francisr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rob Francis) (01/18/91)
Has anyone tried this? We've brought one up and haven't had any problems yet. Does anyone forsee any problems? Rob Francis francisr@ucs.indiana.edu NeXT mail - francisr@arapahoe.ucs.indiana.edu
scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan17.165853.8248@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> francisr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rob Francis) writes:
Has anyone tried this? We've brought one up and haven't had
any problems yet. Does anyone forsee any problems?
I don't know what you want, exactly, but in the public interest:
1.0 executables run fine under 2.0, so long as they weren't excessive
in going underneath the OS. Example of excessive? XNeXT.
1.0 programs will, in general, compile under 2.0 fairly well. A
couple changes have been made in include files, which will
neccessitate changes in your code, but that isn't too hard.
The only problem I've had is that the libtext.a library
is gone. You can get it from NeXT, I think, but I just
copied a 1.0 version, and it seems to work fine.
2.0 programs will not run under 1.0. This is because too much of
the libraries have changed. More importantly:
2.0 .nib files are not compatible with 1.0. I found this out the
hard way. 1.0 .nib files work fine under 2.0, but once
saved from InterfaceBuilder in 2.0, you cannot read them
from InterfaceBuilder in 1.0. This extends further than
just the added objects in 2.0. A raw .nib file without
anything amazing does not move back to 1.0, either.
Of course, it is hard to see why one would go back to 1.0 once at
2.0, but I'm sure reasons will show up. I've not seen anything
nearly bad enough to warrent moving back yet, though . . .
--
scott hess scott@gac.edu
Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad
<I still speak for nobody>
"Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ."
"Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by
Richard Simmons . . ."grd@cm-next-9.Stanford.EDU (glen diener) (01/20/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Jan17170122@mcs-server.gac.edu> scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >In article <1991Jan17.165853.8248@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> francisr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rob Francis) writes: > Has anyone tried this? We've brought one up and haven't had > any problems yet. Does anyone forsee any problems? > >I don't know what you want, exactly, but in the public interest: > >1.0 executables run fine under 2.0, so long as they weren't excessive > in going underneath the OS. Example of excessive? XNeXT. >1.0 programs will, in general, compile under 2.0 fairly well. A > couple changes have been made in include files, which will ----stuff deleted---- >Of course, it is hard to see why one would go back to 1.0 once at >2.0, but I'm sure reasons will show up. I've not seen anything >nearly bad enough to warrent moving back yet, though . . . >-- >scott hess scott@gac.edu >Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad ><I still speak for nobody> >"Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." >"Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by >Richard Simmons . . ." Note that you cannot run a 2.0 netboot client from a 1.0 netboot server: the 2.0 client will get a copy of the 1.0 mach kernal, and its 2.0 init will die... glen diener grd@ccrma.stanford.edu