From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 00:22:53 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/1/98 2:51 AM, Jonathan Hendry wrote: >That could only happen if Apple decides that Quicktime is their only >product, and kills everything else. Quicktime is important for Apple, >but not as important as Yellow Box. Try as I might, I just can't see Apple (the company) making any serious inroads into the Enterprise market. It's not in Apple's DNA. Yellow Box, EOF and WebObjects might be good dev tools for this market, but not coming from Apple. A company like Microsoft (or, much less likely, another one that plays both in the UNIX and Windows market like HP or Compaq/Digital) could do much more (and faster) with these technologies than Apple can aspire to. Why not leverage that and recoup the $430 million (paid to get them) and gain further advantage with QuickTime, which Apple has been able to nurture well? QT is Apple's last best technology and something that can propel them into markets that can provide growth for them. YB/EOF/WO are the Apple technologies most desirable to the rest of the world that Apple can (learn to) do without. Ziya From sanguish at digifix.com Fri May 1 00:29:10 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> References: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805010729.DAA06963@digifix.com> Ziya Oz wrote: > On 5/1/98 2:51 AM, Jonathan Hendry wrote: > >That could only happen if Apple decides that Quicktime is their only > >product, and kills everything else. Quicktime is important for Apple, > >but not as important as Yellow Box. > > Try as I might, I just can't see Apple (the company) making any serious > inroads into the Enterprise market. It's not in Apple's DNA. Yellow Box, > EOF and WebObjects might be good dev tools for this market, but not > coming from Apple. > YellowBox is much more important than just the Enterprise market. It gives Apple Developers the incentive to stick with Apple by eliminating the need to choose Apple OR Microsoft. You get both for the same engineering costs. From jhendry at cmg.fcnbd.com Fri May 1 00:25:48 1998 From: jhendry at cmg.fcnbd.com (Jonathan Hendry) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true References: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805010725.CAA04003@isdnjhendry.cmg.fcnbd.com> > On 5/1/98 2:51 AM, Jonathan Hendry wrote: > >That could only happen if Apple decides that Quicktime is their only > >product, and kills everything else. Quicktime is important for Apple, > >but not as important as Yellow Box. > > Try as I might, I just can't see Apple (the company) making any serious > inroads into the Enterprise market. It's not in Apple's DNA. Yellow Box, > EOF and WebObjects might be good dev tools for this market, but not > coming from Apple. > The enterprise has nothing to do with it. Apple needs YellowBox to keep their OS alive, because the MacOS toolbox and API's are outdated, crufty, and old. Nobody's starting major new Mac toolbox apps unless they absolutely have to. At least YellowBox gets them onto Windows too. Apple needs YellowBox if they want people to write Mac software. No Mac software, no Mac. No Mac, no Apple. - Jon From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 01:01:40 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805010748.AAA02410@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/1/98 3:35 AM, Scott Anguish wrote: > YellowBox is much more important than just the Enterprise market. > > It gives Apple Developers the incentive to stick with Apple by >eliminating the need to choose Apple OR Microsoft. Well, those very developers can use Microsoft YB to create software for the Mac. And the reason why they want to do that is that Apple would be making serious growth gains in education, home, content creation, cable/TV/web markets with technologies built around QuickTime, and not because Apple is bleeding to death trying to convince the business/enterprise markets to take it seriously. Ziya From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 01:21:05 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805010808.BAA07944@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/1/98 3:43 AM, Andrew Abernathy wrote: >Too late - WebObjects has _already_ made serious inroads into the >enterprise market. I'm not trying to doubt what you're positing but I have never seen actual figures as to how many WO licenses Apple has sold since acquiring it and what money they've made on it. I'd love to see it. >(Indeed, WebObjects is where the good majority of our >business is nowadays.) You might argue that that won't continue now that >Apple owns and markets WebObjects, and maybe it will indeed drop off - but >Apple's had WebObjects for over a year now, and we've seen the market >continue to grow at a good clip. About three months ago, I emailed an analyst/editor at one of the largest consultancy groups (which has a sterling reputation in the printing/publishing industries) and asked him when they were going to review/recommend WebObjects, as they had a lengthy review of WO competitors from Kiva to SilverStream. He said they had published one two years ago when WO first came out and recommended it then since it was miles ahead of everything else. But, since it was acquired by Apple it dropped off their radar screen. I asked him why. He responded that he actually surveyed marketing/advertising efforts made by each of those products and concluded that WO's had dropped off noticeably since the Apple acquistion. He said he had no idea where Apple was taking the product. It's just one anectode. And I like WO but unless yours is one of the very corporations Apple's reps have targeted, you wouldn't even know that WO exist today. I hope that changes. >And all indications from my point of view is that Yellow Box is going to >be the future for Apple; I guess that we'll find out at WWDC. It's not so >much enterprise-oriented, certainly. The programmer, licensing, financial, hosting and hardware requirements to develop with and deploy WO clearly put it at a level only a select group of corporations can afford today. I think a review of current WO customers would bear this out. Ziya From stefan.huy at stud.uni-hannover.de Fri May 1 05:05:07 1998 From: stefan.huy at stud.uni-hannover.de (Stefan Huy) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Re(2): How to GUI Message-ID: <199805011204.OAA00348@studserv.stud.uni-hannover.de> >>I can't use two applications at once, but I can switch between them >>rapidly. I don't count something running in the background as using two >>applications. Can anyone use two different applications simultaneously? >> >By your definition, people don't use two apps at the same time since the >foreground app is the one you're working on and background apps don't >count. Here is some of my personal usage. For Internet downloads, like say >a 15 MB file (Communicator, game demos, etc. I do it surprisingly a lot), >I'd like to know how much has been downloaded without having to switch to >the application. For Win95, this amount is continuously updated in the >task's button on the taskbar (whence it's minimized). I usually have Excel, >KaleidaGraph, an FTP program and a couple of terminals to a Unix >workstation open at the same and all doing something to the same data. It >would be nice to have a CLI interface (like tcsh), a spreadsheet, and a >plotting program all on the same machine just operating on one file, but >that's unavailable to me right now. I'm sure the programmers who do 3 hour >compiles have better experience at it. Hm, I don't know, but it seems that I am the only one wo's running his Mac with 5 to 10 Apps open at a time, with many of them doing their task in the background. For Internet Explorerr on the Mac you have a download manager, displaying all the downloads, including the download rate and a progress bar for each of them. In addition IE gives the files being downloaded different icons with a little progressbar inside, so that you alway can look at their download state, if they a placed at the desktop. Most of the other background stuff mentioned are Internet tools (FTP, TELNET etc.) and there is a video monitor running now and then :) So the statement that MacOS does no multitasking simply isn't true. Ok, the tasks aren't preempted and the context switches seem to consume more time than necessary, but actually it works. And though I prefer Rhapsody, I still find MacOS system usable for this kind of multitasking. >>NextStep (sorry, just can't take the all-caps anymore :) can certainly do >>more tasks at once, but I don't think that the user is using more apps at >>once. >> >Services and Bundles changes everything. For Mail.app, I could always find >the proper synonym or the definition of a word by highlighting a word and >pressing CMD = which brings up Webster.app, or reformat text by pressing a >certain CMD key in a certain app I can't quite recall right now. After >leaving NEXTSTEP (when NeXT pretty much became a Windows tools developer >and WebObjects company and left it on maintenance mode), I got NT. I got MS >Bookshelf. Then I bought a dictionary and thesaurus, and let me tell you, >that wasn't that much fun compared to NEXTSTEP which was just a CMD-key >away. This applies to any app btw, not just Mail. Yes, Services are a great (and simple) productivity extension to the whole system. >In all these cases, it was always an advantage know what apps where running >and what they were doing. Having it hidden underneath the app icon in >MacOS's menubar would be uncomfortable to say the least. Using it to switch >applications would be even worse. Well, there are so many task bars out there for MacOS. Or just use one of those nifty extension for the MAcOS' control strip to have services on tasks available, that you simply don't get with the Windows task bar. OneClick also does a great job here. >Additionally, once you start to tax your >system in CPU, disk, and memory usage, it starts to become important to >know what the status of your system is so you can do something about it, or >just know what's going on. Agreed. Even if you simply shouldn't have to care about such things nor have to tune the system "by hand". cu -Stefan __Stefan Huy___________________________________________________________ ____ ______ mailto:huy@stud.uni-hannover.de ________ http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/~huy ______________________________________________________________________ From Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk Fri May 1 04:41:12 1998 From: Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk (mmalcolm crawford) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199805011141.MAA03817@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> You wrote: > > However what's interesting is that with Rhapsody Apple doesn't > > necessarily have to compete with Wintel, just with Windows. > > apple still has to compete with intel, because that's where they get money. > > if apple decides to drop the ppc or adopt intel too, and they decide to > make a macos emulator environment for their intel machines, then they could > concentrate on competing with windows... but for now they do need to > compete with intel as long as they remain in the hw business... > At the moment, yes -- notice I wrote "with Rhapsody", and "doesn't necessarily"... mmalc. From Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk Fri May 1 04:36:11 1998 From: Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk (mmalcolm crawford) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010808.BAA07944@denmark.it.earthlink.net> References: <199805010808.BAA07944@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805011136.MAA03811@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> Ziya wrote: > And I like WO but unless yours is one of the very > corporations Apple's reps have targeted, you wouldn't even know that WO > exist today. I hope that changes. > This is simply Not True. We're seeing increased interest in WebObjects from a wide range of people, many of whom most definitely have not been contacted by Apple reps. > The programmer, licensing, financial, hosting and hardware requirements > to develop with and deploy WO clearly put it at a level only a select > group of corporations can afford today. I think a review of current WO > customers would bear this out. > Umm, WO is availabe to education for $99 -- that includes unlimited level deployment. Best wishes, mmalc. From Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk Fri May 1 04:31:54 1998 From: Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk (mmalcolm crawford) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> References: <199805010710.AAA21321@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805011131.MAA03805@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> Ziya wrote: > Try as I might, I just can't see Apple (the company) making any serious > inroads into the Enterprise market. It's not in Apple's DNA. Yellow Box, > EOF and WebObjects might be good dev tools for this market, but not > coming from Apple. > Our customers think different. > A company like Microsoft (or, much less likely, another one that plays > both in the UNIX and Windows market like HP or Compaq/Digital) could do > much more (and faster) with these technologies than Apple can aspire to. > > Why not leverage that and recoup the $430 million (paid to get them) and > gain further advantage with QuickTime, which Apple has been able to > nurture well? > > QT is Apple's last best technology and something that can propel them > into markets that can provide growth for them. > The enterprise market does not provide an opportunity for growth?! > YB/EOF/WO are the Apple technologies most desirable to the rest of > the world that Apple can (learn to) do without. > Like developers...? And WO is of no interest to Apple's current customers?! Best wishes, mmalc. From Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk Fri May 1 03:10:54 1998 From: Malcolm_Crawford at plsys.co.uk (mmalcolm crawford) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Another debate on YB for Solaris In-Reply-To: <199804301846.OAA06429@bretweir.total.net> References: <199804301846.OAA06429@bretweir.total.net> Message-ID: <199805011010.LAA03761@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> Louis wrote: > >> Sun would benefit from having a GUI, > >> > >I don't think Sun would be impressed by that argument at all. > > > > I was refering by "having a GUI" a complete GUI that allowed a complete > administration of a network, rather than having to go to a cli. > Why do I get the impression that some people here have never used Unix, and still believe that the only interface Unix has is the CLI..? Solaris certainly does have GUI tools for tasks like user management, and various other things. The user management tool is good enough that the first time I used it I was able to do what I needed without referring to the documentation. I hope that the tools for Rhapsody will be more elegant and easier to use, and offer greater flexibility and familiarity to Mac users. > If you > had the choice between setting a Sun by a GUI (well done, of course) > rather than with a CLI; what would you choose... This is what I meant. > It depends what I was wanting to do. Since you asked, sometimes *for me*, the CLI is better. Please please please don't start this debate again. Best wishes, mmalc. From lavoie at cst.ca Fri May 1 06:26:06 1998 From: lavoie at cst.ca (Martin-Gilles Lavoie) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 Message-ID: Recently, someone pointed out a details on how OpenStep is implemented on NT. I thought this details was somewhat scary; What was said is that, although OpenStep (and presumably, Rhapsody for NT/95) uses "real" NT/95 windows, their actual content are drawn using DPS and YB's code, preventing such things as using QA automation tools. I was wondering if someone could clarify a few things: -How does OpenStep reacts to user UI color changes in NT/95? (does it change it's own colors to be more consistant?) -Does this mean no macro utilities (QuickKeys) work inside OS applications? -How do users perceive OS applications on NT/95? The reason I ask these things is that, until not long ago, MicroSoft used their cross development tools to bring software to the Macintosh. Those applications were generally badly perceived by the Mac community, and not seen as "real" Mac applications. They often looked un-Mac-like, felt sluggish, took loads of RAM and disk space, and did not function properly. Martin-Gilles Lavoie | "No! Try not. Do, or do not. Mac OS programmer, CS&T | There is no try." lavoie@cst.ca | -- Yoda on error handling From pat at qhp.queensu.ca Fri May 1 07:27:53 1998 From: pat at qhp.queensu.ca (Pat Taylor) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010633.XAA06490@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Ziya wrote: >How far is the day when Apple sells (not licenses, sells) Yellow Box (and >related technologies that can be used with Windows) to Microsoft in >exchange for Microsoft not competing with QuickTime for at least three >years and bundling it with Windows? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind ... ______________________________________________________________ Patrick Taylor Kingston, Ontario, CANADA mailto:pat@qhp.queensu.ca http://www.stepwise.com "These are my principles, if you don't like them ... I've got others." --Groucho Marx From pat at qhp.queensu.ca Fri May 1 08:10:55 1998 From: pat at qhp.queensu.ca (Pat Taylor) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010808.BAA07944@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Ziya wrote: >The programmer, licensing, financial, hosting and hardware requirements >to develop with and deploy WO clearly put it at a level only a select >group of corporations can afford today. I think a review of current WO >customers would bear this out. Hmmm ... if you examine the licensing costs of Netscape Application Server (formerly Kiva) or pretty much any other web application software, you'll see that WebObjects is actually quite competitive. And few of these development environments are as mature as WebObjects ... As an example, Netscape Application Server will set you back $25,000 per cpu on NT and $35,000 per cpu on Solaris, HP-UX and IRIX. Fact is that ANY robust web application development environment is still too expensive for the mass market not just WebObjects. However, the Yellow Box will include runtimes of both WebObjects and Enterprise Objects Framework, so the number of potential seats using WO/EOF share will grow along with the Yellow Box. Cheers, Patrick ______________________________________________________________ Patrick Taylor Kingston, Ontario, CANADA mailto:pat@qhp.queensu.ca http://www.stepwise.com "These are my principles, if you don't like them ... I've got others." --Groucho Marx From ellis at nfts-createc.org.uk Fri May 1 09:07:29 1998 From: ellis at nfts-createc.org.uk (Ellis Pritchard) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 References: Message-ID: <3549F341.661F32F2@nfts-createc.org.uk> Hi, Martin-Gilles Lavoie wrote: > Recently, someone pointed out a details on how OpenStep is implemented on > NT. I thought this details was somewhat scary; > > What was said is that, although OpenStep (and presumably, Rhapsody for > NT/95) uses "real" NT/95 windows, their actual content are drawn using DPS > and YB's code, preventing such things as using QA automation tools. Indeed, this is the case (at least with OpenStep 4.2); although actually QA Automation tools can pick up Menu commands (menus are attached to the window). > -How do users perceive OS applications on NT/95? The one major difference is that the Multiple Document View (MDI) system is not supported; personally I find this one of the most annoying features of Windows, but it does mean that OpenStep applications don't look like Windows ones; e.g. the supplied TextEdit application; every new document opens another top-level window with it's own Menu (and it's own entry on the Taskbar) which can get messy. I'm not sure how tricky it would be to force applications to use MDI Child windows for every window opened; e.g. NSApplication opens an CMDIFrameWnd by default (assuming MFC), to which it attaches the NSMenu, and then all NSWindows are effectively CMDIChildWnds; the NSWindows are then the only things that have PostScript rendered into them. Thus applications which open multiple documents open them within the same frame and menu context. Surely this would be pretty simple to implement? > The reason I ask these things is that, until not long ago, MicroSoft used > their cross development tools to bring software to the Macintosh. Those > applications were generally badly perceived by the Mac community, and not > seen as "real" Mac applications. They often looked un-Mac-like, felt > sluggish, took loads of RAM and disk space, and did not function properly. I agree, it's dead important; and as to what one can do about any new controls added to Windows in the future (e.g. by IE), I'm not sure, except to make sure that the MiscKit dudes keep up! Ellis. From jhendry at cmg.fcnbd.com Fri May 1 09:20:21 1998 From: jhendry at cmg.fcnbd.com (Jonathan Hendry) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 References: <3549F341.661F32F2@nfts-createc.org.uk> Message-ID: <199805011620.LAA04228@isdnjhendry.cmg.fcnbd.com> >The one major difference is that the Multiple Document View (MDI) system is >not supported; personally I find this one of the most annoying features of >Windows, but it does mean that OpenStep applications don't look like Windows >ones; e.g. the supplied TextEdit application; every new document opens another >top-level window with it's own Menu (and it's own entry on the Taskbar) which >can get messy. Last I recall, Microsoft was deprecating MDI in favor of 'SDI', which is the OpenStep way. Delphi, Navigator, and Internet Explorer all use SDI. Newer versions of old apps (MS Office, Painter, Quicken) still use MDI, though. - Jon From louispel at total.net Fri May 1 10:28:23 1998 From: louispel at total.net (Louis Pelletier) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Another debate on YB for Solaris Message-ID: <199805011727.NAA14932@bretweir.total.net> mmalcolm crawford at "Malcolm_Crawford@plsys.co.uk" said on 01/05/98 10:19 : >Louis wrote: >> >> Sun would benefit from having a GUI, >> >> >> >I don't think Sun would be impressed by that argument at all. >> > >> >> I was refering by "having a GUI" a complete GUI that allowed a complete >> administration of a network, rather than having to go to a cli. >> >Why do I get the impression that some people here have never used Unix, >and >still believe that the only interface Unix has is the CLI..? > >Solaris certainly does have GUI tools for tasks like user management, and >various other things. The user management tool is good enough that the >first >time I used it I was able to do what I needed without referring to the >documentation. > I know. >I hope that the tools for Rhapsody will be more elegant and easier to use, >and offer greater flexibility and familiarity to Mac users. This is all I meant by this thread. Sincerely, L. Pelletier. From sal at panix.com Fri May 1 10:41:16 1998 From: sal at panix.com (Sal Denaro) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 In-Reply-To: <199805011620.LAA04228@isdnjhendry.cmg.fcnbd.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 May 1998, Jonathan Hendry wrote: > >The one major difference is that the Multiple Document View (MDI) system is > >not supported; personally I find this one of the most annoying features of > Last I recall, Microsoft was deprecating MDI in favor of 'SDI', which > is the OpenStep way. Delphi, Navigator, and Internet Explorer all use SDI. > Newer versions of old apps (MS Office, Painter, Quicken) still use MDI, > though. IIRC, the MSDN articles on MDI state that it should only be used if all the windows in an App display the same kind of data (like a WP or SpreedSheet) It should not be used in PIMs of Database front ends where each MDI window shows a different type of form. I think this makes sense as a rule of thumb. This explains why OutLook97 is SDI. That makes me wonder why IE isn't MDI, since every page it opens is of a HTML page and why VCpp is MDI, since it has source, resource, output and project windows all in the same MDI frame. Both of these Apps were writen after the Win95 UI guidelines were printed. I guess MS can't even stick to it's own standards. :) If anyone cares, I'll do a search on this and post the results. Personaly, I couldn't care one way or another about MDI vs SDI. As long as I can restore or minimize all the windows in my App at the same time, I'm just fine with it. -- sal@panix.com Salvatore Denaro "The reality of the software business today is that if you find something that can make you ridiculously rich, then that's something that Microsoft is going to take away from you." -- Max Metral From glenn at suntimes.com Fri May 1 11:00:57 1998 From: glenn at suntimes.com (Glenn Carnagey) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Another debate on YB for Solaris In-Reply-To: <199805011010.LAA03761@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> Message-ID: <199805011802.NAA24593@clavin.interaccess.com> At 07:20 AM 5/1/98 -0700, you wrote: >Why do I get the impression that some people here have never used Unix, and >still believe that the only interface Unix has is the CLI..? > >Solaris certainly does have GUI tools for tasks like user management, and >various other things. The user management tool is good enough that the first >time I used it I was able to do what I needed without referring to the >documentation. >From a user standpoint, I think Solaris is nearing the point where the CLI is more a luxury for advanced users to get power, flexibility and speed as opposed to something you sometimes have to resort to due to a deficient CDE client. Took aeons, but I think they're getting there. And, for some, it's a comfort to know the familiar toolset is there even when you don't need it. This was definitely true of the DR1 as well, one of the first things I had to do was go in and manually make a resolve.conf. I wouldn't necessarily say the admintool is there yet, but it's definitely come a long way, as have the package manager and the installation scripts and the various other CDE tools. One thing I'd love to see Apple steal from Sun is the multiple workspaces and an easy way to flip between them, or less good, a scrolling virtual workspace like with Windows. Almost as cool as the old screen program that let you flip between various telnet sessions at a single VT100. ;-) >I hope that the tools for Rhapsody will be more elegant and easier to use, >and offer greater flexibility and familiarity to Mac users. Yeah, me too. But I'm also looking forward to having the UI, YB, Mac Apps, Unix Apps, *and* crontab and solid uptime and system logging and signal levels and shell scripts and dumping nightly new db records and piping the good stuff to mail, all without my active participation. Et cetera. YMMV. > jhendry@cmg.fcnbd.com > Last I recall, Microsoft was deprecating MDI in favor of 'SDI', which > is the OpenStep way. Delphi, Navigator, and Internet Explorer all use SDI. > Newer versions of old apps (MS Office, Painter, Quicken) still use MDI, > though. True. Ironically, the MDI app where I personally find it most annoying is Eudora. Seems like SDI is generally gaining momentum, however. _____________________________________ Glenn Carnagey Webmaster, Chicago Sun-Times 401 N. Wabash, Rm. 513 glenn@suntimes.com, www.suntimes.com 312.321.2603, fax 312.321.2849 _____________________________________ From jg at cs.umass.edu Fri May 1 11:04:02 1998 From: jg at cs.umass.edu (John Greene) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Ha ha In-Reply-To: <199805011136.MAA03811@pheasant.plsys.co.uk> Message-ID: >From www.macosrumors.com >Friday, April 31st, 1:08 PM EDT > ^^^^ >A severe head flu has struck a sizable enough part of the Rumors team as to >make a full update today impossible; however, through a virally induced haze, >a trickle of information has flowed in. It is summarized below: > > Let's see: How did that jingle go? "30 days has November.... ...." Just thought I'd share :) -- . Qapla', . ' John Greene - Software Specialist . * . Computer Science Computing Facility ` University of Massachusetts Amherst Web: Mac: -jg (jg@cs.umass.edu) LET'S GO FLYERS - THINK DIFFERENT From petro at playboy.com Fri May 1 13:55:35 1998 From: petro at playboy.com (Petro) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 12:01 PM -0600 5/1/98, Sal Denaro wrote: >frame. Both of these Apps were writen after the Win95 UI guidelines were >printed. I guess MS can't even stick to it's own standards. :) Nawww, Really? From sanguish at digifix.com Fri May 1 13:39:23 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805010748.AAA02410@denmark.it.earthlink.net> References: <199805010748.AAA02410@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805012039.QAA09584@digifix.com> Ziya Oz wrote: > On 5/1/98 3:35 AM, Scott Anguish wrote: > > >YellowBox is much more important than just the Enterprise market. > > > >It gives Apple Developers the incentive to stick with Apple by > >eliminating the need to choose Apple OR Microsoft. > > Well, those very developers can use Microsoft YB to create software for > the Mac. Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? > And the reason why they want to do that is that Apple would be > making serious growth gains in education, home, content creation, > cable/TV/web markets with technologies built around QuickTime, and not > because Apple is bleeding to death trying to convince the > business/enterprise markets to take it seriously. > You aren't listing to what is being said.. > > > > Ziya From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 14:09:21 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012056.NAA15633@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/1/98 4:43 PM, Scott Anguish wrote: > Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. Ziya From louispel at total.net Fri May 1 14:13:26 1998 From: louispel at total.net (Louis Pelletier) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012112.RAA09036@bretweir.total.net> Ziya Oz at "ziyaoz@earthlink.net" said on 01/05/98 16:57 : >> Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? > >The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. > >Ziya Uhh?? What is this about? From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 14:39:02 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012126.OAA08486@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/1/98 5:19 PM, Louis Pelletier wrote: >>The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. >Uhh?? What is this about? I proposed Apple selling YB to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft not competing with QuickTime for at least three years and bundling it with Windows. Ziya From rhapsody at willamesd.k12.or.us Fri May 1 14:33:51 1998 From: rhapsody at willamesd.k12.or.us (rhapsody) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805012112.RAA09036@bretweir.total.net> Message-ID: >Ziya Oz at "ziyaoz@earthlink.net" said on 01/05/98 16:57 : > >>> Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? >> >>The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. >> >>Ziya > >Uhh?? What is this about? i think he's refering to a writer's opinion that apple should sell the yellow box to microsoft in exchange for microsoft not competing with quicktime. heh, heh, yeah, i know... anyway, my two cents: all apple needs to do is convince developers (yes, including windows developers) that the yellow box is the perfect development environment, much easier that microsofts tools; plus they have the ability to deploy on an additional platform. that's all apple needs to do. it shouldn't be that hard if the yellow box is as good as touted. then developers could just ship the yellow box on the cd with their programs. once those programs are using the yellow box, even if the company doesn't care to market a rhapsody version apple can still tout that it said programs will work on its platform, thus increasing its developer base to include previously windoze developers. my two cents. ?? whaddaya think ?? From sanguish at digifix.com Fri May 1 14:50:00 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805012056.NAA15633@denmark.it.earthlink.net> References: <199805012056.NAA15633@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199805012150.RAA10162@digifix.com> Ziya Oz wrote: > On 5/1/98 4:43 PM, Scott Anguish wrote: > > >Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? > > The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. > This is delusional... Give away the only API advantage that Apple has that gives them any chance at a future so that Microsoft can massage it just like they have Java so that its is Microsoft centric.. A totally insane idea... I can't see anyone on the board being left after the shareholders killed them off.. From louispel at total.net Fri May 1 14:57:11 1998 From: louispel at total.net (Louis Pelletier) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012156.RAA06941@pablo.total.net> Ziya Oz at "ziyaoz@earthlink.net" said on 01/05/98 17:29 : >On 5/1/98 5:19 PM, Louis Pelletier wrote: > >>>The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. > >>Uhh?? What is this about? > >I proposed Apple selling YB to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft not >competing with QuickTime for at least three years and bundling it with >Windows. > >Ziya > lolol... I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are so stupid!!! You are one of those naive people thinking that if M$ has not already baught Apple, Compaq, Sun, SGI, DELL, Netscape and others; that this is because they didn't want to... You also are so stupid to think that M$ has something to offer instead of QuickTime... Maybe you also think that M$ is a great company, that they invented the computer and that, by 10 years, this planet will be called Micro$oft instead of Earth... Maybe you also think that Gates brought us all that wonderfull technology because God gave it to him? Maybe you're also wondering why M$ hasn't already bought the US government instead of fiddling with the DOJ? lolol I don't know if you will just be rejected from this list, anyway, I've just added an action in Emailer to put you were you belong: the trash. Louis Pelletier (still laughing.. lol) From ghp at techline.com Fri May 1 15:04:59 1998 From: ghp at techline.com (Grays Harbor Paper, L.P.) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805012150.RAA10162@digifix.com> Message-ID: <199805012207.PAA03909@mx2.techline.com> Finally, some one puts this thread to death! At 02:52 PM 5/1/98 -0700, Scott Anguish wrote: >Ziya Oz wrote: >> On 5/1/98 4:43 PM, Scott Anguish wrote: >> >> >Just what is the Microsoft YB that you are referring to? >> >> The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. >> > > This is delusional... > > Give away the only API advantage that Apple has that gives them any >chance at a future so that Microsoft can massage it just like they have Java >so that its is Microsoft centric.. > > A totally insane idea... I can't see anyone on the board being left >after the shareholders killed them off.. > > > Grays Harbor Paper, L.P. Technical Department 801 23rd Street Hoquiam, Washington 98550 (360) 538-5713 ghp@techline.com contact: Ben Hohman Be well, do good work, and keep in touch. -G. Kellior The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shore of imagination. Think Different. From cmh at greendragon.com Fri May 1 12:57:10 1998 From: cmh at greendragon.com (Chris Hanson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 10:12 AM -0500 5/1/98, Pat Taylor wrote: >Hmmm ... if you examine the licensing costs of Netscape Application Server >(formerly Kiva) or pretty much any other web application software, you'll >see that WebObjects is actually quite competitive. And few of these >development environments are as mature as WebObjects ... And how badly are these Web development environments being beaten in the market by the comination of msql, dbm, or flat files, Apache, and Perl? Or even IIS and ASP on NT? For a lot of people on a limited budget -- especially ISPs that do small-scale web design, internal groups building small-scale intranets, and small businesses -- these are the only real options for building web applications. >Fact is that ANY robust web application development environment is still >too expensive for the mass market not just WebObjects. However, the Yellow >Box will include runtimes of both WebObjects and Enterprise Objects >Framework, so the number of potential seats using WO/EOF share will grow >along with the Yellow Box. It bears repeating that Apple's development environments for all of the above (OpenStep [Yellow Box], WebObjects, and EOF) need to be realistically priced for their use to really take off. "Realisitcally" meaning less than US$1000 for the batch... From setzer at backfence.net Fri May 1 08:44:53 1998 From: setzer at backfence.net (Setzer Family) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805012126.OAA08486@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: re: Ziya's proposal I'm not convinced Microsoft represents much of a threat to QuickTime and related technologies anyway, even on the Windows platform. Consider: * Serious computer-based multimedia developers choose QuickTime far more often than AVI (or ActiveMovie or whatever it is this week). * Nobody--and I mean nobody--other than Microsoft and a few people they paid off uses MS SurroundVideo--everyone uses QuickTimeVR for panoramic photo/movie work. * QuickTime file format was recently adopted for the next generation MPEG. * Jury's still out on Direct3D vs QD3D; they both might get their butts kicked by OpenGL anyway. MS has OpenGL in their OS but it's not a profit center for them; Apple ought to put in OpenGL themselves but if they don't Conix has a good implementation for MacOS and will probably develop one for Rhapsody. QuickTime seems to be one of the few areas where MS' attempts to clone Apple have not made much headway in the market. I see no incentive on Apple's part for the deal you propose. Steve Setzer >I proposed Apple selling YB to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft not >competing with QuickTime for at least three years and bundling it with >Windows. > >Ziya From bradytrix at ameritech.net Fri May 1 10:51:49 1998 From: bradytrix at ameritech.net (BradyTrix) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <19980501224042.BFPB5202@[199.179.162.175]> >Is Jobs is gonna blow it again? The RhapsodyOS Report >http://www.rhapsodyos.com/report is saying Apple is not going to license >Rhapsody on PPC for clone hardware vendors. This certainly doesn't bode >well for the long term future of the PowerPC. Apple never exploits leading >edge technology and as the leading user of PowerPC chips they won't drive >the technology to higher limits. Without PowerPC licensing and the third >party market for PowerPC processors and interface chips, PowerPC technology >will be eclipsed by Merced. Don't forget that Job's said that "the future of rhapsody could be in the merced chip". (or so rumors said...well...someone said.) From louispel at total.net Fri May 1 15:56:43 1998 From: louispel at total.net (Louis Pelletier) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012256.SAA29735@bretweir.total.net> Ziya Oz at "ziyaoz@earthlink.net" said on 01/05/98 17:39 : >On 5/1/98 5:19 PM, Louis Pelletier wrote: > >>>The one Apple sells to Microsoft in exchange for relief on QuickTime. > >>Uhh?? What is this about? > >I proposed Apple selling YB to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft not >competing with QuickTime for at least three years and bundling it with >Windows. > >Ziya I know realise my mistake. I guess I took it a bit "madly". To Ziya and others, I sincerely apologize. But I maintain my position about Ziya proposition... this is completly annoying, at least. But, as you think, this doesn't allow me to make a post like I did. So, to all, and especially to Ziya, I apologize, Louis Pelletier. From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Fri May 1 16:19:03 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805012306.QAA23155@denmark.it.earthlink.net> >I'm not convinced Microsoft represents much of a threat to QuickTime and >related technologies anyway, even on the Windows platform. With well over a billion dollars already invested in cable companies, VXtreme, Progressive Networks and WebTV and its obvious interest in HDTV, set-top boxes, etc., it's hard for me to think that Microsoft will let QuickTime, QT-derived MPEG-4 or any other non-Microsoft standard dominate that space. It may or may not be successful in the end, but it sure will try to flatten the competition. This is a gigantic growth area and Microsoft has to find a place to park its unstoppable revenue stream. To that end, we now have the Advanced Streaming Format (ASF) and the Advanced Authoring Format (AAF). ASF is a format for streaming media distribution. AAF enables the exchange of media among digital production tools and content creation applications. The two will become the new default multimedia file formats for Windows succeeding AVI by 1999. Now the supporters of AFS are rather interesting because they include Adobe, Avid, Digidesign, and Softimage. The first three used to be MacOS-only, QuickTime bulwarks. Throw in there the perennial Windows-fellow travelers Truevision and Matrox, and you've got most of digital video manufacturers today. (More on this at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,20744,00.html) Apple needs breathing room for QuickTime to get itself established in the *new* digital video space of web, cable/set-top boxes, DVD and HDTV. Apple with QuickTime has a much better chance of succeeding in this space in a potentially huge market than it can with YB/Rhapsody in the business/enterprise market it has never been successful in. Therein lies the thought of YB for QT exchange. Ziya From rm at objectdata.com Fri May 1 16:43:18 1998 From: rm at objectdata.com (Robert MacKimmie) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Missing amenities ... Message-ID: <9805012343.AA00292@objectdata.com> Like the regretful lack of the Online Webster's Dictionary presently missing from the Rhapsody desktop, today I was sorely missing the online complete works of Shakespeare. Always pleasant to take a moment to use your favorite computer desktop in looking up just 'who' newly discovered moons are named after: Astronomers name Uranus's new moons WASHINGTON (Reuters) May 1, 1998 - The astronomers who found two small moons orbiting Uranus last year have decided to name them Caliban and Sycorax, after characters mentioned in Shakespeare's play The Tempest. From pat at qhp.queensu.ca Fri May 1 17:09:28 1998 From: pat at qhp.queensu.ca (Pat Taylor) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805012306.QAA23155@denmark.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: >>I'm not convinced Microsoft represents much of a threat to QuickTime and >>related technologies anyway, even on the Windows platform. >To that end, we now have the Advanced Streaming Format (ASF) and the >Advanced Authoring Format (AAF). ASF is a format for streaming media >distribution. AAF enables the exchange of media among digital production >tools and content creation applications. The two will become the new >default multimedia file formats for Windows succeeding AVI by 1999. We don't have ASF and AAF ... these are only preliminary proposals. Remember how ActiveMovie was going to be a QuickTime killer and now it's barely even mentioned? Microsoft has virtually no attention span in the video market ... as soon as they realize that they've overmarketed their technology (usually a week after it hits the market), they gather the usual suspects together and announce the next revolutionary technology. BTW, ASF was the rejected format when Quicktime 3 was selected as the foundation technology for MPEG-4. So the Motion Picture Experts Group didn't think it was going to be a worthwhile technology to base the international standard on!!! >Now the supporters of AFS are rather interesting because they include >Adobe, Avid, Digidesign, and Softimage. The first three used to be >MacOS-only, QuickTime bulwarks. Throw in there the perennial >Windows-fellow travelers Truevision and Matrox, and you've got most of >digital video manufacturers today. (More on this at: >http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,20744,00.html) The first three are actually only two since Digidesign is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avid (which is itself now partially owned by Intel). There is nothing particularly new about AAF since it is based on Avid's OMF video interchange format (the big difference is the linkage to COM). Adobe has traditionally supported both Quicktime and AVI so there's no surprise in their two-timing. Most Silicon Valley companies will send a couple of engineers to pretty much any working group, if only to know what the sponsoring company is up to. It doesn't mean that there is strong support there ... BTW, this is from OMFI's (the group that manages Avid's OMF) AAF press release: "This effort is complementary to Avid's continuing efforts to bridge OMFI technology to Apple's QuickTime, providing even more powerful collaboration among content creation professionals." >Apple needs breathing room for QuickTime to get itself established in the >*new* digital video space of web, cable/set-top boxes, DVD and HDTV. Until there are dramatic changes in infrastructure, only video on the web actually needs Quicktime ... the raw MPEG-2 format covers cable, settop, DVD and HDTV ... and Quicktime can encompass that. >Apple with QuickTime has a much better chance of succeeding in this space >in a potentially huge market than it can with YB/Rhapsody in the >business/enterprise market it has never been successful in. Therein lies >the thought of YB for QT exchange. Apple should do its best to integrate QuickTime into the Yellow Box ... I think that it is absolutely essential that Apple converts Quicktime into a full-fledged Objective C framework on the par with AppKit and Foundation. I'd like to see these technologies evolve together. Cheers, Patrick ______________________________________________________________ Patrick Taylor Kingston, Ontario, CANADA mailto:pat@qhp.queensu.ca http://www.stepwise.com "These are my principles, if you don't like them ... I've got others." --Groucho Marx From lmb at panix.com Fri May 1 22:10:46 1998 From: lmb at panix.com (Lance Ball) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Missing amenities ... In-Reply-To: <9805012343.AA00292@objectdata.com>; from Robert MacKimmie on Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:57:24PM -0700 References: <9805012343.AA00292@objectdata.com> Message-ID: <19980502011046.02642@panix.com> On 05/ 1, Robert MacKimmie rambled pointlessly: > > Like the regretful lack of the Online Webster's Dictionary presently missing > from the Rhapsody desktop, today I was sorely missing the online complete > works of Shakespeare. Always pleasant to take a moment to use your favorite > computer desktop in looking up just 'who' newly discovered moons are named > after: > > Astronomers name Uranus's new moons > WASHINGTON (Reuters) May 1, 1998 - The astronomers who found two small moons > orbiting Uranus last year have decided to name them Caliban and Sycorax, > after characters mentioned in Shakespeare's play The Tempest. Caliban: Prospero's half-human servant Sycorax: Caliban's mother(?) Caliban is an actual character. Sycorax is only mentioned. -- | Lance Ball | Imagination is greater than knowledge. -- A.E. | 97 E9 02 55 96 39 AE C9 FC AE D1 AF 46 6A AB 7D | H: lmb@panix.com, W: lance.ball@neterra.com, S: ball7717@cs.nyu.edu From scott at cacti.org Sat May 2 01:42:42 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805020833.BAA22865@proxy3.ba.best.com> > Give away the only API advantage that Apple has that gives them any >chance at a future so that Microsoft can massage it just like they have >Java >so that its is Microsoft centric.. Besides, Microsoft already stole the QuickTime API -- and paid for it. - Scott ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From scott at cacti.org Sat May 2 02:09:29 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805020900.CAA14522@proxy4.ba.best.com> Although we have fallen off-topic, there is a wrong to be righted here.... >Now the supporters of AFS are rather interesting because they include >Adobe, Avid, Digidesign, and Softimage. SoftImage is Microsoft. And Intel pretty much owns Avid, right? Looking at the site: It looks like Microsoft developed this thing in 1996 and it was approved by Adobe, Avid, Real Networks and Vivo in August of 1997. By checking the timeline, Steve had just made his first speech at Macworld (the MS one), so it's understandable why Adobe would see little future in Apple at that point. Things have changed dramatically in the last seven months, pariticuarly in the way of QuickTime. To further twist the plot, the insiders will notice that around this time, Microsoft had just been caught red-handed with "borrowing" QuickTime. Make your own conclusions. My instinct tells me that Steve Jobs would smart enough to see this one coming, and has already dealt with it in one form or another. Lastly, since QuickTime is already an established standard, all Apple has to do is support AAF and ASF in QuickTime 3.1. Just to throw gas on the fire, the AAF Q&A is just dripping with classic Microsoft: What is the Microsoft Multimedia Task Force? The Task Force is a group of companies organized by Microsoft to >>>drive improvements to the Microsoft Windows platforms<<< for content creation tools and authoring applications. Each member company is a recognized leader in its field of expertise. When further projects are defined the members of the Task Force will likely change to include additional expertise in other areas. [....] Will AAF only work on Windows? AAF will be supported on multiple platforms: Windows, Macintosh, Unix and other operating systems. (all done with this topic, I promise!) - Scott ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From scott at cacti.org Sat May 2 02:15:00 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: YB Perception on NT/95 Message-ID: <199805020905.CAA07538@proxy3.ba.best.com> >Personaly, I couldn't care one way or another about MDI vs SDI. As long as >I can restore or minimize all the windows in my App at the same time, I'm >just fine with it. Here's my thought on this -- I'd like to be able to see more than one app at once. :) ....although that dark grey empty area in MDI is kind of relaxing. - Scott ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From scott at cacti.org Sat May 2 02:18:44 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Quote from Microsoft Message-ID: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> No joke! "The future of Windows is now, using devices and technology you already know. The future of Windows is more like a walk down a well-known street than a giant leap forward for humankind." ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From ziyaoz at earthlink.net Sat May 2 02:24:20 1998 From: ziyaoz at earthlink.net (Ziya Oz) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805020911.CAA11832@denmark.it.earthlink.net> On 5/2/98 5:09 AM, Scott Stevenson wrote: >It looks like Microsoft developed this thing in 1996... Wrong. Do yourself a favor and check it out: More streaming from Microsoft By Erich LueningStaff Writer, CNET NEWS.COM April 3, 1998, 8:25 a.m. PT at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,20744,00.html Ziya From scott at cacti.org Sat May 2 11:26:16 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805021817.LAA01886@proxy3.ba.best.com> >>It looks like Microsoft developed this thing in 1996... > >Wrong. > >Do yourself a favor and check it out: "First Draft of ASF Specification. --------------------------------- In 1996, Microsoft developed a preliminary version of ASF and implemented it within its NetShow(tm) streaming server and client products." ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From jshomphe at scott.skidmore.edu Sat May 2 12:46:56 1998 From: jshomphe at scott.skidmore.edu (Joseph Shomphe) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: OpenStep 4.2 For Black Hardware Message-ID: <199805021946.PAA15859@scott> Can registered developers still download OS 4.2 for NeXT machines from Apple...I know it was already seeded. If so..from where? From ismail at iglou.com Sat May 2 16:12:15 1998 From: ismail at iglou.com (Ismail Tabtabai) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: Halaw, If it's true that all the PPC OS's are going to run on Mach kernel (namely Rhpsody, MacOSX.XX and MkLinux); would the old arguement discussed on the list, whether Rhapsody will tun MacOS as an emulation or not, be trivial anymore? Since all the OS processes will be sent to one kernel. I'm thinking it is not since the kernel is the actual entity that communicates with the Hardware! Am I thinking right? Also, would it also be possible to run MkLinux along with MacOS? Meaning, if the filesystem of MkLinux and MacOS are made to be compatible with that of Rhapsody, would you only need to double click on the application to use it; whether it is made for Rhapsody, MacOS, or MkLinux since all know which library built them and are supposedly linked to it. Am I right? Am I dreaming of a very futuristic OS? I think if this visionary look, supposedly thought by apple, is true, then all OS's would like to port their code to run on a stadrad Mach kernel. This is almost an evolutionary step in standardizing the OS market, from having each OS with very specific requirements, to all which require only a kernel that is compatible with all Hardware. If this is only a dream of my imagination, since the flu has infected me too and I usually go into the metaphysical world during which time;-), is this idea possible with todays available technology? Can it be accomplished? Regards Ismail. From abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Sat May 2 18:14:35 1998 From: abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: <199805030114.SAA08802@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >Halaw, > If it's true that all the PPC OS's are going to run on Mach kernel (namely >Rhpsody, MacOSX.XX and MkLinux); would the old arguement discussed on the >list, whether Rhapsody will tun MacOS as an emulation or not, be trivial >anymore? Since all the OS processes will be sent to one kernel. I'm thinking >it is not since the kernel is the actual entity that communicates with the >Hardware! Am I thinking right? Right now the Blue Box sits on top the the Rhapsody kernel -- the OS eventually be handed hardware requests by the MacOS. So, imagine stripping away EVERTHING from Rhapsody that isn't needed by the Blue Box. Now you have the MacOS resting on purely the Mach kernel plus whatever support software is needed to keep networking etc going efficiently. I would assume that the next step involves stripping away the innards of the MacOS that aren't needed because they are supplied by the Mach kernel in order to make more efficient use of CPU resources. Now float the Yellow Box software onto the MacOS. Add a few new bits and pieces of software (doesn't that sound sooooooooooo easy?) to make more efficient use of the underlying Mach kernel. Gradually deprecate exiting MacOS managers. End result: sometime after the millenium the MacOS has transformed itself into something different. Of course it's still the MacOS. But simpler implimentations can have smaller kernels, or built-to-purpose kernels, even (gulp) real-time kernels. Imagine the possibilities..... ------------------------------------------- Adam Bridge "...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine "Common Sense" Internet: abridge@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Voice: (916) 756-4695 From paul at eisusa.com Sat May 2 20:01:58 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805020900.CAA14522@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: Scott, >Make your own conclusions. My instinct tells me that Steve Jobs would >smart enough to see this one coming, and has already dealt with it in one >form or another. Go to your libray and check out a copy of "Steve Jobs, the NeXT Big Thing". It's sobering to read. I don't have a lot of faith in Jobs' "instinct's". I think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of some tough decisions by Amelio, not a turnaround led by Jobs. Paul From paul at eisusa.com Sat May 2 20:08:44 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 4:14 PM -0700 5/2/98, Ismail Tabtabai wrote: >Halaw, > If it's true that all the PPC OS's are going to run on Mach kernel (namely >Rhpsody, MacOSX.XX and MkLinux); would the old arguement discussed on the >list, whether Rhapsody will tun MacOS as an emulation or not, be trivial >anymore? Since all the OS processes will be sent to one kernel. I'm thinking >it is not since the kernel is the actual entity that communicates with the >Hardware! Am I thinking right? That means Apple would have to intentionally wound MacOS so it would not run on generic PPC hardware (assuming that they might license Rhapsody on PPC hardware). Don't worry, with Job's closed system, proprietary mindset, they will screw it up somehow. Paul From sanguish at digifix.com Sat May 2 20:49:57 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199805030350.XAA14126@digifix.com> Paul Nicholson wrote: > Scott, > > >Make your own conclusions. My instinct tells me that Steve Jobs would > >smart enough to see this one coming, and has already dealt with it in one > >form or another. > > Go to your libray and check out a copy of "Steve Jobs, the NeXT Big Thing". > It's sobering to read. I don't have a lot of faith in Jobs' "instinct's". I > think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of some tough decisions > by Amelio, not a turnaround led by Jobs. > Its also a book that is chock full of factual errors. This has been discusssed repeatedly over the years in comp.sys.next.advocacy.. From gcoffey at primenet.com Sat May 2 21:09:47 1998 From: gcoffey at primenet.com (Geoff Coffey) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:15 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805030407.VAA07328@smtp03.primenet.com> >Go to your libray and check out a copy of "Steve Jobs, the NeXT Big Thing". >It's sobering to read. I don't have a lot of faith in Jobs' "instinct's". I >think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of some tough decisions >by Amelio, not a turnaround led by Jobs. You place too much faith in one man's misled attempt at sensationalism. Geoff From setzer at backfence.net Sat May 2 14:35:53 1998 From: setzer at backfence.net (Setzer Family) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! In-Reply-To: <199805030114.SAA08802@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: To Adam and Ismail: Why? Adam, if you can run Mac apps in the BlueBox, why strip out the rest of Rhapsody (YB + BSD), "add a few bits" and then add a reimplemented YB back in? I understand the concern that RDR1 is rough around the edges, and the Blue Box is one of the rougher pieces. I believe the BB experience will get better, and that Apple is working on it right now. Ismail, why waste the cycles on an MkLinux compatibility layer? MkLinux is not well regarded in the Linux community. The most useful software is command-line based (perl, apache) and either already ported or easy to port to a BSD system like Rhapsody, without worrying about MkLinux. As for GUI software--even major commercial products like FrameMaker, IslandDraw, and Helios either don't support Linux at all or only support Linux/x86. For those who really need it, X-Windows software is available for Rhapsody from third parties. I see no software so necessary to the future that Rhapsody must be binary-compatible with MkLinux; source-compatible is good enough. I don't mean to be harsh, but I really don't agree with either vision. Rhapsody as I think it will happen--RDR1 but much cleaner and faster and with a good Blue Box--fits the needs you both seem to be aiming at. Steve Setzer From don at misckit.com Sat May 2 23:09:57 1998 From: don at misckit.com (Donald A. Yacktman) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Quote from Microsoft In-Reply-To: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> References: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: <9805030607.AA07013@misckit.com> On Sat, 2 May 1998, Scott Stevenson wrote: > No joke! > > > "The future of Windows is now, using devices and technology you already > know. The future of Windows is more like a walk down a well-known street > than a giant leap forward for humankind." :-) Let me take a stab at translation from marketing-ese to English: "Windows has become *so* bloated that our engineers have given up trying to fix it, let alone adding anything innovative to it. But, since we have what we believe to be an unbreakable stranglehold on the marketplace and won't give up our monopoly any time soon, you might as well get comfortable with what you've got. Settle in. You're going to be here--with us--for a _looooong_ time." -- Later, -Don Yacktman don@misckit.com My home page From scott at cacti.org Sun May 3 00:08:46 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805030659.XAA17542@proxy4.ba.best.com> >Go to your libray and check out a copy of "Steve Jobs, the NeXT Big Thing". >It's sobering to read. I don't have a lot of faith in Jobs' "instinct's". I >think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of some tough decisions >by Amelio, not a turnaround led by Jobs. I have to disagree. It seems to me G3s, serious cross-platform efforts, the online store, the well-recognized marketing campaign, doubled stock price, MacOS 8's spectacularly successful release and two quarters of profit -- didn't all happen on their own. Give the man and his team some credit. - Scott ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From ismail at iglou.com Sun May 3 00:23:38 1998 From: ismail at iglou.com (Ismail Tabtabai) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: Hello, In fact, let's not go that far. I am talking about the very low level of the OS that communicates with the kernel. If both MacOS and Rhapsody could communicate with the same Mach kernel, then would that trivial emulation argument still be the same? This is all. The MkLinux was only mentioned to expand on the idea of an open standard. ---------- |From: Setzer Family |To: Multiple recipients of list |Subject: Re: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! |Date: Sun, May 3, 1998, 12:20 AM | |To Adam and Ismail: | |Why? | |Adam, if you can run Mac apps in the BlueBox, why strip out the rest of |Rhapsody (YB + BSD), "add a few bits" and then add a reimplemented YB back |in? I understand the concern that RDR1 is rough around the edges, and the |Blue Box is one of the rougher pieces. I believe the BB experience will get |better, and that Apple is working on it right now. | |Ismail, why waste the cycles on an MkLinux compatibility layer? MkLinux is |not well regarded in the Linux community. The most useful software is |command-line based (perl, apache) and either already ported or easy to port |to a BSD system like Rhapsody, without worrying about MkLinux. As for GUI |software--even major commercial products like FrameMaker, IslandDraw, and |Helios either don't support Linux at all or only support Linux/x86. For |those who really need it, X-Windows software is available for Rhapsody from |third parties. I see no software so necessary to the future that Rhapsody |must be binary-compatible with MkLinux; source-compatible is good enough. | |I don't mean to be harsh, but I really don't agree with either vision. |Rhapsody as I think it will happen--RDR1 but much cleaner and faster and |with a good Blue Box--fits the needs you both seem to be aiming at. | | |Steve Setzer | | | | From gfair at uniserve.com Sat May 2 16:34:29 1998 From: gfair at uniserve.com (Graham Fair) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhapsody Message-ID: With such discussion (especially in the Rhapsody Discussion List from Lyris), the facts can be lost. There are a few questions I have about Rhapsody though: 1. Does Apple realise the importance of making Yellow Box available for all major commercial flavours of Unix? More specifically, will Apple make Yellow Box available for Solaris, Irix, AIX, HP-UX, DEC Unix, Linux in addition to WinNT, 95/98 and MacOS? 2. Does Apple realise the importance of making Rhapsody available on Merced in addition to PowerPC and x86? Will Apple do this? 3. Can the Rhapsody development environment (OpenStep?) produce applications more flexible (wider range of uses) than Java applications? 4. If Yellow Box is available for the big commercial OSes, offers applications at native speed and the YB applications are produced by the OpenStep IDE (which can cut development time by up to 5/6 of a normal program development cycle), does Rhapsody stand a chance of becoming the pinnacle of what Java is supposed to be/offer? 5. Since OpenStep was introduced, have any other IDE's (development environments) come close to matching it in terms of ease of use leading to vastly decreased development cycles? 6. Would it be possible that Apple might have lost sight of the need for Rhapsody to be totally (or as close to) crash proof? 7. What exactly is the "Enterprise Object something-or-other" that NeXT has also designed? Is it an application framework like Yellow Box, or is it a development environment, or programming libraries (if the lack of knowledge is totally apparent please avoid condemning it)? Could someone briefly explain it please? 8. Does anyone else share my optimism in believing that Apple could make the single greatest comeback in the personal computer industry if Rhapsody does most of what it is said to do? Thank you to all who take the time to answer. Graham Fair Apple patriot From yves at vlaanderen.net Sun May 3 02:34:21 1998 From: yves at vlaanderen.net (Yves De Muyter) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Ismail, why waste the cycles on an MkLinux compatibility layer? MkLinux is >not well regarded in the Linux community. The most useful software is The bad thing about mklinux is not the mach kernel, but the linux kernel sitting on top of the mach kernel. It causes a lot of overhead because all services are delivered by the linux kernel. You get a situation where the fast stuff in the mach kernel isn't used (directly) >command-line based (perl, apache) and either already ported or easy to port >to a BSD system like Rhapsody, without worrying about MkLinux. As for GUI >software--even major commercial products like FrameMaker, IslandDraw, and >Helios either don't support Linux at all or only support Linux/x86. For >those who really need it, X-Windows software is available for Rhapsody from >third parties. I see no software so necessary to the future that Rhapsody >must be binary-compatible with MkLinux; source-compatible is good enough. That's the point. Rhapsody is unix (bsd combliant even) and gets all advantages of it. Rhapsody has all the elements to make it more succesfull than linux at the moment so there are more chances that software gets ported to Rhapsody than to Linux... Linux should become Rhapsody-binary compatible ;-) >I don't mean to be harsh, but I really don't agree with either vision. >Rhapsody as I think it will happen--RDR1 but much cleaner and faster and >with a good Blue Box--fits the needs you both seem to be aiming at. Yes, get the MacOS. What's the most frustrating about it? You can't double click a new app without thinking "will it crash or not?" and sometimes the MacOS takes over control while you're thinking "what the hell is it doing". Rhapsody will bring stuff that will deal with these things. The NExT interface was (is) great and when you bring the best of both together, you could get a kick-ass interface. When the apple (NeXT) folks do their job well they create some interface-independent system (the object oriented nature of OpenStep is perfect for this) and making everyone happy (it would be highly configurable). Rhapsody DR1 + BBox are developer releases, so they are a collection of stuff that sort of works, but not ready yet. The fact that BlueBox was in a workable state that fast is good. But i think S. Jobs wants an OS targetted at the Server market, just like NT. That doesn't mean it's bad as an end-user OS but it will be prised just like NT (wich isn't cheap). It will be an excuse to prise it high. Look at OpenNT (unix on top of NT kernel) it costs a lot of money, and look at Rhapsody, they deliver sort-of the same services... (unix, GUI, RAD...) The low cost version will probably be some bluebox, with Yellow in it on top of Mach... Yves From yves at vlaanderen.net Sun May 3 03:01:43 1998 From: yves at vlaanderen.net (Yves De Muyter) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhapsody In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >With such discussion (especially in the Rhapsody Discussion List from >Lyris), the facts can be lost. There are a few questions I have about >Rhapsody though: > >1. Does Apple realise the importance of making Yellow Box available for all >major commercial flavours of Unix? More specifically, will Apple make >Yellow Box available for Solaris, Irix, AIX, HP-UX, DEC Unix, Linux in >addition to WinNT, 95/98 and MacOS? GNUStep is going in a good direction. It can be good and bad for apple (getting more programmers to OpenStep, but getting more Yellow programmers to alternative OS'ses...) >2. Does Apple realise the importance of making Rhapsody available on Merced >in addition to PowerPC and x86? Will Apple do this? Probably yes. >3. Can the Rhapsody development environment (OpenStep?) produce >applications more flexible (wider range of uses) than Java applications? Yup, and faster! And you can use java at the core of your Yellow programming, creating the best of 2 worlds (binary compatibility on different platforms) >4. If Yellow Box is available for the big commercial OSes, offers >applications at native speed and the YB applications are produced by the >OpenStep IDE (which can cut development time by up to 5/6 of a normal >program development cycle), does Rhapsody stand a chance of becoming the >pinnacle of what Java is supposed to be/offer? When the succes of Java dies, Rhapsody will have got the best of it. When it's a success, that doesn't mean Rhapsody dies :-) --> win-win combination >5. Since OpenStep was introduced, have any other IDE's (development >environments) come close to matching it in terms of ease of use leading to >vastly decreased development cycles? Competition continues. Delphi is as close and good, M$ is trying the same with Visual C-Basic but these are only source-code generating utils... >6. Would it be possible that Apple might have lost sight of the need for >Rhapsody to be totally (or as close to) crash proof? No. Apple Reps. say it is targetted at the server market, meaning it should be crash proof. Wasn't NT targetted to servers? Ever since Apple is saying blah-blah about servers, the market stopped saying Apple isn't doing anything targetted at servers... >7. What exactly is the "Enterprise Object something-or-other" that NeXT has >also designed? Is it an application framework like Yellow Box, or is it a >development environment, or programming libraries (if the lack of knowledge >is totally apparent please avoid condemning it)? Could someone briefly >explain it please? Openstep libraries + IB (interface builder) + all stuff for RAD... >8. Does anyone else share my optimism in believing that Apple could make >the single greatest comeback in the personal computer industry if Rhapsody >does most of what it is said to do? OpenStep was the single most advanced OS in it's time. Nobody cared so there is more needed than being good. I think Apple finally started to do a good job here. Look at the blah-blah around the G3. Much of the anti-Mac people started to say 'yes, the PowerPC is kick-ass, pity it doesn't run NT...'. Now Apple need these people to say 'Rhapsody is kick-ass'. The only reason why I said in the past why MacOS sux was that i could't install it on my PC and i won't invest $2000 to find it out... Yves ================================================================================ = yves@sesuadra.org yves@vlaanderen.net From Paul_Lynch at seer.demon.co.uk Sun May 3 02:19:41 1998 From: Paul_Lynch at seer.demon.co.uk (Paul Lynch) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805030350.XAA14126@digifix.com> References: <199805030350.XAA14126@digifix.com> Message-ID: <9805030920.AA29841@seer.demon.co.uk> Scott Anguish wrote: > > Go to your libray and check out a copy of "Steve Jobs, the NeXT Big > > Thing". It's sobering to read. I don't have a lot of faith in Jobs' > > "instinct's". I think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of some > > tough decisions by Amelio, not a turnaround led by Jobs. > > > > Its also a book that is chock full of factual errors. This has been > discusssed repeatedly over the years in comp.sys.next.advocacy.. Check out some of Stross's other books. He has also written possibly the most sycophantic hagiography of Bill Gates ever. Paul --- Paul Lynch (NeXTmail) http://www.plsys.co.uk/~paul From Paul_Lynch at seer.demon.co.uk Sun May 3 02:28:15 1998 From: Paul_Lynch at seer.demon.co.uk (Paul Lynch) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhapsody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9805030928.AA29845@seer.demon.co.uk> gfair@uniserve.com (Graham Fair) wrote: > 1. Does Apple realise the importance of making Yellow Box available for all > major commercial flavours of Unix? More specifically, will Apple make > Yellow Box available for Solaris, Irix, AIX, HP-UX, DEC Unix, Linux in > addition to WinNT, 95/98 and MacOS? It isn't important; check out the overall marketshare of each Unix version. If you look at it in commercial terms, even Linux falls to nothing. Each Unix version should be supported on its own terms: by the effort of its advocates, or according to strategic advantage (if any). > 2. Does Apple realise the importance of making Rhapsody available on Merced > in addition to PowerPC and x86? Will Apple do this? Jobs has dropped a few comments that imply that he is well aware of the advantages of picking up on Merced. > 3. Can the Rhapsody development environment (OpenStep?) produce > applications more flexible (wider range of uses) than Java applications? Yes; Java is highly overrated. But the Java language has also been incorporated into OpenStep, so you have best of both worlds. > 7. What exactly is the "Enterprise Object something-or-other" that NeXT has > also designed? Is it an application framework like Yellow Box, or is it a > development environment, or programming libraries (if the lack of knowledge > is totally apparent please avoid condemning it)? Could someone briefly > explain it please? Enterprise Object Foundation. It's a set of frameworks that work with the rest of OpenStep (Foundation is required) to implement a persistent object layer over a relational database. Some development tools come with it, and it can be used with both OpenStep/Rhapsody and WebObjects. One way of describing EOF is to say that it makes an SQL database look like an OO database. The current version (2.2) isn't perfect, but it makes serious database development possible; other products let you knock up a simple database interface (query or report) more rapidly, but EOF lets you create a full-scale, enhanceable application more easily than anything else. The rest of your questions are just asking for opinions; there are lots available to share. Paul --- Paul Lynch (NeXTmail) http://www.plsys.co.uk/~paul From ianb at mail.well.com Sun May 3 06:02:45 1998 From: ianb at mail.well.com (Ian Betteridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805031302.GAA29166@smtp.well.com> On Sun May 3 00:01:53 1998, Scott Stevenson insisted that... >Give the man and his team some credit. Most of those moves were initiated before Jobs became CEO. Give the credit to Gil Amelio. From viktor.mayer-schoenberger at univie.ac.at Sun May 3 10:04:12 1998 From: viktor.mayer-schoenberger at univie.ac.at (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Viktor_Mayer-Sch=F6nberger?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. Message-ID: <199805031504.RAA13684@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Ian Betteridge wrote > Most of those moves were initiated before Jobs became CEO. Give > the credit to Gil Amelio. How so? I think it would help the discussion if you could support your assumptions with facts. Just for starters: - Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the product line based on the G3/750? - Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the Powerbook line based on the G3/750? - Did Gil Amelio decide to switch advertisement companies, go for an emotional "Think Different" and then a product-based "Think faster" campaign? - Did Gil Amelio decide to harmonize operating systems and to phase out NOS? - Did Gil Amelio decide to end cloning? While many of us think that Amelio was the right man for the right time, to my knowledge no facts have surfaced that conclusvely demonstrate that he was the mastermind behind Apple's turn-around. But then, you might have informations we do not have and we would all benefit from your sharing. Regards, Viktor Dr.Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh For Wintel owners: Don't despair, Rhapsody is coming soon.... From yves at vlaanderen.net Sun May 3 09:36:09 1998 From: yves at vlaanderen.net (Yves De Muyter) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. In-Reply-To: <199805031504.RAA13684@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: >Ian Betteridge wrote > >> Most of those moves were initiated before Jobs became CEO. Give >> the credit to Gil Amelio. > >How so? I think it would help the discussion if you could >support your assumptions with facts. > >Just for starters: >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the product line based on the >G3/750? He would have. It's completely normal for Apple to switch to G3, just like Compaq switches to PII... >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the Powerbook line based on the >G3/750? Probably he would have. Nobody knows if Gil Amelio has started this or not. It are the Apple engineers that create this hardware, not Gil nor Jobs... >- Did Gil Amelio decide to switch advertisement companies, go for an >emotional "Think Different" and then a product-based "Think faster" >campaign? Nope. Hype (c) by S. Jobs. And Apple needs a lot of hype to succeed... >- Did Gil Amelio decide to harmonize operating systems and to phase >out NOS? Nope, the worst thing S. Jobs could do. He had to drop R&D in it, and come with a MacOS based device and simply replace it when it's there. Not killing it and shitting on all Newton users. Those Newton-only users won't ever buy anyting from Apple again... >- Did Gil Amelio decide to end cloning? Nope. This topic is discussable wether cloning is a good thing. >While many of us think that Amelio was the right man for the right >time, to my knowledge no facts have surfaced that conclusvely >demonstrate that he was the mastermind behind Apple's turn-around. Amelio wasn't that bad, but i personally think Apple needed someone different than Amelio to compete against M$. Never forget Amelio introduced his own death by bringing in S. Jobs and his crue. That 'interim' thing in S. Jobs title is nothing more than a way to play with board members. This way, S. Jobs can do everything (like killing NewtonOS), no matter what the board says... Yves ================================================================================ = yves@sesuadra.org yves@vlaanderen.net From paul at eisusa.com Sun May 3 09:20:49 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true In-Reply-To: <199805030659.XAA17542@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: Scott, >It seems to me G3s, serious cross-platform efforts, the online store, the >well-recognized marketing campaign, doubled stock price, MacOS 8's >spectacularly successful release and two quarters of profit -- didn't all >happen on their own. The success of the G3 is due to Motorola's CPU tweaks and the use of synchronous DRAM. The design of the G3 motherboard glue chips was started well before Steve became CEO. It was Amelio that promised new OS updates every 6 months. Amelio was already negotiating with Microsoft, in fact he was holding out for delivery of Office under Rhapsody when Jobs sold out for less. Oh, and in case you have not noticed, MacOS 8 really isn't much different than 7.x. The major design faults still remain. >Give the man and his team some credit. Running a big corporation is like piloting a super tanker. It takes time to respond to the captains orders. Time will tell what direction Jobs steers. There was an interview with Gil in MacHome magazine at http://www.machome.com/Features/amelio.html. Read it, it's interesting. Paul Paul Nicholson Electronic Imaging Systems, Inc. TEL 805 532 1068 5148 Commerce Avenue, Unit F FAX 805 532 1065 Moorpark, CA 93021 U.S.A. paul@eisusa.com http://www.eisusa.com From paul at eisusa.com Sun May 3 09:21:01 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. In-Reply-To: <199805031504.RAA13684@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: At 8:06 AM -0700 5/3/98, Viktor Mayer-Sch?nberger wrote: >Just for starters: >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the product line based on the >G3/750? Motorola designed the G3 chip. Apple engineers started the glue logic design well before Jobs was CEO. It doesn't take a genius to discontinue the higher cost, lower performance older design when the new one, started before is reign, is cheaper to build and delivers higher performance. Duh, this was a hard decision. >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the Powerbook line based on the >G3/750? Se the answer above. >- Did Gil Amelio decide to switch advertisement companies, go for an >emotional "Think Different" and then a product-based "Think faster" >campaign? This decision was made after he left, and it too was a no-brainer based on the ineffectiveness of Apple's touchy-feely ads. >- Did Gil Amelio decide to harmonize operating systems and to phase >out NOS? The decision to buy NeXT was made by Gil and his team. >- Did Gil Amelio decide to end cloning? No, that lousy decison was apparently made by Jobs. If Apple was losing money on clones they should have raised the license price. They lost a lot of credibililty with this decision. >While many of us think that Amelio was the right man for the right >time, to my knowledge no facts have surfaced that conclusvely >demonstrate that he was the mastermind behind Apple's turn-around. Who says there's a turnaround. The decline has been halted but there's not yet a real turnaround. Apple has slashed costs and product lines. The real result of these decisons will be apparent in the future. >But then, you might have informations we do not have and we would all >benefit from your sharing. There was an interview with Gil in MacHome magazine at http://www.machome.com/Features/amelio.html. Read it, it's interesting. Paul From viktor.mayer-schoenberger at univie.ac.at Sun May 3 11:28:45 1998 From: viktor.mayer-schoenberger at univie.ac.at (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Viktor_Mayer-Sch=F6nberger?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. In-Reply-To: References: <199805031504.RAA13684@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <199805031628.SAA11856@mailbox.univie.ac.at> > At 8:06 AM -0700 5/3/98, Viktor Mayer-Sch?nberger wrote: > > >Just for starters: > >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the product line based on the > >G3/750? > > Motorola designed the G3 chip. Apple engineers started the glue logic > design well before Jobs was CEO. It doesn't take a genius to discontinue > the higher cost, lower performance older design when the new one, started > before is reign, is cheaper to build and delivers higher performance. Duh, > this was a hard decision. > > >- Did Gil Amelio decide to streamline the Powerbook line based on the > >G3/750? > > Se the answer above. > > >- Did Gil Amelio decide to switch advertisement companies, go for an > >emotional "Think Different" and then a product-based "Think faster" > >campaign? > > This decision was made after he left, and it too was a no-brainer based on > the ineffectiveness of Apple's touchy-feely ads. > > >- Did Gil Amelio decide to harmonize operating systems and to phase > >out NOS? > > The decision to buy NeXT was made by Gil and his team. What has the one to do with the other? > > >- Did Gil Amelio decide to end cloning? > > No, that lousy decison was apparently made by Jobs. If Apple was losing > money on clones they should have raised the license price. They lost a lot > of credibililty with this decision. > So we agree that the main decisions of the last nine months or so - whether "brainers" or "no-brainers" were indeed made by Jobs and his management team? ;-) Viktor From jebask at sound.net Sun May 3 09:48:11 1998 From: jebask at sound.net (Jim Baskins) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: No Rhapsody PPC licensing - say it ain't true Message-ID: <199805031647.JAA05670@ignem.omnigroup.com> On 5/3/98 11:26 AM Paul Nicholson paul@eisusa.com wrote: >Scott, > >>It seems to me G3s, serious cross-platform efforts, the online store, the >>well-recognized marketing campaign, doubled stock price, MacOS 8's >>spectacularly successful release and two quarters of profit -- didn't all >>happen on their own. > >The success of the G3 is due to Motorola's CPU tweaks and the use of >synchronous DRAM. The design of the G3 motherboard glue chips was started >well before Steve became CEO. It was Amelio that promised new OS updates >every 6 months. Amelio was already negotiating with Microsoft, in fact he >was holding out for delivery of Office under Rhapsody when Jobs sold out >for less. Oh, and in case you have not noticed, MacOS 8 really isn't much >different than 7.x. The major design faults still remain. > >>Give the man and his team some credit. > >Running a big corporation is like piloting a super tanker. It takes time to >respond to the captains orders. Time will tell what direction Jobs steers. > >There was an interview with Gil in MacHome magazine at >http://www.machome.com/Features/amelio.html. Read it, it's interesting. > >Paul > >Paul Nicholson Electronic Imaging Systems, Inc. >TEL 805 532 1068 5148 Commerce Avenue, Unit F >FAX 805 532 1065 Moorpark, CA 93021 U.S.A. >paul@eisusa.com http://www.eisusa.com > > > It seems to me that all this talk about whether Amelio would have done what Jobs has done is, at best, moot. Engineers are engineers and suits are suits. Amelio and Hancock did a good job getting the engineers at Apple focused on better and more competitive products. However, the two of them put together had all the charisma of milk toast. Jobs, love him or hate him, oozes more charisma (bullshit or otherwise) in a week than Amelio would have in 20 years. That makes him the right guy for right now. In a few years he'll have worn thin and someone else will be better suited. Seems to work that way..... Brother Jim From paul at eisusa.com Sun May 3 09:50:42 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. In-Reply-To: <199805031628.SAA11856@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: At 9:30 AM -0700 5/3/98, Viktor Mayer-Sch?nberger wrote: >> >- Did Gil Amelio decide to harmonize operating systems and to phase >> >out NOS? >> >> The decision to buy NeXT was made by Gil and his team. > >What has the one to do with the other? How could you harmonize operating systems if you only had MacOS to harmonize. Buying NeXT was the hard decision, i.e. deciding which road to take. Consolidating technology is just keeping the car on the road. >So we agree that the main decisions of the last nine months or so - >whether "brainers" or "no-brainers" were indeed made by Jobs and his >management team? ;-) We can agree to that ;<) Paul From kc Sun May 3 11:23:36 1998 From: kc (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: [Moderator] Re: Gil Amelio et al. Message-ID: <199805031821.LAA06618@ignem.omnigroup.com> Take this topic to some other forum (say, comp.sys.mac.advocacy). We're not here to talk about Gil or Steve, we're here to talk about Rhapsody. Ken From kelleysoft at pressenter.com Sun May 3 12:13:21 1998 From: kelleysoft at pressenter.com (kelleysoft@pressenter.com) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. In-Reply-To: <199805031504.RAA13684@mailbox.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: >- Did Gil Amelio decide to [...] Gil Amelio decided to buy NeXT (and a surprising move at that, when everyone was expecting Apple to get Be). Without that critically key decision, there would have been no Rhapsody, no YellowBox, no Steve, no future, and none of us would be here now to discuss this. As for who truely "saved" Apple is purely academic. All I know is Apple is finally showing signs of life, with a real potential for a very bright future. FAR better than the Apple of 2-3 years ago... Greg Betzel Kelley Software From louispel at total.net Sun May 3 12:59:49 1998 From: louispel at total.net (Louis Pelletier) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. (end of thread) Message-ID: <199805031959.PAA14808@bretweir.total.net> Greg Betzel at "kelleysoft@pressenter.com" said on 03/05/98 15:09 : >>- Did Gil Amelio decide to [...] > >Gil Amelio decided to buy NeXT (and a surprising move at that, when >everyone was expecting Apple to get Be). > >Without that critically key decision, there would have been no Rhapsody, no >YellowBox, no Steve, no future, and none of us would be here now to discuss >this. > >As for who truely "saved" Apple is purely academic. All I know is Apple is >finally showing signs of life, with a real potential for a very bright >future. FAR better than the Apple of 2-3 years ago... > >Greg Betzel >Kelley Software > This makes me think about something funny... Jobs got Scully (is it the right name?) from Pepsi. Scully fired Jobs. Amelio got Jobs (when he bought NeXT). Jobs fired Amelio (ok, not Jobs, the board). Funny. Don't you think? L. Pelletier. From scott at cacti.org Sun May 3 14:12:16 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Big Stuff Wednesday? Message-ID: <199805032103.OAA09005@proxy4.ba.best.com> [ haven't seen this posted yet... ] The last one of these spawned the G3, the online store and BTO. What does Mr. Jobs have cooked up for Wednesday? Hmmmm... :) -------- An Apple media invitation from its PR agency says that "it is time once again to announce the fruits of their [Apple's] labor" at the Flint Center, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino on Wednesday, May 6, 1998 at 10:00 am. http://www.seminars.apple.com/series/may6/index.html ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Sun May 3 14:43:35 1998 From: abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: <199805032143.OAA04808@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >To Adam and Ismail: > >Why? > >Adam, if you can run Mac apps in the BlueBox, why strip out the rest of >Rhapsody (YB + BSD), "add a few bits" and then add a reimplemented YB back >in? I understand the concern that RDR1 is rough around the edges, and the >Blue Box is one of the rougher pieces. I believe the BB experience will get >better, and that Apple is working on it right now. > Steve, I'm not advocating that Apple take a particular route. I was suggesting a possible path. I don't think I suggested "reimplemented YB" at all. In fact I suggested there might be changes to the underlying MacOS to make YB work better. Not all applications require the entire software suite that Rhapsody provides and the subsequent requirement in resources such a suite requires. Sometimes small is beautiful. Having two DIFFERENT operating systems is not as elegant as having a SINGLE operating system layered with as much as code between implimentations. Thus what might be considered a minimal footprint system could be a low-end or a home solution while the full Rhapsody footprint would serve a different set of needs. >I don't mean to be harsh, but I really don't agree with either vision. >Rhapsody as I think it will happen--RDR1 but much cleaner and faster and >with a good Blue Box--fits the needs you both seem to be aiming at. > Well, harsh isn't quite the word that leaps to mind. Rhapsody as it will exist in its first incarnation appears to be to be an interim step for Apple. They need to fix the underlying problems that exist in the current MacOS. The MacOS is what current Apple developers know and understand. The Blue Box doesn't fix those problems, it simply provides an execution environment for legacy applications while applications native to Yellow Box and/or Rhapsody are developed. It hardly seems like a surprise to consider a scalable future with OS implimentations of varying sophistication to match the needs of various users. You DON'T need Rhapsody to run a box that runs your television or to be the heart of an instrumentation sub-system. But having a common code base that runs from a minimal OS (which really is NOT minimal) to that of a server is both desirable and rather elegant. Why? Programmer leverage. The real key, in my somewhat drifty opionion, is the Yellow Box software. Coding to it will allow me to run on Rhapsody, Windoze, and NT. And then MacOS. Doesn't it make sense to have as much code in common underneath Yellow Box? I think it does. And that alone is a compelling reason for Apple to move toward a mergine of MacOS and some part of the Rhapsody kernel. In my opinion, of course. We'll see in a week or so. I've got the donuts if you have the dollars. ;-) Regards, ------------------------------------------- Adam Bridge "...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine "Common Sense" Internet: abridge@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Voice: (916) 756-4695 From setzer at backfence.net Sun May 3 08:34:47 1998 From: setzer at backfence.net (Setzer Family) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! In-Reply-To: <199805032143.OAA04808@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> Message-ID: Chocolate covered? (donuts, not dollars) ;-) >In my opinion, of course. We'll see in a week or so. I've got the >donuts if you have the dollars. ;-) > >Regards, > > > >------------------------------------------- >Adam Bridge From sschuldt at mediaone.net Sun May 3 16:47:00 1998 From: sschuldt at mediaone.net (Steven W. Schuldt) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhapsody References: Message-ID: <9805032347.AA00602@helio.ne.mediaone.net> > 1. Does Apple realise the importance of making Yellow Box available for all major commercial flavours of Unix? More specifically, will Apple make Yellow Box available for Solaris, Irix, AIX, HP-UX, DEC Unix, Linux in addition to WinNT, 95/98 and MacOS? > This would be nice, but really outside of Solaris and maybe Linux these would be a whole lot of trouble merely for the sake of a check mark. > 2. Does Apple realise the importance of making Rhapsody available on Merced in addition to PowerPC and x86? Will Apple do this? > Of course. > 3. Can the Rhapsody development environment (OpenStep?) produce applications more flexible (wider range of uses) than Java applications? > The real problem here is that Sun can use the Java 'sandbox' to tout Java's security vis-a-vis OpenStep. All of the real action is on the web these days, I'd love it if Apple had some legitimate response to this issue and the Yellow Box runtime could be safely embedded in browsers and we could write YB applets but this is really the same problem that a technology like ActiveX faces. I'd love to hear any suggestions on how this might be done right. My personal fave is via some refined form of NSHosting (which, yes, currently has it's own security issues). People just don't realize how much fun it is to launch a NeXT app running on a machine 2000 miles away from a hyperlink in a web browser and have the UI pop up on your NT desktop. Much more fun than sucking some Java applet across the wire. BTW: Fun sells. > 4. If Yellow Box is available for the big commercial OSes, offers applications at native speed and the YB applications are produced by the OpenStep IDE (which can cut development time by up to 5/6 of a normal program development cycle), does Rhapsody stand a chance of becoming the pinnacle of what Java is supposed to be/offer? > No. The advantages of using 100% Pure Java, since 'write once run anywhere' is on the ropes, are boiling down to issues of security. Unless things go miraculously well - or if Microsoft blesses Yellow Box as a final 100% Pure Java back-breaker, there is little Apple can do to supplant the Java platform with OpenStep. That said, NeXT/Apple's strategy of absorbing Java into OpenStep was very wise, if a little depressing for Objective-C fans. It is a a trojan horse, as many new Yellow Box developers will discover the maturity of frameworks like EOF and be seduced into abandoning '100% purity'. The reasons that this seduction is not as sinister as, for example, Microsoft's attempts to rope people into relying on Win32 are that the OpenStep frameworks are arguably better OO technology than that of the Java libraries - and your app will still be able technically able to run on %99 of the desktops out there. The most likely scenario where YB makes major inroads on Java is as follows: Because so many have staked so much on Java's success, the Yellow Box proves to be a popular escape route for savvy Java developers needing to live up to some of their own hype and deliver actual enterprise class cross-platform solutions. > 5. Since OpenStep was introduced, have any other IDE's (development environments) come close to matching it in terms of ease of use leading to vastly decreased development cycles? > Some have touted Visual Age, Borland's Delphi and various Java IDE's. _I_ haven't found one. YMMV. > 6. Would it be possible that Apple might have lost sight of the need for Rhapsody to be totally (or as close to) crash proof? > Will CR1 be as stable as Solaris? Probably not. Will it be as stable as NT? Probably. Will it get more stable after numerous releases? Probably. If you have a UNIX operating system that is _CRASHING_ then you obviously have a serious problem that needs addressing. I think Avie and the boys can handle this, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. > 7. What exactly is the "Enterprise Object something-or-other" that NeXT has also designed? Is it an application framework like Yellow Box, or is it a development environment, or programming libraries (if the lack of knowledge is totally apparent please avoid condemning it)? Could someone briefly explain it please? > Someone else already answered this well. > 8. Does anyone else share my optimism in believing that Apple could make the single greatest comeback in the personal computer industry if Rhapsody does most of what it is said to do? > Some have this at the back of their minds, it would be glorious surely, but it will be damnably hard to avoid the most likely scenario: 1) Apple ships CR1 to largely positive reviews. 2) Microsoft ships NT5, to ecstatic (largely bought and paid for) industry huzzahs - every operating system alternative is declared DOA. 3) Apple has a down quarter at some point and panics into selling out to (pick your favorite suitor). Scariest part is - this may in fact be the plan. The idea that Apple can 'retake the desktop' is a little silly at this late date. The gargantuan, bumbling inertia against this happening is perhaps the greatest force in the universe ;). Apple needs to redefine the rules of the game in order to truly 'come back'. YB and Rhap are still a chance for Apple to do so, but they need to get creative on the client side. If they just use the technology in some Sisyphean attempt to climb back to parity with Microsoft on the traditional desktop, well, see the scenario above. - Steve From sschaper at usa.net Sun May 3 15:56:45 1998 From: sschaper at usa.net (sschaper) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Missing amenities ... Message-ID: <199805032256.RAA06708@thor.inlink.com> > >Astronomers name Uranus's new moons >WASHINGTON (Reuters) May 1, 1998 - The astronomers who found two small moons >orbiting Uranus last year have decided to name them Caliban and Sycorax, >after characters mentioned in Shakespeare's play The Tempest. Caliban was the American Indian who studied under the wizard on the island. Sycorax was the witch that he got the spell-book from. From abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Sun May 3 16:48:10 1998 From: abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: <199805032348.QAA07980@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >Chocolate covered? (donuts, not dollars) ;-) Kinky!!!!!! AB From scott at cacti.org Sun May 3 18:48:52 1998 From: scott at cacti.org (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhapsody Message-ID: <199805040139.SAA28618@proxy3.ba.best.com> >2) Microsoft ships NT5, to ecstatic (largely bought and paid for) industry >huzzahs - every operating system alternative is declared DOA. Of course. All Microsoft has to do is to plant an ActiveX (or COM or whatever) applet in MSIE 5.0 that says: while (windows) bad = good good = good And this will happen until everyone figures it out. Fortunately, people seems to be "figuring it out" at a geometric rate. - Scott ------ Scott Stevenson scott@cacti.org http://www.cacti.org <-- Macintosh & Rhapsody Resources From galexand at ozemail.com.au Sun May 3 16:53:25 1998 From: galexand at ozemail.com.au (Greg Alexander) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: <01BD7742.7F1D1080@eddiejud> Steve Setzer wrote: >Adam, if you can run Mac apps in the BlueBox, why strip out the rest of >Rhapsody (YB + BSD), "add a few bits" and then add a reimplemented YB back >in? If future MacOS and Rhapsody will have the same PPC hardware support, then why have 2 separate kernels? Mach 3 is not big. >I believe the BB experience will get >better, and that Apple is working on it right now. If they can make MacOS run on Rhapsody's lower levels then they can get rid of those lower levels in MacOS - so MacOS stays the same size, but the BlueBox becomes smaller. Who wants Sonata-in-BlueBox to have another full copy of a Kernel, AND YB AND Quicktime AND JVM AND separate interfaces AND Colorsync? If they can make the same code run on the same kernel they gain! By pushing MacOS forward by Rhapsody integration they save code and reduce BlueBox to just the stuff that Rhapsody can't do. >Rhapsody as I think it will happen--RDR1 but much cleaner and faster and >with a good Blue Box--fits the needs you both seem to be aiming at. The key is "a good BlueBox". Their work comes from both sides - makes the BlueBox better and advances the MacOS. Painless evolution. Just my 2c. Greg begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(B 7`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`: $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````@0`````` M``"U.\+ +'<0&J&\" `K*E;"%0````\![Q98K]$1GX%(5.@AN$ZD@ `````` M`($K'Z2^HQ 9G6X`W0$/5 (```$`375L=&EP;&4@``$P`0```!4````G4FAA<'-O M9'D@5&%L:R!,:7-T)P`````"`0LP`0```"$```!33510.E)(05!33T19+51! M3$M 3TU.24=23U50+D-/30`````#```Y``````L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$ M`````````M9,`02 `0`F````4D4Z(%)H<"XL($UA8T]3+"!A;F0@36M,:6YU M>"!O;B!-86-H(0!F"P$%@ ,`#@```,X'!0`$``D`-0`9``$`-@$!(( #``X` M``#.!P4`! `)`#(`%@`!`# !`0F `0`A````0T1&1CDS13@R044S1#$Q,3E& M.#$T.#4T13@R,4(X-$4`3@`!X,`0````4` M``!33510`````!X`'PP!````& ```&=A;&5X86YD0&]Z96UA:6PN8V]M+F%U M``,`!A ,&J"5`P`'$*L#```>``@0`0```&4```!35$5615-%5%I%4E=23U1% M.D%$04TL24993U5#04Y254Y-04-!4%!324Y42$5"3%5%0D]8+%=(65-44DE0 M3U545$A%4D535$]&4DA!4%-/1%DH64(K0E-$*2PB041$049%5T))``````(! M"1 !````' 0``!@$``"D!@``3%I&=?,C4U`H '"H$-L0M@;F@20('<+`V 50#H*A3Y!9&%(;2P@!I @>0A@(%)C`Y%R=0.@30#0 M(!AA<' $( N ('1H11S 0@I!0F]X'G!WV&AY(!4P!1$@"& %0*\@0A>@%3 A MH&8=ME(1P MH&8AP AP', ?@=Y/!? E@B,G`_!L`R 1P!L'#;!G$)\&,1)* B@" Q;Q'P.ZP@$;4J!"TA0&\I]14P814@WRAV*]<`D!T0'G!B M(<4@A?3/@&U\< M8/\H9SDO*]<%H VP.H8KUR^T53E$9PMQ(2AV0B$P<+AU10$ YXKYS05E#.#5")7,D M@'8`<.]-4B!"*@-=\% +<2; !!%?'* &\"' 6*$X/4I;LFVI(3 R8S@V1Q>@ M9PJ+>3*@,S8-\$^L%, =<6,7!4 *A1;!`' Steve Setzer wrote: >Ismail, why waste the cycles on an MkLinux compatibility layer? MkLinux is >not well regarded in the Linux community. The most useful software is >command-line based (perl, apache) and either already ported or easy to port >to a BSD system like Rhapsody For >those who really need it, X-Windows software is available for Rhapsody from >third parties. I see no software so necessary to the future that Rhapsody >must be binary-compatible with MkLinux; source-compatible is good enough. Since Apple is concentrating on PPC, binary compatibility isn't important (the main value is in non-PPC binaries!) So source compatibility with multiple systems is enough (the rumored deal with OpenBSD would do!) IF Apple is using MkLinux code or engineers its more likely to mean they're trying to learn from previous work! Mach 3 experience, Hardware integration (PPC &/or Intel), configuration, valuable unix extensions & software etc. That said - MkLinux is just RedHat Linux compiled to a special 'machine' which is Mach 3. Rhapsody already supplies a virtual machine (ala BlueBox) so making RedHat Linux run there might not take much effort. Don't know about Intel though... Just another 2c Greg begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(C(7`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`: $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````@0`````` M``"U.\+ +'<0&J&\" `K*E;"%0````\![Q98K]$1GX%(5.@AN$ZD@ `````` M`($K'Z2^HQ 9G6X`W0$/5 (```$`375L=&EP;&4@``$P`0```!4````G4FAA<'-O M9'D@5&%L:R!,:7-T)P`````"`0LP`0```"$```!33510.E)(05!33T19+51! M3$M 3TU.24=23U50+D-/30`````#```Y``````L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$ M`````````M9,`02 `0`F````4D4Z(%)H<"XL($UA8T]3+"!A;F0@36M,:6YU M>"!O;B!-86-H(0!F"P$%@ ,`#@```,X'!0`$``D`.@`O``$`40$!(( #``X` M``#.!P4`! `(`"H`+ `!`#T!`0F `0`A````0T)&1CDS13@R044S1#$Q,3E& M.#$T.#4T13@R,4(X-$4`3 `!X,`0````4` M``!33510`````!X`'PP!````& ```&=A;&5X86YD0&]Z96UA:6PN8V]M+F%U M``,`!A!0]^W\`P`'$.4#```>``@0`0```&4```!35$5615-%5%I%4E=23U1% M.DE334%)3"Q72%E705-4151(14-90TQ%4T].04Y-2TQ)3E580T]-4$%424)) M3$E464Q!6452/TU+3$E.55A)4TY/5%=%3$Q214=!4D1%1$E.5$A%``````(! M"1 !````-@0``#($``!]!@``3%I&=?,C4U`H '"H$-L0M@;F@20('>+`V 50#H*A3Y)T M@>020/S<@5P0` M';9N'7 =0&5L^P,@%Z!G"Q$)@"*@`Z ?4AD@AVUU`P`AD"X@5"@860>T' 7021!RP6Q*R!S'M!T;RMC';;! M+&%A($)31";@%2.I(;!I:QS 4A' <";P$2M!(#QS`P!P/B#V1@6Q+-=H)D < MP!ZP+'!?*Q$CL![0*, D0G0>D%C$+5<+@&1O=P0@)OG=("!V'F$!H!_ ( (0 M!<#W+J<#4B_X:0L@*V *P"$P^P>0)=!))N )X#%P+' F]^LF\#%Q8P>0D#LT(-WY! !N)P5 !W K<@!P+,;^*!]2'E$#H#. "D$S M,B1QN2-0;BU"(3LD-D$A*B!^4S<"/5(@W3Q2"H4E<&Q_(3! HBWD1C$$(#[4 M111R=G4$8!>A( VP!T \1$]5*6!N+:)W"&!L3$%O\T> /TQ)1D!X)H!!LB!H MOPVP*],:H"BQ!)!&,70$(/],`BY#,5$L80> `' *A1]1_'DG.3(X4$&R+&$? MP K SP.@`U(K8!>@=FD(8 0@,4V "EA")! 01Z02 L1 M?R,>D$$19FEG"'!8XQZ0_T7" M,\,E@2# 5M 50 "!`B#M(L8F)N@2`&,_/27P.8&5.#!I)% M(BD@:CK"_E() M@%>0!4 @B ,0)$$M4\IS*6!C!S$@)P#!-;#M*, G+^8>L&E6@3-!5F3G)= N MIRKV"H@"H4WL0# OFM! MLF#;2^ D@R=1;5J@_F@%0"-2`9 N<25P5H$-P5L702701 (@0_%K(U!W_PJ% M`: (8 5 6>,?03[S;S ]/TQ*.L(`1VO0% ``@PP.^[ CR>1VO0$>`#T``0````4```!213H@``````,`#33]-P``IKMV ` end From paul at eisusa.com Sun May 3 22:12:02 1998 From: paul at eisusa.com (Paul Nicholson) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! In-Reply-To: <01BD7742.7F1D1080@eddiejud> Message-ID: At 6:49 PM -0700 5/3/98, Greg Alexander wrote: >If they can make MacOS run on Rhapsody's lower levels then they >can get rid of those lower levels in MacOS - so MacOS stays >the same size, but the BlueBox becomes smaller. Well, I'm not sure how much low level stuff they can get rid of. IOParameter blocks are commonly used by applications doing background file operations, playing sound, special disk operations etc. The whole IOPB architecture is a royal mess, and I suspect this was one of the problems with copland. The BlueBox has to provide this I/O architecture for the apps. I don't think that they will save much code using Rhapsody's core. Just my 0.01 Paul From gcoffey at primenet.com Sun May 3 23:53:47 1998 From: gcoffey at primenet.com (Geoff Coffey) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Printers Message-ID: <199805040651.XAA25685@smtp03.primenet.com> Hello Everyone: What's the word on rhapsody printer support. I suspect postscript printers are covered, but what about older but popular ink jets lacking postscript? More specifically what about my HP DeskWriter 550c? I wouldn't expect HP to put out a functioning Rhapsody driver until I turn 73 or so, so I'm hoping a third party solution is available? Thanks, Geoff From galexand at ozemail.com.au Mon May 4 00:14:56 1998 From: galexand at ozemail.com.au (Greg Alexander) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Rhp., MacOS, and MkLinux on Mach! Message-ID: <01BD7780.2A091740@eddiejud> Paul Nicholson (paul@eisusa.com) wrote: >At 6:49 PM -0700 5/3/98, Greg Alexander wrote: >>If they can make MacOS run on Rhapsody's lower levels then they >>can get rid of those lower levels in MacOS - so MacOS stays >>the same size, but the BlueBox becomes smaller. >Well, I'm not sure how much low level stuff they can get rid of. >IOParameter blocks are commonly used by applications doing background file >operations, playing sound, special disk operations etc. The whole IOPB >architecture is a royal mess, and I suspect this was one of the problems >with copland. The BlueBox has to provide this I/O architecture for the >apps. I don't think that they will save much code using Rhapsody's core. It would be a difficult weeding out a lot of the MacOS stuff. The thing is with a BlueBox approach they don't _have_ to weed it all out. They can leave the old stuff alone if it gets the job done - as long as developing technologies can by-pass it. I think that by using Rhapsody's lower levels (Kernel, filesystems) they can move towards providing newer services (quicktime, yb etc) from a common code base - so just one new code, and removal of previous code from the BlueBox Greg (sorry about the attachments - not my usual machine and they keep getting turned back on!) From gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de Mon May 4 02:20:25 1998 From: gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de (Georg Tuparev) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: MacOS/Rhapsody and the task bar In-Reply-To: <016101bd6fc8$9dc7c7e0$08000080@Noteworthy.IVI> References: <016101bd6fc8$9dc7c7e0$08000080@Noteworthy.IVI> Message-ID: <9805040920.AA00281@buzz.henkel.de> You wrote: > You can also move the bar to the right or left size of the screen, giving > you room for many more items. Try it with the hidden setting, and you won't > loose any screen space. You can also move it to the top of the screen ... looks almost like a Mac -- but more ugly - as usual.... -- georg -- --- ------- Georg Tuparev InterPoint, Ceintuurbaan 198-I 1072 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands Mobile: +31-655-798196 Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95, Office 97 From gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de Mon May 4 02:17:08 1998 From: gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de (Georg Tuparev) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: MacOS/Rhapsody and the task bar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9805040917.AA00275@buzz.henkel.de> You wrote: > You guys know the Win95/NT task bar can be resized to better-accomodate > we who run many apps, right? > > I find it quite comfortable using it relocated, hidden, at the top of the > screen with icons 2 layers deep....try it! Yeah! Cool! A left overs from the DOS times. And the day after - oh wonder - M$ introduced Win ... and you got a chance to switch between them. Cool! If I use this sh..t for all the windows I have on my screen, the entire screen has to be covered with task bars. Really cool. Why people don't use their thinker before posting to the list? (I'm not mentioning utopia wishes like good taste, elegance, and fun).. -- georg -- --- ------- Georg Tuparev InterPoint, Ceintuurbaan 198-I 1072 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands Mobile: +31-655-798196 Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95, Office 97 From gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de Mon May 4 03:53:11 1998 From: gtupar at buzz.rz.henkel.de (Georg Tuparev) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Quote from Microsoft In-Reply-To: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> References: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: <9805041053.AA00402@buzz.henkel.de> And if you see the picture of this road (top left) you need to drive at least a Land Rover. God help the users! -- georg -- You wrote: > No joke! > > > "The future of Windows is now, using devices and technology you already > know. The future of Windows is more like a walk down a well-known street > than a giant leap forward for humankind." > > > < InterPoint, Ceintuurbaan 198-I 1072 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands Mobile: +31-655-798196 Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95, Office 97 From thomases at gudmund.vgs.no Mon May 4 03:16:52 1998 From: thomases at gudmund.vgs.no (Thomas Sivertsen) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: DR2 review on Rhapnet Message-ID: <354D9594.17D2A100@gudmund.vgs.no> Hello again I thought I`d tell you people about a DR2 review on http://www.macnn.com/rhapnet/features/dr2/ It seems o.k, genuine and very good progress. I don`t actually know if it is genuine, but someone might know better. BTW; Only 7 dayys until the keynote on WWDC! Cheers, Thomas Sivertsen From fabienr at ncmi.com Mon May 4 07:41:05 1998 From: fabienr at ncmi.com (Fabien Roy) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Gil Amelio et al. (end of thread) In-Reply-To: <199805031959.PAA14808@bretweir.total.net> References: <199805031959.PAA14808@bretweir.total.net> Message-ID: <199805041441.HAA18065@ignem.omnigroup.com> This makes me think about something funny... Jobs got Scully (is it the right name?) from Pepsi. Scully fired Jobs. (You forgot: Scully hired Spindler, Spindler fired Scully (the board fired Scully) :-) Amelio got Jobs (when he bought NeXT). Jobs fired Amelio (ok, not Jobs, the board). --- Fabien L Roy NationsBanc Capital Markets, Inc voice: (704)386-75-76 100 North Tryon Street fax: (704)388-95-64 NC1-007-09-08 Charlotte NC 28255 Beeper: 143-9722 (1-800-946-46-46) or http://www.mobilemedia.com/home/web-page/web-page.htm email: fabienr@ncmi.com (NeXT/Mime) Pager-email 1439722@mobilecomm.net From ruediger at next12.Theo-Phys.Uni-Essen.DE Mon May 4 08:14:56 1998 From: ruediger at next12.Theo-Phys.Uni-Essen.DE (Ruediger Oberhage) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: MacOS/Rhapsody and the task bar References: <9805040920.AA00281@buzz.henkel.de> Message-ID: <9805041514.AA04236@next12.Theo-Phys.Uni-Essen.DE> > Georg Tuparev wrote: > You wrote: > > You can also move the bar to the right or left size of the > > screen, giving you room for many more items. Try it with the > > hidden setting, and you won't > > loose any screen space. > > You can also move it to the top of the screen ... looks almost like > a Mac -- but more ugly - as usual.... > Actually you can make it stand upright (! :-) ) at the (e.g) right side of the screen - the mode I use it if I have to use W95 - and it starts(!) to resemble the OPENSTEP dock. Ruediger From setzer at backfence.net Mon May 4 01:38:56 1998 From: setzer at backfence.net (Setzer Family) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Printers In-Reply-To: <199805040651.XAA25685@smtp03.primenet.com> Message-ID: Rex Dieter has a package that uses Ghostscript as a print filter from NeXT's display postscript engine to print to Ghostscript-supported printers (including HP color inkjets). Currently it's a NeXTStep/OpenStep solution; I don't know if he's planning to update it, but he's ported a bunch of other stuff to Rhapsody. I don't have his email right handy; check out the "Software Uploads" page on StepWise to see if there's a mailto: link for Rex. Steve >Hello Everyone: > >What's the word on rhapsody printer support. I suspect postscript >printers are covered, but what about older but popular ink jets lacking >postscript? More specifically what about my HP DeskWriter 550c? I >wouldn't expect HP to put out a functioning Rhapsody driver until I turn >73 or so, so I'm hoping a third party solution is available? > >Thanks, > >Geoff From petro at playboy.com Mon May 4 10:32:25 1998 From: petro at playboy.com (Petro) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Quote from Microsoft In-Reply-To: <199805020909.CAA22887@proxy4.ba.best.com> Message-ID: At 3:12 AM -0600 5/2/98, Scott Stevenson wrote: >No joke! > > >"The future of Windows is now, using devices and technology you already >know. The future of Windows is more like a walk down a well-known street >than a giant leap forward for humankind." > > > More like a Chicago City street. Cracked, broken, badly patched, full of shattered peices of plastic and glass, lots of pissed off confused people & no hope of things getting any better because the people in charge really don't care as long as the money keeps rolling in... From sanguish at digifix.com Mon May 4 13:13:37 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: Printers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199805042013.QAA03379@digifix.com> Setzer Family wrote: > Rex Dieter has a package that uses Ghostscript as a print filter from > NeXT's display postscript engine to print to Ghostscript-supported printers > (including HP color inkjets). Currently it's a NeXTStep/OpenStep solution; > I don't know if he's planning to update it, but he's ported a bunch of > other stuff to Rhapsody. I don't have his email right handy; check out the > "Software Uploads" page on StepWise to see if there's a mailto: link for > Rex. > Its important to note that the only reason that Ghostscript was used was because of licensing issues with DPS.. Hopefully Apple and Adobe will huddle on this and there will be no need to go to such lengths.. From sanguish at digifix.com Mon May 4 13:15:53 1998 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: DR2 review on Rhapnet In-Reply-To: <354D9594.17D2A100@gudmund.vgs.no> References: <354D9594.17D2A100@gudmund.vgs.no> Message-ID: <199805042015.QAA03402@digifix.com> This 'Review' was only possible by someone either at Apple, or a selected ISV that has decided to violate their confidentiality agreements. Further, it is WRONG of MacNN and RhapNet to publish something that is KNOWN to be confidential. Its unethical. Thomas Sivertsen wrote: > Hello again > > I thought I`d tell you people > about a DR2 review on > > http://www.macnn.com/rhapnet/features/dr2/ > > It seems o.k, genuine and very > good progress. I don`t > actually know if it is > genuine, but someone might > know better. > > BTW; Only 7 dayys until the > keynote on WWDC! > > Cheers, Thomas Sivertsen From abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us Mon May 4 13:49:11 1998 From: abridge at wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:59:16 2005 Subject: DR2 review on Rhapnet Message-ID: <199805042049.NAA16548@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >This 'Review' was only possible by someone either at Apple, or a selected >ISV that has decided to violate th