
> Mac users, they could care less.

I'm sure eventually, probably in 4-6 years, Classic will be eliminated
from Mac OS X. At some point in time there simply will be no need for
it. Right now there is a need for it, so it's there. If in that time
you have not upgraded all your old software to Mac OS X native versions
I will have no sympathy for you.

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
OS 8.5.

Personally I don't even have a copy of classic Mac OS installed on my
Pismo. I've been exclusively Mac OS X in my operating system and all of
my apps since 10.1 came out. I have no need for OS 9 and have not
looked back.
Michael

[snip]

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"...and on the 7th day, God turned off his Macintosh."
~ Anonymous

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72

[Steven Fisher]

Michael Allbritton wrote:
<snip>

> There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
> OS 8.5.

This definitely isn't true, unless you meant something much different
than you said.

ll Classic versions of Mac OS still run 68k code. Some of the programs I
worked with every day are 68k only. And they still run in compatibility
under Mac OS X.

[Steven Fisher]

Michael Allbritton wrote:
<snip>

> There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
> OS 8.5.

This definitely isn't true, unless you meant something much different
than you said.

ll Classic versions of Mac OS still run 68k code. Some of the programs I
worked with every day are 68k only. And they still run in compatibility
under Mac OS X.

[Stephen M. Adams]

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> writes:

>So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
>and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
>users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
>Mac users, they could care less.

68K emulator? I don't think that's been around for several releases.

As for classic support, it will be around for a while, several years
most likely.

>PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
>like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
>to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

Anyone who has tried to run older apps, especially DOS apps, since
Win98SE, knows that it's a crapshoot. Any older apps that try to
write directly to hardware resources won't work from the getgo. And
older apps often make all kinds of bad assumptions about where things
are....

If the software is for one release back (ie it's a Win98 app and you
want to run it on 2000) you have a reasonable chance of it working.
Beyond that...it's often a toss-up.

-Stephen

[Stephen M. Adams]

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> writes:

>So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
>and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
>users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
>Mac users, they could care less.

68K emulator? I don't think that's been around for several releases.

As for classic support, it will be around for a while, several years
most likely.

>PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I
>like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
>to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

Anyone who has tried to run older apps, especially DOS apps, since
Win98SE, knows that it's a crapshoot. Any older apps that try to
write directly to hardware resources won't work from the getgo. And
older apps often make all kinds of bad assumptions about where things
are....

If the software is for one release back (ie it's a Win98 app and you
want to run it on 2000) you have a reasonable chance of it working.
Beyond that...it's often a toss-up.

-Stephen

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <220720031157097644%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>,
Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

>In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
>Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:
>

>> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
>> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
>> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
>> Mac users, they could care less.

>
>I'm sure eventually, probably in 4-6 years, Classic will be eliminated
>from Mac OS X. At some point in time there simply will be no need for
>it. Right now there is a need for it, so it's there. If in that time
>you have not upgraded all your old software to Mac OS X native versions
>I will have no sympathy for you.

I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

>There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
>OS 8.5.

Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
has to run through 68K interfaces.

Maybe you're thinking of the original Mac hardware emulator. Systems 6
through 8 created a virtual address space that looks just like the
"Inside Macintosh" volume I through III hardware specification.
Hardware drivers weren't complete until System 6 so a lot of pre-System
6 software had to access hardware directly. This is also why Macs
started having MMU coprocessors long before System 7's virtual memory.

>Personally I don't even have a copy of classic Mac OS installed on my
>Pismo. I've been exclusively Mac OS X in my operating system and all of
>my apps since 10.1 came out. I have no need for OS 9 and have not
>looked back.
>Michael
>
>[snip]

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <220720031157097644%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>,
Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

>In article <dirtydiapers-7F4172.11241722072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
>Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:
>

>> So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
>> and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For
>> users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
>> Mac users, they could care less.

>
>I'm sure eventually, probably in 4-6 years, Classic will be eliminated
>from Mac OS X. At some point in time there simply will be no need for
>it. Right now there is a need for it, so it's there. If in that time
>you have not upgraded all your old software to Mac OS X native versions
>I will have no sympathy for you.

I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

>There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
>OS 8.5.

Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
has to run through 68K interfaces.

Maybe you're thinking of the original Mac hardware emulator. Systems 6
through 8 created a virtual address space that looks just like the
"Inside Macintosh" volume I through III hardware specification.
Hardware drivers weren't complete until System 6 so a lot of pre-System
6 software had to access hardware directly. This is also why Macs
started having MMU coprocessors long before System 7's virtual memory.

>Personally I don't even have a copy of classic Mac OS installed on my
>Pismo. I've been exclusively Mac OS X in my operating system and all of
>my apps since 10.1 came out. I have no need for OS 9 and have not
>looked back.
>Michael
>
>[snip]

[nospam]

> I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
> standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
> forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

it already does everything it needs to do - run os9. there really
aren't any more features to add.

it will be revved to work with later versions of osx, but so will
everything else, like itunes and safari. and no, they won't open source
the classic layer.

> >There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
> >OS 8.5.

>
> Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
> OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
> has to run through 68K interfaces.

macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
powerpc.

[nospam]

> I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
> standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
> forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

it already does everything it needs to do - run os9. there really
aren't any more features to add.

it will be revved to work with later versions of osx, but so will
everything else, like itunes and safari. and no, they won't open source
the classic layer.

> >There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
> >OS 8.5.

>
> Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
> OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
> has to run through 68K interfaces.

macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
powerpc.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <220720031837450218%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
>> standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
>> forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

>
>it already does everything it needs to do - run os9. there really
>aren't any more features to add.
>
>it will be revved to work with later versions of osx, but so will
>everything else, like itunes and safari. and no, they won't open source
>the classic layer.
>

>> >There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
>> >OS 8.5.

>>
>> Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
>> OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
>> has to run through 68K interfaces.

>
>macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
>native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
>68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
>powerpc.

I suggest you step through some OS 9 system code with Macsbug. I'd be
impressed if they even got WaitNextEvent all PPC. MacOS was originally
written in 68K Pascal and assembly. The most CPU intensive parts were
updated to PPC C++ but a lot of original code remains. There are also
all those data structures that are defined in 68K format (registers,
stack frame, floats, and byte alignment) so they can't be updated to a
form that's faster for PPC. The only total rewrite from Apple is OS X.

I was hacking through the MS Outlook 2001 Beta expiration check just
yesterday so I could access an old mail archive. I most have switched
modes at least 6 times while backing out of Dialog Manager subroutines.

OS 10.2.6 breaks Macsbug buffering. Ugh!

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <220720031837450218%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
>> standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run
>> forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

>
>it already does everything it needs to do - run os9. there really
>aren't any more features to add.
>
>it will be revved to work with later versions of osx, but so will
>everything else, like itunes and safari. and no, they won't open source
>the classic layer.
>

>> >There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since Mac
>> >OS 8.5.

>>
>> Yes there is! MacOS 9 is mostly written in 68K. Big chunks are of the
>> OS are _defined_ by a 68K code interface. Even PPC code in OS 9 often
>> has to run through 68K interfaces.

>
>macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
>native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
>68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
>powerpc.

I suggest you step through some OS 9 system code with Macsbug. I'd be
impressed if they even got WaitNextEvent all PPC. MacOS was originally
written in 68K Pascal and assembly. The most CPU intensive parts were
updated to PPC C++ but a lot of original code remains. There are also
all those data structures that are defined in 68K format (registers,
stack frame, floats, and byte alignment) so they can't be updated to a
form that's faster for PPC. The only total rewrite from Apple is OS X.

I was hacking through the MS Outlook 2001 Beta expiration check just
yesterday so I could access an old mail archive. I most have switched
modes at least 6 times while backing out of Dialog Manager subroutines.

OS 10.2.6 breaks Macsbug buffering. Ugh!

[Gregory Weston]

In article <mcmurtri-353FEF.17042022072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

> >macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
> >native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
> >68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
> >powerpc.

>
> I suggest you step through some OS 9 system code with Macsbug. I'd be
> impressed if they even got WaitNextEvent all PPC.

Then be impressed.

> MacOS was originally written in 68K Pascal and assembly.

Yes. And it was rewritten essentially from the ground up 6 years later.

> The most CPU intensive parts were updated to PPC C++ but a lot of
> original code remains.

No. Little to no "original" code remains. And what was updated were not
strictly "the most CPU intensive parts." What actually happened was that
the migration to PowerPC-native code was prioritized based on how likely
the emulation was to impact performance. Note that the event queue would
be a rather high-impact element. As of 9.2.2, yes, there still were some
small bits of 68k code. But the vast majority was PowerPC.

> There are also all those data structures that are defined in 68K format
> (registers, stack frame, floats, and byte alignment) so they can't be
> updated to a form that's faster for PPC.

You're loopy.

G

[Gregory Weston]

In article <mcmurtri-353FEF.17042022072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

> >macos 9 is *not* 68k. it is mostly written in c/c++ compiled to powerpc
> >native code (and some ppc assembly too). there are a few bits still in
> >68k but they are mostly for supporting 68k apps. nearly everything is
> >powerpc.

>
> I suggest you step through some OS 9 system code with Macsbug. I'd be
> impressed if they even got WaitNextEvent all PPC.

Then be impressed.

> MacOS was originally written in 68K Pascal and assembly.

Yes. And it was rewritten essentially from the ground up 6 years later.

> The most CPU intensive parts were updated to PPC C++ but a lot of
> original code remains.

No. Little to no "original" code remains. And what was updated were not
strictly "the most CPU intensive parts." What actually happened was that
the migration to PowerPC-native code was prioritized based on how likely
the emulation was to impact performance. Note that the event queue would
be a rather high-impact element. As of 9.2.2, yes, there still were some
small bits of 68k code. But the vast majority was PowerPC.

> There are also all those data structures that are defined in 68K format
> (registers, stack frame, floats, and byte alignment) so they can't be
> updated to a form that's faster for PPC.

You're loopy.

G