On 15 July 2016 at 22:29, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> Reminds me of horrible compatibility glitches with OS X in the early
>> days. E.g. one of my clients had Blue & White G3s on a Windows NT 4
>> network. (Later they pensioned them off, bought G5s, and gave th
On 17 July 2016 at 19:33, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> windows 95 - yea, even bill gates stated that windows 95 was the pinnacle.
Er, what? When?
> ease of installation - maybe due to the fact that the bulk, if not all of us
> here are experienced users, I've never understood the belly-aching
> concernin
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote:
>
> ...
> I think that dates/times were done pretty well on VMS with the exception
> of a couple of blunders - not going further back than 1858 for the base
> date and not having the system manage time in UTC while allowing
> individual users t
> > What is it that "sucked" about the VMS command line?
>
> I'm sure there were many, mostly small ones. Here are the ones big
> enough for me to remember after this many years (this was in the
> early-to-mid '80s):
>
> - No command-line editing. (Well, minimal: editing at end-of-line, but
>
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:12 PM, John Forecast wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:06 AM, John Forecast wrote:
> ...
> I suppose so. Rumor had it that P
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> with a little left over). Our largest Unibus machine was an 11/750
> (though we had an VAX 8300 w/DWBUA, and an NMI-based VAX 8350 as our
> largest machine, both purchased for supporting our VAXBI product
> line). I kept the 8300 and the 11/
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I recall that BSD was a great match for our 11/750. Never did succeed
> at getting HASP+bisync going on it though.
Oh? Which method/product were you trying? I used to do that every
day with our own boards. I had heard that some of our sal
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:12 PM, John Forecast wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:06 AM, John Forecast wrote:
>>>
...
I suppose so. Rumor had it that Phase I only existed on RSX, but it
appears that there was a PD
windows 95 - yea, even bill gates stated that windows 95 was the pinnacle.
ease of installation - maybe due to the fact that the bulk, if not all of us
here are experienced users, I've never understood the belly-aching concerning
installation. Not for DOS/windows, not for OS/2, not for BSD, no
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:06 AM, John Forecast wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> I suppose so. Rumor had it that Phase I only existed on RSX, but it
>>> appears that there was a PDP-8 implementation as well. Phase II was
>>> implemented on lots o
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 11:06 AM, John Forecast wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I suppose so. Rumor had it that Phase I only existed on RSX, but it appears
>> that there was a PDP-8 implementation as well. Phase II was implemented on
>> lots of DEC systems, from TOPS-10 to RT-11 to RSTS/E. My initial
>>
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 16, 2016, at 6:56 PM, Antonio Carlini wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The specs were (and are) freely available. (I'm not 100% sure that they were
>> free-as-in-beer back then, but they are now).
>
> I assume you had to pay for the cost o
On 15 July 2016 at 20:48, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> I guess I am glad that someone getting something positive from windows.
>
> I have never viewed it as any more than a virus distribution system with a
> poorly written GUI front end.
I am ambivalent. I don't particularly like it any more, but the
rea
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> ...
> I suppose so. Rumor had it that Phase I only existed on RSX, but it appears
> that there was a PDP-8 implementation as well. Phase II was implemented on
> lots of DEC systems, from TOPS-10 to RT-11 to RSTS/E.
By the way: starting
> On Jul 16, 2016, at 6:56 PM, Antonio Carlini wrote:
>
> ...
> The specs were (and are) freely available. (I'm not 100% sure that they were
> free-as-in-beer back then, but they are now).
I assume you had to pay for the cost of printing. They could be freely
reproduced, though, it says so e
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016, ste...@malikoff.com wrote:
In the mid 80s our Uni teaching 11/780 running VMS would groan and creak
under the strain of 50 students logged on. I was told that over at Sydney
Uni, their 11/780s were running a very modded and tweaked Unix and could
have a hundred or more stude
On 07/16/2016 15:21, ste...@malikoff.com wrote:
>
> In the mid 80s our Uni teaching 11/780 running VMS would groan and creak
> under the strain of 50 students logged on. I was told that over at Sydney
> Uni, their 11/780s were running a very modded and tweaked Unix and could
> have a hundred or mo
On 07/16/2016 03:21 PM, ste...@malikoff.com wrote:
> In the mid 80s our Uni teaching 11/780 running VMS would groan and
> creak under the strain of 50 students logged on. I was told that over
> at Sydney Uni, their 11/780s were running a very modded and tweaked
> Unix and could have a hundred or m
On 15/07/16 14:49, Swift Griggs wrote:
All I'm saying is that the presence of multiple IP stacks looks to me
to be unwieldy, organic, and incremental.
VMS came with DECnet built-in (although you had to license it). If you
wanted TCP/IP there was UCX, which you had to install separately.
The o
jonas said:
> VMS is an
> enterprise-grade operating system, designed for serious production work.
> At the time VMS was conceived, Unix was a university product, used for
> teaching and research, not for heavy production work.
In the mid 80s our Uni teaching 11/780 running VMS would groan and cre
6/2016 05:55 (GMT-08:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)
> From: Jonas
> At the time VMS was conceived, Unix was a university product, used for
> teaching and research, not for he
On 07/16/2016 10:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> IGS? Two colors? Don't recognize that. There's the 6000 console
> (DD60), very expensive, requiring a dedicated processor to feed it,
> and limited to uppercase text only plus very small amounts of
> graphics (a dot at a time, 3 microseconds per dot)
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 07/15/2016 05:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> Graphics terminals were quite rare in the early 1970s, at least at a
>> cost allowing them to be installed in the hundreds, and with
>> processing requirements low enough for that. I remember,
On Jul 16, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> From: Jonas
>
>> At the time VMS was conceived, Unix was a university product, used for
>> teaching and research, not for heavy production work.
>
> Err, not quite. In the mid-70's, the PWB system at Bell:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
> From: Jonas
> At the time VMS was conceived, Unix was a university product, used for
> teaching and research, not for heavy production work.
Err, not quite. In the mid-70's, the PWB system at Bell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWB/UNIX
was being used by a community of about 1K
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Sean Conner wrote:
What I've read about VMS makes me think the networking was
incredible.
To be fair, I think you have to think about what was around when VMS
was developed, and what DEC was competing with. VMS is an
enterprise-grade operating system, designed for seriou
On Jul 15, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I remember, around the same time, the Tektronix 4010. But that was
>> far less flexible; it could only draw, not erase, unlike the PLATO terminals.
>
> The 4010 can erase just fine. The pr
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I remember, around the same time, the Tektronix 4010. But that was
> far less flexible; it could only draw, not erase, unlike the PLATO terminals.
The 4010 can erase just fine. The problem is that it can't do
selective erase, only
full-screen
On 07/15/2016 05:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> Graphics terminals were quite rare in the early 1970s, at least at a
> cost allowing them to be installed in the hundreds, and with
> processing requirements low enough for that. I remember, around the
> same time, the Tektronix 4010. But that was far
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:08:40AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>>> ...
>
> IP won over OSI *hualp* and whatever else insanity was out there because
> it a) works, b) is reasonably simply to implement (yes, I know, a full up,
> modern TCP/IP
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>>
>> * It had graphics, but ran on terminals!
>
> Graphics terminals were a thing that existed. It wasn’t just PLATO that used
> them.
Graphics terminals were quite rare in the early 1
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:08:40AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also
> > proprietary, seldom used,
>
> I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that
> at the time (I don't think I have it handy now) I thought was
> suffi
On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> * It had graphics, but ran on terminals!
Graphics terminals were a thing that existed. It wasn’t just PLATO that used
them.
-- Chris
>> I'm not sure I agree. The VMS command line I used sucked, but so
>> did Unix shells of the time, and in many of the same ways.
> What is it that "sucked" about the VMS command line?
I'm sure there were many, mostly small ones. Here are the ones big
enough for me to remember after this many ye
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> Reminds me of horrible compatibility glitches with OS X in the early
> days. E.g. one of my clients had Blue & White G3s on a Windows NT 4
> network. (Later they pensioned them off, bought G5s, and gave the B&Ws
> to me! :-) )
Woot! The benefits of work
I guess I am glad that someone getting something positive from windows.
I have never viewed it as any more than a virus distribution system with a
poorly written GUI front end.
Jerry
On 07/15/16 12:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 15 July 2016 at 00:39, Jerry Kemp wrote:
I still judge OS/2 to
On 14 July 2016 at 19:42, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> I had forgot myself until I recently started messing with OS8.1 again.
Me too, until I restored a bunch of my Macs to sell them before I left the UK.
> Anecdotally, lately I've felt that 7.6 + Open Transport was a bit more
> stable than 8.1.
I'l
On 15 July 2016 at 07:37, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> I think TCP networking on VMS is a bit of a bodge, but back when I
> used it every day in the 1980s, we didn't _have_ any Ethernet
> interfaces in the entire company - *everything* we did was via sync
> and async serial. How well do you think it woul
On 15 July 2016 at 07:24, wrote:
> As a comp sci student I loved using VMS on our 11/780s at Uni, from first
> year through final year where we also had the use of a Gould PN6080 UNIX mini.
> (Aside - the Gould had one good drive, one flaky. The OS and staff accounts
> were on one, student accoun
On 14 July 2016 at 22:50, Swift Griggs wrote:
> Strengths versus Unix:
> * More granular authentication/authorization system built in from very
>early days I'm told. "capabilities" style access control, too.
> * Great hardware error logging that generally tells you exactly what's
>wrong
On 15 July 2016 at 00:39, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> I still judge OS/2 to be one of the better x86 options for the early and mid
> 1990's.
Oh, definitely, yes. It truly was "a better DOS than DOS and a better
Windows than Windows".
Then MS moved the goalposts and improved Windows and leapfrogged it -
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> ...
> Cool things about PLATO:
> * It had graphics, but ran on terminals!
> * It could do animations in the content
> * It supported speech synthesis. Blind folks want to play too!
> * Cool people were involved (NSF, Navy, Air Force, m
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> Sounds great. I never saw a PLATO terminal. :-( Wish I had now!
I wish they'd had a few at schools I attended. I think someone on the list
mentioned that PLATO content could be viewed on Apple hardware, too. The
wikipedia article on it is very detailed.
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> On 15 July 2016 at 17:57, Paul Koning wrote:
> ...
>> Actually, if you want to see really good online help -- vastly better even
>> than that of VMS -- take a look at PLATO. To become a PLATO programmer, all
>> you'd need was for the adm
On 15 July 2016 at 17:57, Paul Koning wrote:
> Not to mention "HELP ADVANCED WOMBAT".
:-)
I spent /hours/ reading that. At first I was looking around for the
hidden camera because I was convinced someone was playing a very
sophisticated practical joke on me at work...
> Actually, if you want to
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> On 14 July 2016 at 22:43, Mouse wrote:
>> As for VMS HELP, I don't think the tool is all that much better; what
>> is _much_ better is the documentation it contains. DEC documentation
>> of the VMS era was _awesome_. Even today I rarely s
On 14 July 2016 at 19:34, Fred Cisin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>>>
>>> meeting. I'm guessing I will never be a BMW fan or a NeXT bigot.
>>
>> Wouldn't know. I don't do cars. I like BMW bikes, though. Had an R80/7
>> with a sidecar for many years.
>
>
> I like BMW bikes, and
> > That said, it was easier (to me) to write full-on apps and utilities in
> > DCL than sh or csh.
>
> [...] Fortunately, most folks seem to
> agree and csh is pretty niche these days. That's not to say there aren't
> very enthusiastic users of csh, too.
*tcsh*, yes. I now find it very diffic
On 14 July 2016 at 19:57, Mouse wrote:
> Personally - I went through my larval phase under it - I'd cite VMS as
> a counterexample. Even today I think a lot of OSes would do well to
> learn from it. (Not that I think it's perfect, of course. But I do
> think it did some things better than most
On 14 July 2016 at 22:43, Mouse wrote:
> As for VMS HELP, I don't think the tool is all that much better; what
> is _much_ better is the documentation it contains. DEC documentation
> of the VMS era was _awesome_. Even today I rarely see it equaled,
> never mind bettered, in many ways.
HELP WO
On 14 July 2016 at 22:51, Jerry Kemp wrote:
>
> I'm missing something here. Although most did/are using the Apple supplied
> GUI/Aqua, it wasn't a requirement.
>
> I have/run OpenWindows (compiled for OS X/PPC), and also, although mostly
> for fun, have a copy of the Mosaic web browser, also comp
On 14 July 2016 at 23:51, Peter Coghlan wrote:
> What is it that "sucked" about the VMS command line? I used it a lot and I
> had some issues here and there but I found it to be streets ahead of any other
> command line system I came across on anything else anywhere.
>
> (Not that I think we shou
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> Indeed. As you've seen, I use both. No need to be all "Commodore vs
> Atari" about it. ;-)
Hehe, I forgot about that. Here I am liking both of those, now too. I
think I was playing with Hatari yesterday and eUAE last week !
> I mean vs ethernet-type
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>> It was a huge deal in the late 80s and into the 90s. I was on both
>> sides, so mostly, I watched.
>
> This thread has definitely been the most civil discussion and set of
> anecdotes I've seen when
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> It was a huge deal in the late 80s and into the 90s. I was on both
> sides, so mostly, I watched.
This thread has definitely been the most civil discussion and set of
anecdotes I've seen when folks discuss VMS and Unix in the same thread. I
usually don
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Richard Loken wrote:
>> And I don't get this notion about lifting the network code out of Tru64
>> since VAX/VMS had UCX (not my favourite network package) before the
>> Alpha and associated OSF/1, Digital Unix, Tru64 Unix
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Mouse wrote:
>
>> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also
>> proprietary, seldom used,
>
> ...
> However, IIRC it also has a fairly small hard limit on the number of
> hosts it supports. I don't remember exactly what the limit is;
> differe
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Mouse wrote:
>
>> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also
>> proprietary, seldom used,
>
> I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that
> at the time (I don't think I have it handy now) I thought was
> sufficient t
> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also
> proprietary, seldom used,
I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that
at the time (I don't think I have it handy now) I thought was
sufficient to write an independent implementation, both for Ethernet
and
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Richard Loken wrote:
> And I don't get this notion about lifting the network code out of Tru64
> since VAX/VMS had UCX (not my favourite network package) before the
> Alpha and associated OSF/1, Digital Unix, Tru64 Unix. The candidate for
> lifting code would be Ultrix whic
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 14:41, Richard Loken wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Mouse wrote:
>
>>> Personally, given the mess of MultiNet, TCP/IP Services, and TCPWare,
>>> I wouldn't make that statement about networking *at all*.
>>
>> If you think of "networking" as being "IP-based networking", ye
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
> Big Fat Disclaimer: I know very little about VMS. I'm a UNIX zealot.
>
> I work with a lot of VMS experts and being around them has taught me a lot
> more about it than I ever thought to learn
> ... I don't see any point in "UNIX vs VMS" w
Swift said:
> I think VMS is neat.
As a comp sci student I loved using VMS on our 11/780s at Uni, from first
year through final year where we also had the use of a Gould PN6080 UNIX mini.
(Aside - the Gould had one good drive, one flaky. The OS and staff accounts
were on one, student accounts and
> Am 13.07.2016 um 16:29 schrieb Eric Christopherson
> :
>
>> QuickDraw was almost literally the first code running on the Mac once it
>> switched to 68K.
>>
>
> Was there a pre-68K period in Mac development?
Yes, 6809: http://www.folklore.org -> search for 6809.
Regards
Götz
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Mouse wrote:
Personally, given the mess of MultiNet, TCP/IP Services, and TCPWare,
I wouldn't make that statement about networking *at all*.
If you think of "networking" as being "IP-based networking", yeah,
probably. But there's a lot more to networking than just IP.
Spe
> Personally, given the mess of MultiNet, TCP/IP Services, and TCPWare,
> I wouldn't make that statement about networking *at all*.
If you think of "networking" as being "IP-based networking", yeah,
probably. But there's a lot more to networking than just IP.
Specifically, I was talking about DEC
>
> > But having used VMS (as a student), the command line *sucked* (except
> > for the help facility---that blows the Unix man command out of the
> > water).
>
> I'm not sure I agree. The VMS command line I used sucked, but so did
> Unix shells of the time, and in many of the same ways.
>
What i
Thanks for the comments, it's always educational to get the viewpoints and
experiences from others, on items that are "shared ground".
I didn't mean to come off like an OS/2 fanatic. I started using OS/2 around
1990, early 1991 at the latest, and short of Unix (I wasn't a Unix fanatic at
the
It was thus said that the Great Swift Griggs once stated:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Sean Conner wrote:
> > What I've read about VMS makes me think the networking was incredible.
>
> Big Fat Disclaimer: I know very little about VMS. I'm a UNIX zealot.
>
> I work with a lot of VMS experts and being a
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> I'm missing something here. Although most did/are using the Apple
> supplied GUI/Aqua, it wasn't a requirement.
Perhaps there is a way to run an X11 server without Aqua, but I don't know
of it. However, I'm far from an OSX expert.
> I have/run OpenWindo
I was running a 3 node VAXcluster in the late 1980s. We had two 8550s and
an 8820 connected via a CI star coupler to two HSC70 storage controllers
and 24 RA81 drives; two upright tape (TU78s?) drives too. The drives were
connected to both HSC70s in RAID 1 pairs. We had 11 pairs, a spare and a
quoru
On 07/14/16 12:42 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
Hmm. I didn't run into anyone who was a dyed-in-the-wool Apple fan who
wasn't over-the-moon excited about OSX. I thought it was pretty cool,
myself. However, on freeware UNIX variants I'm the guy who often just gets
sick of having graphics at all (eve
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Sean Conner wrote:
> What I've read about VMS makes me think the networking was incredible.
Big Fat Disclaimer: I know very little about VMS. I'm a UNIX zealot.
I work with a lot of VMS experts and being around them has taught me a lot
more about it than I ever thought to l
>> [...] VMS [...]
> What I've read about VMS makes me think the networking was
> incredible.
For its time, certainly. Even today, there are a few things a DECnet
stack does better than an IP stack.
> But having used VMS (as a student), the command line *sucked* (except
> for the help facility--
It was thus said that the Great Mouse once stated:
> >> All the now-nostalgicized-over '80s OSes were pretty horribly
> >> unstable: [...]
>
> Personally - I went through my larval phase under it - I'd cite VMS as
> a counterexample. Even today I think a lot of OSes would do well to
> learn from
>> All the now-nostalgicized-over '80s OSes were pretty horribly
>> unstable: [...]
Personally - I went through my larval phase under it - I'd cite VMS as
a counterexample. Even today I think a lot of OSes would do well to
learn from it. (Not that I think it's perfect, of course. But I do
think
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> That was one of the things people didn't talk about in the classic days.
> I supported classic MacOS Macs up until the early noughties. They were
> horribly unstable.
I had forgot myself until I recently started messing with OS8.1 again.
Anecdotally, la
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
meeting. I'm guessing I will never be a BMW fan or a NeXT bigot.
Wouldn't know. I don't do cars. I like BMW bikes, though. Had an R80/7
with a sidecar for many years.
I like BMW bikes, and even the imitations (Ural, Dnepr).
I love the Isetta, but somehow
On 12 July 2016 at 20:06, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> I vaguely recall seeing some in a mag at the time. It looked a bit like
>> Mac apps running on CDE, if I remember correctly. The in-window menus
>> were weird (for a Mac) and made it look more Windows-like.
On 13 July 2016 at 07:39, Chris Hanson wrote:
> (How do you think it was possible for there to be multiple OS releases for
> the Mac after the first Mac 128 shipped? They didn’t tell people to crack
> open their systems and install new ROMs…)
Apple didn't, no. But Commodore, Atari and Acorn di
It was thus said that the Great Eric Christopherson once stated:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Chris Hanson
> wrote:
>
> > QuickDraw was almost literally the first code running on the Mac once it
> > switched to 68K.
> >
>
> Was there a pre-68K period in Mac development?
Yes. The proje
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Chris Hanson
wrote:
> QuickDraw was almost literally the first code running on the Mac once it
> switched to 68K.
>
Was there a pre-68K period in Mac development?
--
Eric Christopherson
On Jul 12, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> That was the ROM code, right? I'm curious about that, myself. I guess that
> it can all be software emulated.
ROM is software.
> I suppose they could have created some
> kind of software mechanism to capture those calls and redirect them to
On Jul 12, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>
> I'm really interested to
> see how they reimplemented the Toolbox under these circumstances,
There’s nothing particularly special about the Mac Toolbox and Operating System
per se. Pretty much anyone could have attempted to develop a clean-
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, s...@hoffart.de wrote:
> > No doubt! That rarely ends well. Emulation is a tough gig.
> Executor is no emulator, and it does not seem that NuTek was/had one,
> too. It is just a (more or less) compatible clone of APIs. In principle
> as System 7 was one of System 6 - also not
> Swift Griggs :
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> Low End Mac looks into the history of the effort to produce a
>> Motif-based, clean-room Mac compatible computer in the early nineties.
>
> Bizzaro-world. It's like Executor on steriods
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> I'm really interested to see how they reimplemented the Toolbox under
> these circumstances, [...]
That was the ROM code, right? I'm curious about that, myself. I guess that
it can all be software emulated. I suppose they could have created some
kind
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> Of course, today, GNUstep is something very broadly akin to this, and
> almost nobody pays any attention to it. :-( There have been a couple
> of LiveCDs, never updated, and TTBOMK nobody has ever produced a
> GNUstep-based Linux distro.
>
I
TL;DL
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> > I vaguely recall seeing some in a mag at the time. It looked a bit like
> > Mac apps running on CDE, if I remember correctly. The in-window menus
> > were weird (for a Mac) and made it look more Wi
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> I vaguely recall seeing some in a mag at the time. It looked a bit like
> Mac apps running on CDE, if I remember correctly. The in-window menus
> were weird (for a Mac) and made it look more Windows-like.
That's about what I'd expect. I wonder if it coul
On 12 July 2016 at 18:10, Swift Griggs wrote:
> Bizzaro-world. It's like Executor on steriods
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28software%29) . I never knew
> that there was such a beast. I couldn't even find a screenshot. I wanted
> to see how the blend of MacOS and MOTIF looked (that's
> > Low End Mac looks into the history of the effort to produce a
> > Motif-based, clean-room Mac compatible computer in the early nineties.
>
> Bizzaro-world. It's like Executor on steriods
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28software%29) . I never knew
> that there was such a beast.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> Low End Mac looks into the history of the effort to produce a
> Motif-based, clean-room Mac compatible computer in the early nineties.
Bizzaro-world. It's like Executor on steriods
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28software%29) . I never knew
t
Low End Mac looks into the history of the effort to produce a Motif-based,
clean-room Mac compatible computer in the early nineties.
http://lowendmac.com/2016/nutek-mac-clones/
--
Sent from my phone - please pardon brevity & typos.
94 matches
Mail list logo
