Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #133949 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-10 08:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 02:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:04 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:39 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 09:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 09:50 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:08 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:02 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:34 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:23 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 19:52 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:26 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 02:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 08:10 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:15 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:33 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:40 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2020-08-17 08:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 09:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-13 13:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 23:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 16:58 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:10 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:29 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 08:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:14 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-16 19:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 01:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-18 11:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 21:01 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 01:30 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-18 18:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 05:57 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:36 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 21:28 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:56 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2020-08-21 13:45 +0200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-16 16:13 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:23 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:37 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 13:46 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:48 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-17 14:56 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 15:21 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 18:05 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 05:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:38 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 23:51 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 08:25 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 21:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 21:55 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 23:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 23:48 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:22 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:33 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-24 13:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 23:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:19 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 19:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 16:35 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:01 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:42 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:03 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2020-08-10 14:16 +0100
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-08-11 10:04 +1200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:31 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 03:07 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:12 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 00:59 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 22:23 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 19:28 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 07:54 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:06 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 04:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj9g7j.unq.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134016 |
In message <rh29u7$iaa$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-12 5:25 p.m., nospam wrote: >> In article <rh1na0$ipe$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to >>>>> PowerPC from square one. >>>> >>>> They did though. >>> >>> Really? >> >> really. >> >>> You were privy to the inner workings of Apple's OS team just post the >>> purchase of NeXT, were you? >> >> were you? >> >> not that it matters, since apple publicly stated that it took a few >> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. > A few months... ...right. Fir just the kernel. > That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. JUST THE KERNEL. Porting Nextstep took years. -- I'm a trophy husband. That seems unlikely. I didn't say it was a first place trophy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 02:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Jj5ZG.286483$RF4.138591@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #134018 |
On 2020-08-13 00:26, Lewis wrote: >> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. > > JUST THE KERNEL. Porting Nextstep took years. Having compilers for target platform is one of the big initial steps. Getting kernel to boot and support the platform's archiecture, memory models, execution models etc is the other big one. Once you get to a point where you have booted to a poimt where you can issue a directory (ls in unix terms), the rest is a lot of recompiling and testing. the "Objective C" which started as a statdnard C proe processor ended up being included with GCC due to GPL licensing issues. Apple already had Obnjective C for AMc OS 8 or 9 for PowerpC at the time it bought next, so would have been able to resurrect NeXTStep for PowerPC using the early kernel worl on it and then recompiling the OpenStep application environment that was layered over NeXTSTEP and now other operating systems as well. As I stated before and while the Apple apologists refuse to admit, is that much of the work would have been to port the classic MacOS environment to NextSTEP so that it would be easy to port existing classic MQacOS applicatiosn to the new OS-X. Remember that Apple had spent years pr-Steve Jobs trying to develop a replacementf or Classic MacOS and had failed. They now have the NeXTSTEP operating system, but needed to customize the upper layers and APIs to make OS-X an evolution fron Mac OS-9.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 08:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj9tbd.191e.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134020 |
In message <Jj5ZG.286483$RF4.138591@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-08-13 00:26, Lewis wrote: >>> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. >> >> JUST THE KERNEL. Porting Nextstep took years. > Having compilers for target platform is one of the big initial steps. > Getting kernel to boot and support the platform's archiecture, memory > models, execution models etc is the other big one. > Once you get to a point where you have booted to a poimt where you can > issue a directory (ls in unix terms), the rest is a lot of recompiling > and testing. This is 1) entirely wrong 2) astonishingly ignorant and wrong. > Remember that Apple had spent years pr-Steve Jobs trying to develop a > replacementf or Classic MacOS and had failed. They now have the > NeXTSTEP operating system, but needed to customize the upper layers and > APIs to make OS-X an evolution fron Mac OS-9. OS X was not an evolution from OS 9. OS X was an entirely new thing, and evolution of NextStep, which had some OS 8/9 bolted on for compatibility and continuity. -- 'I'm a raven, aren't I?' it said. 'One of the few birds who speak. The first thing people say is, oh, you're a raven, go on, say the N word... If I had a penny for every time that's happened, I'd-'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 19:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nQjZG.121960$TO4.80537@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #134021 |
On 2020-08-13 04:10, Lewis wrote: > OS X was not an evolution from OS 9. OS X was an entirely new thing, and > evolution of NextStep, which had some OS 8/9 bolted on for compatibility > and continuity. So in your violent isults, you end up agreeing with what I have been saying for some time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <130820201947533153%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134029 |
In article <nQjZG.121960$TO4.80537@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > OS X was not an evolution from OS 9. OS X was an entirely new thing, and > > evolution of NextStep, which had some OS 8/9 bolted on for compatibility > > and continuity. > > > So in your violent isults, you end up agreeing with what I have been > saying for some time. nope, that's not what you were saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-14 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hpm4ekFftbsU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134033 |
On Aug 13, 2020 at 4:47:53 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <nQjZG.121960$TO4.80537@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >> > OS X was not an evolution from OS 9. OS X was an entirely new thing, and >> > evolution of NextStep, which had some OS 8/9 bolted on for compatibility >> > and continuity. >> >> >> So in your violent isults, you end up agreeing with what I have been >> saying for some time. > > nope, that's not what you were saying. Maybe if you spent less time insulting others and trying to prop yourself up you could learn. And teach. As it is you spend more time lashing out than talking tech. You get yourself so wrapped up in your nonsense you get to the point you argue copy and paste is the same thing as drag and drop (something even newbies quickly learn is not the case). I do think you DO know better -- but you have such a need to be "right" you twist basic ideas to push nonsense. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-14 03:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjc1u7.11bn.g.kreme@www.local> |
| In reply to | #134029 |
In message <nQjZG.121960$TO4.80537@fx05.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-08-13 04:10, Lewis wrote: >> OS X was not an evolution from OS 9. OS X was an entirely new thing, and >> evolution of NextStep, which had some OS 8/9 bolted on for compatibility >> and continuity. > So in your violent isults, you end up agreeing with what I have been > saying for some time. Nothing you have said has been correct. No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 08:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.24EAB35C008A84A3700005E3638F@news.supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #134020 |
On 13 Aug 2020, JF Mezei wrote (in article <Jj5ZG.286483$RF4.138591@fx43.iad>): > As I stated before and while the Apple apologists you’ve sunk so low as to follow _Arlen the Pervert Holder_ and yet expect people to take you seriously?! That must be some really good stuff that you’re smoking, there, boyo. > refuse to admit, is > that much of the work would have been to port the classic MacOS > environment to NextSTEP so that it would be easy to port existing > classic MQacOS applicatiosn to the new OS-X. nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 09:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <130820200925275913%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134016 |
In article <rh29u7$iaa$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > > > > ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few > > months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. > > A few months... ...right. for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. > That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other platforms. > > they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript > > with pdf. > PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript. not that close, but more importantly, not the same and required extensive changes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh48dn$m2n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134024 |
On 2020-08-13 6:25 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <rh29u7$iaa$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker > <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >>> >>> ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few >>> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. >> >> A few months... ...right. > > for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. > >> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. > > of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other > platforms. Including the PowerPC. > >>> they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript >>> with pdf. >> PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript. > > not that close, but more importantly, not the same and required > extensive changes. Very close, actually. It was created from Postscript without the flow control that makes Postscript a Turing-complete language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 19:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FTjZG.267832$0W4.49067@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #134028 |
On 2020-08-13 16:39, Alan Baker wrote: > Very close, actually. It was created from Postscript without the flow > control that makes Postscript a Turing-complete language. Display Postscript and the ability to rasterize PDFs was a totally separate software stack. Big picture, looks similar, but devil is in the details: change the APIs and you end up having to do big changes to your software. PDF also added a number of PDF-specific Postscript operators (such as pdfmark to build amn index, anchor links, forms etc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjbinr.ma2.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134028 |
In message <rh48dn$m2n$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-13 6:25 a.m., nospam wrote: >> In article <rh29u7$iaa$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few >>>> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. >>> >>> A few months... ...right. >> >> for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. >> >>> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. >> >> of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other >> platforms. > Including the PowerPC. You repeating it does not make it so. You continuing to make assumptions about something you have absolutely no proof of also does not make it so. NextStep was NOT ported to PowerPC until Apple did it as part of making OS X. That's just a fact. Projects that were never completed and resulted in no product or release and that we have no idea how far they progressed many years before are not the proof you think they are. You are simply wrong. -- "Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!" "Who's Scruffy looking?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <130820201947523066%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134028 |
In article <rh48dn$m2n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >>> ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few > >>> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. > >> > >> A few months... ...right. > > > > for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. > > > >> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. > > > > of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other > > platforms. > > Including the PowerPC. they *started* porting to the powerpc, but they did not complete it nor did they even complete the hardware. how far they got is pure speculation. ports to other platforms were completed, shipped to customers and supported for many years. > >>> they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript > >>> with pdf. > >> PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript. > > > > not that close, but more importantly, not the same and required > > extensive changes. > > Very close, actually. It was created from Postscript without the flow > control that makes Postscript a Turing-complete language. there are numerous differences. it's not a direct replacement. apple also rewrote substantially more than just that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-14 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hpm4hlFftbsU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134032 |
On Aug 13, 2020 at 4:47:52 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <rh48dn$m2n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker > <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >> >>> ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few >> >>> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. >> >> >> >> A few months... ...right. >> > >> > for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. >> > >> >> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. >> > >> > of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other >> > platforms. >> >> Including the PowerPC. > > they *started* porting to the powerpc, but they did not complete it nor > did they even complete the hardware. how far they got is pure > speculation. > > ports to other platforms were completed, shipped to customers and > supported for many years. > >> >>> they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript >> >>> with pdf. >> >> PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript. >> > >> > not that close, but more importantly, not the same and required >> > extensive changes. >> >> Very close, actually. It was created from Postscript without the flow >> control that makes Postscript a Turing-complete language. > > there are numerous differences. it's not a direct replacement. Did someone say it was a direct replacement in every way? > apple also rewrote substantially more than just that. Did anyone say otherwise? I have not followed the thread back but I am going to guess the answer is no. You make weird assumptions like this that you include in your comments. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-14 03:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjc23i.11bn.g.kreme@www.local> |
| In reply to | #134035 |
In message <hpm4hlFftbsU13@mid.individual.net> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 2020 at 4:47:52 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <rh48dn$m2n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> >>> >>> ...since apple publicly stated that it took a few >>> >>> months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. >>> >> >>> >> A few months... ...right. >>> > >>> > for the kernel, yes. for the rest, obviously not. >>> > >>> >> That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. >>> > >>> > of course, since next had already ported nextstep/openstep to other >>> > platforms. >>> >>> Including the PowerPC. >> >> they *started* porting to the powerpc, but they did not complete it nor >> did they even complete the hardware. how far they got is pure >> speculation. >> >> ports to other platforms were completed, shipped to customers and >> supported for many years. >> >>> >>> they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript >>> >>> with pdf. >>> >> PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript. >>> > >>> > not that close, but more importantly, not the same and required >>> > extensive changes. >>> >>> Very close, actually. It was created from Postscript without the flow >>> control that makes Postscript a Turing-complete language. >> >> there are numerous differences. it's not a direct replacement. > Did someone say it was a direct replacement in every way? Yes. >> apple also rewrote substantially more than just that. > Did anyone say otherwise? Yes. > I have not followed the thread back Obviously not very closely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj9g3s.unq.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134000 |
In message <rh1na0$ipe$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-12 2:29 p.m., Lewis wrote: >> In message <rh10mv$65c$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-12 5:27 a.m., Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>> On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: >>>>>> In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>>>> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >>>>>>> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >>>>>>> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... >>>> >>>>> ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype >>>>> hardware. >>>> >>>>> That's just a fact. >>>> >>>> It's misleading since ther was never any sort of release for either the boards >>>> or the OS. >>>> >> >>> Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to >>> PowerPC from square one. >> >> They did though. > Really? > You were privy to the inner workings of Apple's OS team just post the > purchase of NeXT, were you? I know that NeXT never had an OS that would run on a Mac, yes. I also know that it took over three years. You are simply making things up based on nothing at all. -- Reality is a curve. That's not the problem. The problem is that there isn't as much as there should be. According to some of the more mystical texts in the stacks of the library of Unseen University - (...) - at least nine-tenths of all the original reality ever created lies outside the multiverse, and since the multiverse by definition includes absolutely everything that is anything, this puts a bit of a strain on things. --Moving Pictures
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <110820201922081086%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #133968 |
In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >> I beleive the last one they had > >> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed > >> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot > >> loader stuff already. > > > > nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they > > were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just > > the kernel, not the entire thing. > > NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. then it doesn't count. lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. one example was porting mac os to motorola 88k, which was never finished and never shipped. his claim is the boot loader was done for powerpc. that is false on its face. the boot loader for whatever custom powerpc next hardware that may have existed in their lab in the early 1990s would be vastly different than a 1997 era powermac with open firmware. in other words, not useful at all. whatever else next might have done for powerpc would also be worthless. after apple bought next, they *started* porting nextstep/openstep to powerpc, and as i said, it took a few months to port the kernel, followed by a couple of years until they migrated the rest of the os. they did rewrite a lot of it, so it wasn't just a straight port. here's a timeline: <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133978 |
On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker > <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>> loader stuff already. >>> >>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >> >> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. > > then it doesn't count. > > lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". > > one example was porting mac os to motorola 88k, which was never > finished and never shipped. > > his claim is the boot loader was done for powerpc. that is false on its > face. > > the boot loader for whatever custom powerpc next hardware that may have > existed in their lab in the early 1990s would be vastly different than > a 1997 era powermac with open firmware. > > in other words, not useful at all. > > whatever else next might have done for powerpc would also be worthless. > > after apple bought next, they *started* porting nextstep/openstep to > powerpc, and as i said, it took a few months to port the kernel, > followed by a couple of years until they migrated the rest of the os. > they did rewrite a lot of it, so it wasn't just a straight port. Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they had already done most if not all of the work of porting NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. > > here's a timeline: > <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- > F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> > I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. NeXT was clearly working on a PowerPC workstation, and had actual prototype motherboards, so they also quite clearly had software to run on the inevitable wire-wrap machines they would have already created. In short, much of the work of porting NextSTEP/OpenSTEP to PowerPC had already been done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj7ob3.11fe.g.kreme@www.local> |
| In reply to | #133979 |
In message <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: >> In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> >>>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>>> loader stuff already. >>>> >>>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >>> >>> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. >> >> then it doesn't count. >> >> lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. > It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". No, it doesn't. They never used PowerPC. They LOOKED at using PowerPC. They THOUGHT abotu it. They abandoned those plans before they were completed. > Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they > had already done most if not all of the work of porting > NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. "Clearly" is always an indication that something is definitely not at all clear and is almost always an indication that the following statement is incorrect. >> here's a timeline: >> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- >> F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> > I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed > fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. Irrelevant, these are facts. You are free to provide proof they are wrong, if uch proof exists (it does not, this timeline has been confirmed by many people who worked at Apple at the time).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh10p0$65c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133989 |
On 2020-08-12 5:32 a.m., Lewis wrote: > In message <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: >>> In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>>>> loader stuff already. >>>>> >>>>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>>>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>>>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >>>> >>>> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. >>> >>> then it doesn't count. >>> >>> lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. > >> It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". > > No, it doesn't. They never used PowerPC. They LOOKED at using PowerPC. They > THOUGHT abotu it. They abandoned those plans before they were completed. They clearly didn't abandon them until a lot of work porting the OS would already have been done. > >> Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they >> had already done most if not all of the work of porting >> NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. > > "Clearly" is always an indication that something is definitely not at all clear > and is almost always an indication that the following statement is incorrect. > >>> here's a timeline: >>> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- >>> F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> > >> I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed >> fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. > > Irrelevant, these are facts. You are free to provide proof they are wrong, if > uch proof exists (it does not, this timeline has been confirmed by many people > who worked at Apple at the time). They had pre-production components. That means they had it working before that. Period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web