dbplass@abp.lcs.mit.edu (David Plass) (03/04/90)
Whoa! I just read a posting of a news release on comp.newprod that announced a product for X/Unix computers that allow them to emulate a Macintosh in software. They did this by implementing the Toolbox ROMs in software, and have included just about every Toolbox trap as documented in IM. The problem I have with this is: if Abacus (the company who announced the product) can "copy" the Mac Toolkit in this way, why aren't there any Mac "clones?" Did Apple give premission to Abacus to copy the Toolbox ROMs? BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a MacPlus. Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? -- David Plass Disclaimer: Don't kill the messenger.
rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) (03/04/90)
In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >Whoa! I just read a posting of a news release on comp.newprod that >announced a product for X/Unix computers that allow them to emulate >a Macintosh in software. They did this by implementing the Toolbox ROMs in >software, and have included just about every Toolbox trap as documented in IM. > >The problem I have with this is: if Abacus (the company who announced the >product) can "copy" the Mac Toolkit in this way, why aren't there any Mac > "clones?" Did Apple give premission to Abacus to copy the Toolbox ROMs? The fact is, they did NOT copy the Mac ROMs. What they appear to have done is create an interface to X that can be used LIKE the Mac ROMs. This is a vastly different sort of thing. What it lets you do is take a program written in C for the Mac and compile it under Unix without having to rewrite all the tollbox calls. You still don't have the Mac hardware or software. You cannot take a Mac disk and run it on a Sun. You cannot boot from a Mac floppy, and as far as I know, Apple's system software is still licensed only for Apple's computers. Despite all this, I still think it is a significant achievement and I'm always glad to see the heat turned up on Apple. Ray Fischer rcfische@polyslo.calpoly.edu
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/04/90)
In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >Whoa! I just read a posting of a news release on comp.newprod that >announced a product for X/Unix computers that allow them to emulate >a Macintosh in software. They did this by implementing the Toolbox ROMs in >software, and have included just about every Toolbox trap as documented in IM. > >The problem I have with this is: if Abacus (the company who announced the product) >can "copy" the Mac Toolkit in this way, why aren't there any Mac "clones?" >Did Apple give premission to Abacus to copy the Toolbox ROMs? It's illegal to just copy the ROMs. It's not illegal to write new code with the same functionality. This is difficult of course, because you have to determine what the functionality actually is, very carefully. Even if you do that, you may still have a hard time in court proving that you did NOT copy, that any similarities are purely the result of "only one natural way to do [a given task]" John E. Doner | "The beginner...should not be discouraged if...he Mathematics, UCSB | finds that he does not have the prerequisites for Santa Barbara, CA 93106| reading the prerequisites." doner@henri.ucsb.edu | --Paul Halmos, Measure Theory
billkatt@mondo.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/04/90)
In article <25f046a2.6509@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) writes: > >The fact is, they did NOT copy the Mac ROMs. What they appear to have >done is create an interface to X that can be used LIKE the Mac ROMs. >This is a vastly different sort of thing. What it lets you do is take >a program written in C for the Mac and compile it under Unix without >having to rewrite all the tollbox calls. You still don't have the Mac >hardware or software. You cannot take a Mac disk and run it on a Sun. >You cannot boot from a Mac floppy, and as far as I know, Apple's system >software is still licensed only for Apple's computers. > >Despite all this, I still think it is a significant achievement and I'm >always glad to see the heat turned up on Apple. always glad to see the heat turned up BY Apple. <-- more correct This is exactly what Apple's look-and-feel contention is. According to Apple's look-and-feel, you can write some code which works like DrawMenuBar, i.e. draws a menu bar. BUT... It can't LOOK like what Apple's DrawMenuBar does. And I assume that ISN'T what this company did. And if they implemented Color QuickDraw, they've got to prove they didn't use the NuPrometheus code. Looks like Apple is going to hire some more lawyers.
rick@kimbal.lynn.ma.us (Rick Kimball) (03/04/90)
From article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, by dbplass@abp.lcs.mit.edu (David Plass): > They did this by implementing the Toolbox ROMs in software, and have > included just about every Toolbox trap as documented in IM. I read the same article. I was suprised that Apple hasn't threatened with legal action. Didn't they threaten to sue some IBM-PC developers a couple of years back when they created a software clone of the Mac Toolbox running under MS-Windows? It might have been before Windows and they may have been after them for look and feel violations. I just don't remember. Does any one else? Rick Kimball | INTERNET: rick@kimbal.lynn.ma.us | UUCP: ...!spdcc!kimbal!rick, ...!spt!kimbal!rick | POTS: (617) 599-8864
edgar@shape.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (03/04/90)
>It's illegal to just copy the ROMs. It's not illegal to write new >code with the same functionality. Isn't Apple suing Microsoft now, claiming that is IS illegal? Remember "look and feel"? -- Gerald A. Edgar Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY The Ohio State University Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu Columbus, OH 43210 ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!edgar
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/05/90)
In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: > >BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a MacPlus. >Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much a Sun 3/60 costs, but I'm sure that it's much more than a Mac Plus. I'll bet that it's also more than a Mac IIci, which runs 4-6 times faster than a Mac Plus. At any rate, someone else pointed out that the library just permits source compatibility, not object compatibility. You can't just take HyperCard and plunk it into your Sun and expect it to work. (Heck, we have a hard enough time getting it to run on Macs...) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN) (03/05/90)
From article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, by dbplass@abp.lcs.mit.edu (David Plass): > Whoa! I just read a posting of a news release on comp.newprod that > announced a product for X/Unix computers that allow them to emulate ^^^^^^^ > a Macintosh in software. They did this by implementing the Toolbox ROMs in > software, and have included just about every Toolbox trap as documented in IM. > > BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a > MacPlus. Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? > > -- David Plass Your missing some of the message of this product. The package does NOT "emulate" the Mac's ROMs. It provides a library you can use to implement routines with the same names/calling conventions as those documented by Apple. When you read Inside Mac, you are given lots of documentation describing what the routines do. Noone said you can't write your own source code for these routines (of course, you'd also risk compatability problems!) for your programs. What this new product does is provide the Mac's programming interface on X-Windows systems. That way, when you port to another computer system, you only (hopefully) have to recompile the program. This is very different from an emulator, which works with binary/machine language data. > > The problem I have with this is: if Abacus (the company who announced the > product) can "copy" the Mac Toolkit in this way, why aren't there any Mac > "clones?" > Did Apple give premission to Abacus to copy the Toolbox ROMs? Apple did not give premission to Abacus to copy the Toolbox ROM's. Moreover, Abacus didn't copy the Mac's *ROMs*. They implemented a karge subset of the Mac's toolbox routines. There aren't any Mac clones because this technique is NOT complete in its support of the Mac's routines. Also, just having the routines is NOT enough to make a clone. To do a clone, you have to make the hardware/machine language portions of the operating system work effectively the same exact way as the hardware your cloning. This is very very dificult, as not everything in the Mac's ROMs are documented, much less easy to program. (After all, Apple does pour a lot of money into developing these things in the first place. The only advantage you have as cloner is that you don't have to decide the functionality that goes in. You still have to write all the code, though.) About the speed increase on a ported program: That's not too surprising. In fact, if Apple could rewrite alot of the ROM code today, we could probably eek out a decent performance increase, but some braindead programs that depend on subtle quirks/undocumented parts of the ROMs woul likely die. (MiskeySoft springs to mine imagination!) The perfomance wouldn't be orders of magnitude better, but it could be a nice boost. Now, for the more interesting possibilites with this discussion: Apple could conceiveably make a Mac with just about any CPU and rewrite all the routines for the ROM. We could have an Intel based Mac (that's really an extreme, how bout an 88000 Mac?. :-) Then, with new compilers, we could take most of the existing source code and recompile it for the new hardware, since the toolbox interface would be the same! (This is what the Sparcstation requires to port software written for its CISC counterparts.) We could conceivably get a lot more performance and EXACTLY the same interface. The notion of SOURCE code compatability as opposed to BINARY compatability is a very interesting one. This is part of what has made UNIX very succesful. You can take a fairly complex program and recompile it on a completely different machine and get the same results. IF Apple does release a RISC Mac anytime, I think we'd see some sort of scheme like this along with a 69K EMULATOR in software so you could still run all the programs you have. (Although it would be much much slower than a recompiled version.) The bigger question here is "Would Apple trim off some of the fat of older routines that are kept around only for compatability? (Probably.) Geesh, now I've gotten long winded with this whole thing, and a bit excited, too. **way down the road prediction** Apple will start making Macs of different flavors, allowing you to pick a hardware platform with an architecture that is wildly different while still being able to run the same programs. Imagine a Mac based on an Intel (No flames, please. I realise there are major problems with this. :-) that could run OS/2 (half an OS, that is) as well as the Mac OS! =============================================================================== | tup - to copulate with a ewe Robert Minich | Oklahoma State University | Some people come up with the strangesr BS minich@a.cs.okstate.edu | when playing Scrabble! (That was really used | in a game.) Take OSU's President, please!| Send me any other great Scrabble words you use. ===============================================================================
mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (03/05/90)
In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >> >>BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a MacPlus. >>Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? > >Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much >a Sun 3/60 costs, but I'm sure that it's much more than a Mac Plus. I'll bet >that it's also more than a Mac IIci, which runs 4-6 times faster than a >Mac Plus. Well here at UF we can add a 3/60 to our net for much less than the cost of a IIci, that is the reason that there are so few Macs here :( Workstations *are* becoming cheap WRT high end macs and PCs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end of everything we know." Marvin Minsky
daryl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daryl.l.monge) (03/06/90)
In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >>Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? >Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much >a Sun 3/60 costs The current list for a 3/80 4MB 17" mono machine (diskless) is 6K. Do you still think a IIci is all that much cheaper? A sparcstation I, 8MB 17" mono is 9K. Apple needs to do something about prices. I simply cannot affort a II. -- Daryl Monge AT&T Bell Labs UUCP: att!ihuxy!daryl VOICE: 708-713-4696 PAPER: Rm 2A-448 P.O. Box 3050, Naperville, Il 60566
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (03/06/90)
In article <14122@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, daryl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daryl.l.monge) writes: > In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > >In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: > >>Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? > >Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much > >a Sun 3/60 costs > > The current list for a 3/80 4MB 17" mono machine (diskless) is 6K. Do > you still think a IIci is all that much cheaper? A sparcstation I, 8MB > 17" mono is 9K. > > Apple needs to do something about prices. I simply cannot affort a II. > -- I fully agree. But I'm not sure the workstations come out that cheap. Start comparing software prices for the configuration you would like to use. You can buy a Mac II for the price of 3 good pieces of software for a Unix box (exception: NeXT comes loaded with good stuff, but I'm not sure this cuts the price of products you have to buy). Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
billkatt@mondo.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/07/90)
In article <1990Mar6.071906.4235@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >In article <14122@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, daryl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM >(daryl.l.monge) writes: >> In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >> >In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> >dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >> >>Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? >> >Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much >> >a Sun 3/60 costs Hmmm.. Maybe everyone at Apple thinks a Sun 3/60 costs $25,000. Maybe they think their machines are cheap. >> >> The current list for a 3/80 4MB 17" mono machine (diskless) is 6K. Do >> you still think a IIci is all that much cheaper? A sparcstation I, 8MB >> 17" mono is 9K. Sure, but everyone who DOESN'T work at AT&T has to buy a Unix license. How much is that? Last I remember, SunOS/UNIX cost ~$1500. >> >> Apple needs to do something about prices. I simply cannot affort a II. >> -- >I fully agree. But I'm not sure the workstations come out that cheap. Start >comparing software prices for the configuration you would like to use. You >can buy a Mac II for the price of 3 good pieces of software for a Unix box >(exception: NeXT comes loaded with good stuff, but I'm not sure this cuts >the price of products you have to buy). Actually, the software that comes with a NeXT is nothing to write home about. It DOES have WriteNow, but the implementation is buggy. I also question the value if a Word Processor if you can't paste any pictures into it. On the NeXT, you can paste pictures into it, but there is no draw program worth drawing pictures in. The only draw program available is Adobe Illustrator, and it doesn't come free. Plus, have you ever tried to DRAW samething in Illustrator? It's great for tracing over stuff, but not for drawing. Frame comes with it, but I had just started into it when my "trial" license expired. That's right, the version of Frame you get with the NeXT is time-bombed. You need to call in and buy the program to get a license number which makes it work permanently. -Steve
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/07/90)
In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@abp.lcs.mit.edu (David Plass) writes: > BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a MacPlus. That doesn't seem to be much of an advantage. A Mac II is 3-4x faster than a Mac Plus. (It's strange that they would compare a 68000-based Mac Plus against a 68020-based Sun.)
oster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster) (03/07/90)
How soon they forget. Back in '85 or '86, a unix company named Caldus or Calmus
wrote a similar toolbox emulation for Unix. Back then, Apple bought the company
which was probably cheaper for everybody than a lawsuit.
--
-- David Phillip Oster - Note new address. Old one has gone Bye Bye.
-- oster@well.sf.ca.us = {backbone}!well!osteroster@well.sf.ca.us (David Phillip Oster) (03/07/90)
_>In article <14122@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, daryl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM
_>(daryl.l.monge) writes:
_>
_> The current list for a 3/80 4MB 17" mono machine (diskless) is 6K. Do
_> you still think a IIci is all that much cheaper? A sparcstation I, 8MB
_> 17" mono is 9K.
_>
_> Apple needs to do something about prices. I simply cannot affort a II.
Actually it is the other way around. The other manufacturers are the ones
with over-priced junk. I ran a few tests. I compiled the simple X "hello
world" program, and a few more complex programs. I tried out the source level
debugger, put up some windows, pulled down some menus, dragged the mouse
around. In every category, a $70K Sun 4/260 was at least 4 times SLOWER
than a $1K MacPlus. And this was not only with university software, but
with optimized, supported, commercial products. The window system
software for that machine, alone, costs more than an entire MacPlus.
In addition to being slow, the workstation software is very buggy, and
it stays buggy. There is still a bug in "login" that was there when I
was first introduced to Unix in 1975.
--
-- David Phillip Oster - Note new address. Old one has gone Bye Bye.
-- oster@well.sf.ca.us = {backbone}!well!osterbillms@caen.engin.umich.edu (Bill Mangione-Smith) (03/08/90)
In article <16555@well.sf.ca.us> oster@well.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >I ran a few tests. I compiled the simple X "hello >world" program, and a few more complex programs. I tried out the source level >debugger, put up some windows, pulled down some menus, dragged the mouse >around. In every category, a $70K Sun 4/260 was at least 4 times SLOWER >than a $1K MacPlus. And this was not only with university software, but >with optimized, supported, commercial products. The window system >software for that machine, alone, costs more than an entire MacPlus. > You can't prove anything conclusive with tests like this. Application programs for X based unix boxes stink (this includes almost all debuggers, which are just applications for developers). On the other hand, macos stinks for multiple users, memory protection, networks, etc... Its like comparing, well, apples and oranges. Both need to work on their weaknesses, and you can bet both are. Now, if the mac emulation stuff (where this conversation started before it degenerated into 'my favorite computer metaphore is better than yours') works, then many of your arguements (but not all) become moot. How about commenting on that? >In addition to being slow, the workstation software is very buggy, and >it stays buggy. There is still a bug in "login" that was there when I >was first introduced to Unix in 1975. > Just how much do you pay for your X? I get mine for free, as do most people. Or is apple paying you to take macplusses from them? >-- >-- David Phillip Oster - Note new address. Old one has gone Bye Bye. >-- oster@well.sf.ca.us = {backbone}!well!oster Bill Mangione-Smith billms@dip.eecs.umich.edu
ajauch@ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) (03/08/90)
In article <22556@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: >In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >>In article <1990Mar3.190730.15647@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbplass@apple-juice.UUCP (David Plass) writes: >>> >>>BTW, the news release claimed 2-3x better performance on a Sun 3/60 than a MacPlus. >>>Could this be the beginning of a mac clone market? >> >>Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much >>a Sun 3/60 costs, but I'm sure that it's much more than a Mac Plus. I'll bet >>that it's also more than a Mac IIci, which runs 4-6 times faster than a >>Mac Plus. > >Well here at UF we can add a 3/60 to our net for much less than the >cost of a IIci, that is the reason that there are so few Macs here :( >Workstations *are* becoming cheap WRT high end macs and PCs. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center >mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end > of everything we know." Marvin Minsky How much less? Seriously, I am very interested in this. How much would a USABLE, Sun 3/60 or Sparc cost? Don't forget drives and keybards and such. Alex Jauch ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/09/90)
In article <39182@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > Not if I've got to buy a $25,000 Sun 3/60. Actually, I have no idea how much > a Sun 3/60 costs, but I'm sure that it's much more than a Mac Plus. I'll bet > that it's also more than a Mac IIci, which runs 4-6 times faster than a > Mac Plus. Yeah, it's more than a mac+, but seeing as how sun 3/50's old and obsolete (they ran around 16 mhz with a 68020 with a pmmu to run sunOS), I doubt that you can get them other than used... I believe that the Sun 3/80's are the current models of the Sun 3 low-end line. Keith, a 12-mips SPARCStation 1 goes for around $6500 educational discount... I should hope that a Sun 3/80 is considerably less. andy -- Yeah!
mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) (03/11/90)
In article <1990Mar6.160205.21005@caen.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@mondo.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: > >Hmmm.. Maybe everyone at Apple thinks a Sun 3/60 costs $25,000. Maybe they >think their machines are cheap. >>> >>> The current list for a 3/80 4MB 17" mono machine (diskless) is 6K. Do >>> you still think a IIci is all that much cheaper? A sparcstation I, 8MB >>> 17" mono is 9K. > >Sure, but everyone who DOESN'T work at AT&T has to buy a Unix license. How >much is that? Last I remember, SunOS/UNIX cost ~$1500. There's more to setting up a SUN you can run as a standalone system than just buying your own UNIX license. Any Mac can run Mac OS via floppies. Furthermore, a 40-80 Meg hard disk is "ample" for holding the OS and leaving plenty of room for user files, applications, silly inits and sounds, etc. It is also possible to back up a 40-80 Meg hard disk to 1.44Meg floppies... A SUN 3/xx or SparcStation, on the other hand, needs about 300Meg of disk to fit All Those Standard Unix Things (like grep, cat, the online manual, some fonts so you can run a windowing package, etc.), and it is not reasonable to try backing *that* up to floppies. Everyone here who has a standalone SUN has either one humungus disk and a streaming tape drive, or two humungus disks (one a backup copy of the other). Also, if you plan to run your SUN *diskless*, then you need to add on in the cost of about 1/6 of a file server (probably costing about $60K, near as I can tell extrapolating from "foreign" prices...). So diskless SUNs are not that cheap either. (And, yes, I know something about SUNs, since I'm typing this on the SUN 3/60 that sits on my desk at the university, and I'm the one who signed the P.O. that paid for All Those Servers down the hall...) I recently bought a Mac IIci to run at home, stand alone. I considered a SUN 3/80 and SparcStation I, too, but decided on the Mac because the minimal functional standalone price was *much* cheaper. The comparison was between a Mac IIci 4/80 running Mac OS versus a SUN 3/80 or SparcStation I with 2 160Meg disks and tape backup running Sun OS and X windows. A year ago, I tried pricing a NeXT cube too, and it was even more than the SUNs... All prices included comparable educational discounts. Mart L. Molle Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416)978-4928