daugher@cs.tamu.edu (Dr. Walter C. Daugherity) (07/13/90)
For your information, System 2.0 (to begin shipping this fall when the 68040 NeXTs do) will still run on the 68030 NeXTs, and NeXT is committed to making sure all programs WHICH CONFORM TO THE CURRENT NeXTSTEP 1.0 API will run under 2.0. (Note emphasis.) Also, 1.0 will not run on the 68040; but who would want to? (Unless of course the terrible even-numbered-versions-don't-run heuristic applies: many software packages etc. [which will remain nameless to protect the guilty] have a reasonably functional version 1 or 1.1, but then the vendor relaxes and says "Now we're shipping, let's put in all the things that didn't make it into version 1" and version 2 is a disaster. Then version 3 cleans things up and version 4 repeats the cycle. Well, you get the picture, and it's just a joke, but hey NeXT, don't let us down with a lot of new bugs in 2.0!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter C. Daugherity Internet, NeXTmail: daugher@cs.tamu.edu Knowledge Systems Research Center uucp: uunet!cs.tamu.edu!daugher Texas A & M University BITNET: DAUGHER@TAMVENUS College Station, TX 77843-3112 CSNET: daugher%cs.tamu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET ---Not an official document of Texas A&M---
declan@portia.Stanford.EDU (Declan McCullagh) (07/14/90)
Walter C. Daugherity writes... >For your information, System 2.0 (to begin shipping this fall when the >68040 NeXTs do) will still run on the 68030 NeXTs, and NeXT is committed to >making sure all programs WHICH CONFORM TO THE CURRENT NeXTSTEP 1.0 API will >run under 2.0. (Note emphasis.) Actually, I seem to remember that after the v0.9 to v1.0 System Software upgrade, NeXT promised that all programs which were compiled under v1.0 would run on any new version of the operating system... >Also, 1.0 will not run on the 68040; but who would want to? (Unless of >course the terrible even-numbered-versions-don't-run heuristic applies: >many software packages etc. [which will remain nameless to protect the >guilty] have a reasonably functional version 1 or 1.1, but then the vendor >relaxes and says "Now we're shipping, let's put in all the things that >didn't make it into version 1" and version 2 is a disaster. Then version 3 >cleans things up and version 4 repeats the cycle. Well, you get the picture, >and it's just a joke, but hey NeXT, don't let us down with a lot of new >bugs in 2.0!) Agreed, emphatically! Even BSD Unix has been like that. So far, the NeXT platform has been very stable (even under v0.9); I wouldn't like that to see that change now... -Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Olympic Technologies / Registered NeXT Developers \ declan@portia.stanford.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------