ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) (09/17/89)
Over the years I've heard rumors of a totally new operating system
for the Macintosh that was supposedly being developed (in LS Pascal
if I'm not misstaken) by Todd Rundgren, the musician. I even recall
a mention of a ("pre-launch"?) party being held at Todd's house in
connection with MacWorld Exhibition in San Francisco in Jan.,1988.
Needless to say I've yet to lay my eyes upon any hard evidence of it
having been written in the first place, much less finished and/ or
shelved. If it ain't here then it must be somewhere else, right?
If someone on the net is "in the know" as to this particular
non-product's present or past status, features and whereabouts,
please enlighten.
--
---- You just survived another load of gross exaggerations from
------- Ian Feldman, the ASCII hacker / "I work to live, not the
---------- ianf@nada.kth.se / ianf@sekth.bitnet / other way around"
------------- ianf%nada.kth.se@uunet.uu.net / uunet!nada.kth.se!ianfblm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/18/89)
In article <1679@draken.nada.kth.se> ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) writes: | If someone on the net is "in the know" as to this particular | non-product's present or past status, features and whereabouts, | please enlighten. Pick up the latest issue of Verbum. It has an interview with Rundgren (and the programmer he's working with whose name I can't remember). He's started a company called Utopia Grokware (honest), and the product you asked about is called Hypercode. It sounds very interesting - pick up Verbum for details. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sigma.UUCP Six Sigma CASE, Inc. +1 206 854 6578 PO Box 40316, Bellevue, WA 98004
wjb@edsr.eds.com (Bill J Biesty) (09/26/89)
The last I heard of this was the Sept. 27, 1988 issue of MacWeek. There was another article before that with even less information.... I've heard rumors/truths that Apple is very hesitant to have another OS running on it's hardware, hence the need for Rundgren to team up with applications companies to sell his software. Is this TRUE? Is the only OS we'll see for the Mac is MacOS or AUX? Pity if true. Guess we'll all just have to settle for a Next.. d;^o bill
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (09/27/89)
In article <158@edsr.eds.com> wjb@edsr.eds.com (Bill J Biesty) writes: > >The last I heard of this was the Sept. 27, 1988 issue of MacWeek. There was >another article before that with even less information.... > >I've heard rumors/truths that Apple is very hesitant to have another OS >running on it's hardware, hence the need for Rundgren to team up >with applications companies to sell his software. Is this TRUE? Is the >only OS we'll see for the Mac is MacOS or AUX? > >Pity if true. Guess we'll all just have to settle for a Next.. d;^o ??? What, so that you can run just UNIX ??? I guess my ignorance shows. What other operating systems does the NeXT box run? By the way, the Mac can also run Messy-DOS with an add-on board. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (09/27/89)
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >By the way, the Mac can also run Messy-DOS with an add-on board. It can also run it with a nifty little product called Soft-PC, don't have a copy handy, perhaps netland could help me out with the manufacturer of this neat little package. The nice thing about Soft-PC is that it's a 100% software solutions for running MS-Dos. Ever tried running MS-Windows's on top of Soft-PC, I'm sure it could be very interesting. ;-) -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | God doesn't know, he would have never designed it like that in the first | |_ place. ____________________________________________________________________|
steve@cpdaux.UUCP (Steve Lemke) (09/27/89)
In a previous article, dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes: }>By the way, the Mac can also run Messy-DOS with an add-on board. } }It can also run it with a nifty little product called Soft-PC, don't have }a copy handy, perhaps netland could help me out with the manufacturer of }this neat little package. The nice thing about Soft-PC is that it's a }100% software solutions for running MS-Dos. The name of the company is Insignia Solutions, and their phone number is (408) 552-7600. } Ever tried running MS-Windows's on top of Soft-PC, I'm sure it could be }very interesting. ;-) Actually, the last time I spoke with them, I asked about that, and apparently that's what they do at the trade shows. Another favorite is to run Flight Simulator (PC version) on Soft PC. A friend of mine suggested the three-in-one demonstration, namely a Mac running MultiFinder (with lots of RAM), SoftPC w or w/o Window, and ][ in a Mac (Apple ][ emulator for the Mac). Three OS in one machine at the same time. -- ----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!" ----- Internet: cpdaux!steve@apple.com GEnie: LEMKE ----- Or try: apple!cpdaux!steve CompuServe: 73627,570 ----- Quote: "What'd I go to college for?" "You had fun, didn't you?"
ejd@iris.brown.edu (Ed Devinney) (09/27/89)
In article <35053@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > In article <158@edsr.eds.com> wjb@edsr.eds.com (Bill J Biesty) writes: [...] > >Pity if true. Guess we'll all just have to settle for a Next.. d;^o > ??? What, so that you can run just UNIX ??? I guess my ignorance shows. > What other operating systems does the NeXT box run? While the NextStep OS does not completely hide the evils of UN*X, it is much more of a real, user-friendly (hahahahaha whatever _that_ means) OS than"just UNIX". Were you trying to flame the competition, or were you really unawares? ed ++++++ ed devinney, IRIS/Brown University, Providence, RI...ejd@iris.brown.edu -- ...Elvis was a hero to most, but he didn't mean sh*t to me...(P.E.) --
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (09/27/89)
In article <16409@brunix.UUCP> ejd@iris.brown.edu (Ed Devinney) writes: > In article <35053@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > > In article <158@edsr.eds.com> wjb@edsr.eds.com (Bill J Biesty) writes: > [...] > > >Pity if true. Guess we'll all just have to settle for a Next.. d;^o > > ??? What, so that you can run just UNIX ??? I guess my ignorance shows. > > What other operating systems does the NeXT box run? > > While the NextStep OS does not completely hide the evils of UN*X, it is > much more of a real, user-friendly (hahahahaha whatever _that_ means) OS > than"just UNIX". > > Were you trying to flame the competition, or were you really unawares? > > ed Can't very well speak for good-buddy Keith, but I've been through NeXT developer training, and I really don't see how you can call NeXTStep an "OS" at all, unless you also call SunViews/NeWS an OS, or X-Windows with some Widget-set an OS. That doesn't mean that I don't LIKE NeXTStep (whatever exactly it consists of--I never did become clear on that point). I guess I should say that I basically think the user interface is ok, but where the NeXT is a big win is in how easy the thing is to program. I'm not convinced that their AppKit is any "better" in any technical sense or practical sense than MacApp is, but I AM convinced that the Interface Builder is "the right thing." The irony here is that Interface Builder was actually first implemented for one of ExperTelligence's Lisp products for the Macintosh. __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
phil@vaxphw.enet.dec.com (Phil Hunt) (09/28/89)
In article <1989Sep27.031443.4405@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes... }keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: }>By the way, the Mac can also run Messy-DOS with an add-on board. } } It can also run it with a nifty little product called Soft-PC, don't have }a copy handy, perhaps netland could help me out with the manufacturer of }this neat little package. The nice thing about Soft-PC is that it's a }100% software solutions for running MS-Dos. } } Ever tried running MS-Windows's on top of Soft-PC, I'm sure it could be }very interesting. ;-) }-- Yes, I have run windows under SoftPC under MacOS...Kinda neat....SoftPC even runs MS-DOS 4.01 OUT OF THE BOX without any mods... Now running the new DOSSHELL under MS-DOS under SoftPC under MACos is a blast! ================================================================== Phil Hunt "Wherever you go, there you are!!!" Digital Equipment Corporation Phone: (508)486-2164 ENET: VAXPHW::PHIL USENET: phil@vaxphw.enet.dec.com MOREUSENET: phil%vaxphw.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com EVENMORE: ....!decwrl!dec-vaxphw!phil
time@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres) (09/28/89)
NextStep is *not* an operating system. Mach is. Mach is the operating system on the NeXT. In fact, Mach is a really neat OS, but due to marketing implications, NeXT downplays Mach, and promotes the UNIX they emulate on top of it.
mnkonar@manyjars.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (09/28/89)
In article <TIME.89Sep27151911@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP> time@oxtrap.UUCP writes: >NextStep is *not* an operating system. >Mach is. Mach is the operating system on the NeXT. >In fact, Mach is a really neat OS, but due to marketing >implications, NeXT downplays Mach, and promotes the UNIX they >emulate on top of it. As I understand it, there is no "emulation" of UNIX on top of Mach, rather Mach is a UNIX variant (a cool one) that is compatible with Berkley UNIX 4.3 (or something; sorry kids, I'm no UNIX fan so I don't really know the lingo). What NeXT is doing in their marketing is trying to prevent the perception that UNIX and Mach are so divergent that never the twain shall meet (like um, MS-DOS and the MacOS) and that Mach and UNIX are similar where it counts (so you can run software compiled under Berkely UNIX on the CuBE). ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (09/28/89)
In article <32895@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@src.honeywell.com (Murat N. Konar) writes: >As I understand it, there is no "emulation" of UNIX on top of >Mach, rather Mach is a UNIX variant (a cool one) that is compatible >with Berkley UNIX 4.3 The mach kernel is a pretty basic operating system, providing only minimal services. You *always* put something "on top of" mach; in this way, it's somewhat like IBM's VM. NeXT has put 4.3bsd UNIX "on top of" mach; sometimes, this combination is referred to as "mach", but that's not *really* correct. Finally, NeXT has a windowing environment, called NeXTStep, that runs on top of UNIX, that runs on top of mach. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/28/89)
>The mach kernel is a pretty basic operating system, providing only >minimal services. You *always* put something "on top of" mach; >in this way, it's somewhat like IBM's VM. That's not true. It might be a goal of the mach project but for now the releases have been a 4.3bsd kernel with a bunch of changes mostly adding new IPC facilities, virtual memory features, thread support and several other things. It's a lot of interesting stuff but the above doesn't describe it. >NeXT has put 4.3bsd UNIX "on top of" mach; sometimes, this combination >is referred to as "mach", but that's not *really* correct. NeXT has done no such thing to my knowledge. CMU's Mach project developed what you see on the NeXT, and most of it before NeXT even existed. Let's give credit where credit is due. (Just a note: I was involved with Mach development at Encore Computer, they've been delivering mach on their parallel systems for about two years now.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade 1330 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 Internet: bzs@skuld.std.com UUCP: encore!xylogics!skuld!bzs or uunet!skuld!bzs
ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (09/28/89)
In article <528@cpdaux.UUCP>, steve@cpdaux.UUCP (Steve Lemke) writes: > A friend of mine suggested the three-in-one demonstration, namely a Mac > running MultiFinder (with lots of RAM), SoftPC w or w/o Window, and > ][ in a Mac (Apple ][ emulator for the Mac). Three OS in one machine at > the same time. > ----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!" Actualy you can add one more. MacIDRIS is a fully POSIX compatable port of UNIX that runs as an application under Multifinder on the Mac. So you can run MS-DOS, PRO-DOS, Finder, and UNIX all at the same time on the same machine. Pete Hoch
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (09/29/89)
In article <4399@internal.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes:
)> While the NextStep OS does not completely hide the evils of UN*X, it
)Can't very well speak for good-buddy Keith, but I've been through NeXT
)developer training, and I really don't see how you can call NeXTStep an
)"OS" at all, unless you also call SunViews/NeWS an OS, or X-Windows with
)some Widget-set an OS.
Don't worry about it; for a couple of years people kept calling the
Amiga OS "Intuition" (which is the UI support library).
Just goes to show how user interface programmers get all the visibility.
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "... the signs are very ominous,
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm and a chill wind blows."
- Justice Blackmun
Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.