> Um... Ethernet? :) It seems to be how most people on here
>synch up, at least...
Yeah, Ethernet over AppleTalk.
Can you access AppleTalk from Carbon?
> Carbon isn't my strong suit, either, but you can access a
>legacy serial port through Cocoa, if it's available on the machine.
>
> If it's *really* necessary, you can write a direct BSD layer
>tool to access the port, then wrap that in a GUI through Cocoa quite
>easily.
Sure. How do I develop that without having to learn?
Sorry, my software is written for MacOS ToolBox. Porting it to Carbon
is already an important work. Porting to cocoa is a big work which
requires to have a MacOS X and considering the market, is it really
worth it?
> >Networking & communication is one of the greatest problem of MacOS X,
> >because of the Unix kernel.
>
> Okay, now I'm going to jump into this. This is a *silly*
>comment. One of the absolute strengths of Darwin (MacOS X's core
>kernel and Unix layer) is the networking stack. To claim this is a
>weakness of Unix in general is... well, it's like claiming that the
>GUI is the weakness of the Mac. (It may not be perfect, but it's
>still the best out there.)
I mean for Classic/Carbon platform.
Sure, it you use the Next bs, you have networking.
> If you can point me to a more robust, stable
NewtonOS on 1 MB machines, 4MB if the -10061 is fixed.
>widely-used OS
>core, please do.
Sorry, that's not an argument.
Besides, cooperative multithreading is *not* an innovation. I explain
part of DOS from stupid cooperative multithreading.
> On top of that, 'Unix kernel' is a misnomer. Unix refers to
>the style of access to the OS more than the actual core anymore.
>Linux is referred to as a Unix. So is Solaris. So is Darwin. All
>three have radically different kernels.
But they are all built the same way.
> Darwin's kernel is Mach 3.0, a highly respected clean
>architecture kernel. The original Mach is newer than the Mac... :)
But based on 1969' technology.
> Unless the app makes low level hardware calls it shouldn't do
>*anyway* according to Apple's developer guidelines that have been
>around... well, practically forever... it should run, and run well.
For example anti-viruses, communication programs, they all use low
level hardware calls, that's well known.
> What you have now has a *strong* chance of being compatible.
I am compatible from OS 7 to 9.
> This reminds me very much of the claims that the move to PPC
>was going to kill Apple, since there was no way they could possibly
>make 68K emulation work, and if they did, it wouldn't work well
>enough to make a difference.
It was much easier that time, since the OS philosophy didn't change.
> >And remember that making FAT was easy to do so that we, MacOS
> >developer, still make FAT programs. But making PPC Carbon/PPC Classic
> >[CFM]/68k Classic becomes much harder. The 68k market is currently
> >being abandonned, but the classic non carbon PPC market (i.e. before
> >OS 8) will be, too.
>
> Yup, it will.
And? Many people are still using old macs. They can't afford new
ones. You don't want to develop for them? Sorry, but most developer's
market is not Photoshop's.
Besides, having a Unix kernel means that the OS bowels will be too
complex for those people. Is it what you want?
> If anything, I find Carbon apps to run faster under MacOS X
>than they do under MacOS 8-9, and I can't tell a difference between
>Carbon and Classic apps under MacOS 8-9.
I can. Script Editor & Sherlock II takes years to open on my G3 if I
don't have an enough unfragmented disk.
> Ah, now it makes sense. Yeah, I'm bitter about the Newton
>getting axed too, but the rest of the company still has the best tech
>out there. :)
>
> To bring this back to development and API choices...
>
> If you're just starting out, I'd recommend wholeheartedly
>going with Cocoa in most instances. Your market will be MacOS X
>only, it's true... but your time to market will be much faster. As
>in half. It's truly an amazing piece of work, and easily the most
>advanced API and development suite I've used in the last twenty years
>of developing.
You should try NewtonOS.
Frankly, we can't do otherwise because they decided to make those
stupid choices. But this is definitively un-Apple.
Let's take the Anti-virus example again. With PPC, they migrated the
code to datafork, this introduced another weakness of the
applications.
If they remove the ability to patch, it will be even more weak.
Besides, the patch ability is part of the MacOS spirit. People can
use third party software to change the appearance/interface with
small hacks. Those developers are the strength of Apple. And as I
heard it, this is over. Poor choice.
Regards,
Paul
-- P&M Consulting Newton Program http://www.pnm-consulting.com/newton/ *************************************** NewtonTalk brought to you by:EVOTE.COM -- the ESPN of politics on the Internet! All the players, all the news, and the hottest analysis and features (plus 'toons!) anywhere.... visit http://www.evote.com today!
*************************************** Need Subscribe/Unsubscribe info?
Visit the NewtonTalk section at http://www.planetnewton.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 00:00:07 CDT