Fwd: Re: A new twist on multitasking

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

------- Begin Forwarded Message -------

Subject:     Re: A new twist on multitasking
From:        Patrick <patrick@howard.genetics.utah.edu>
Newsgroups:  comp.sys.mac.misc
             comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date:        Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:10:04 -0700

On 30 Oct 1997 darknerd@shell4.ba.best.com wrote:

> > >>while, but I believe the relationship would be similar to that 
> > >between 16 and 32 bit software in Windows95. Old noncopland software
> > >would run, but it would force the system back into the old way of
> > >doing things. Copland 
[...] 
> This depends on the plan.  The old plan was to have virtual machines do 
> compatability.  The new plan by whacked management was to do some hybrid 
> hackery of an OS compromising themicrokernel. 
[...] 
> This is not the case in Windows '95.  A bad DOS application can crash the 
> whole system.  
[...]
> This depends on the plan.  The old plan was to have virtual machines do
> compatability.  The new plan by whacked management was to do some hybrid
> hackery of an OS compromising the microkernel.
[...]
> This is not the case in Windows '95.  A bad DOS application can crash the
> whole system.  Even Win95 applications can destroy the OS through
> misconfigurations.  You have to delve into a Regisry to fix things editing
[...]

OS/2 demonstrates that this is not necessarily a requirement of backward 
compatibility, however.  It need not be that way with Copland.  OS/2, 
unlike Windows 95, can run old 16 bit DOS and Windows 3.1 apps without 
doing anything differently.  It still does preemptive multitasking and
all the other benefits of a modern OS.  

If OS/2 can do it there is no reason to assume that Apple couldn't do it 
as well (MS obviously cannot do it).

patrick

-------- End Forwarded Message --------