OT: Good place to ask about XP memory problems

Then we would probably now be stuck with a variant of that nasty single tasking cludge that was MacOS prior to its being replaced by a rebranded NeXT Step ! ;-)

Reply to
John Rumm
Loading thread data ...

That was once Jobs had been booted out and the Pepsi chap had a fiddle...

Reply to
John Rumm

ITYM 'cooperative multi-tasking'

I used it for a long time around the millennium with multiple screens. One screen I did software development on, the others were used for running a network monitoring program. It typically ran for weeks without requiring a restart.

By the time I retired we'd migrated to an OS X version on a MacPro with

5 screens, two of which were on my desk and the other 3 were nailed to a wall displaying the network maps.
Reply to
Tim Streater

Oddly enough, Menace, that's incorrect :-)

Reply to
Tim Streater

Vista.

Reply to
Andy Champ

I wouldn't expect many people to know about them, they sold by the handful and seemed to be a well kept secret at the time.

Reply to
Steve Firth

"dennis@home" wrote: [snip]

No that's bullshit. It would have been accurate had you said that Windows had protected memory before MacOS.

Also it's convenient for Windows fan to

More bullshit. One thing that marks Apple out from MS is that Apple provide a high level of support to developers and Apple give away development tools and even development environments such as Quartz.

A quick look at Apple's AppSore would show most people who are not complete fucknuggets how well Apple supports developers.

MS are closed source to the extent of not documenting APIs in order to give MS's own developers an advantage over third parties.

I doubt if you have a brain. The key difference being that I'm right and you are wrong.

Reply to
Steve Firth

How would you know? the original macOS had no virtual memory so I was correct. it was upto something like V8 before it got a page file, etc. Hell it couldn't even multitask until about V4.

Reply to
dennis

Well that's not surprising.. it wasn't until the 68030 series came out that there was a working MMU to run the protection and coincidently support paging and VM. That is true for Motorola CPUs as used by Apple.

M$ give away tools too. In fact they probably did it before apple.

Would that be like app store? Yes you can have tools but just try publishing anything without apple's say so. ControlFreaks"R"us won't like it.

Rubbish.

I hate to tell you this but you are wrong again.

Reply to
dennis

I used all those versions.

Ah, shifting the goalposts, eh? Yes, the 128k Mac from 1984 had a 68000

- no MMU.

So given that OS 9.2.2, the final version of Classic MacOS, had virtual memory, how does that make it that 11 years or more later we'd be still using pre OS 8 versions?

Mind you, I'm happy to agree that the virtual memory implementation in the pre OS X days was clunky. But then it was essentially grafted onto an old setup. I'd also assert that versions of Windows prior to Win95 were essentially unusable. WinNT 4 was quite good, though. But MS had to steal proper programmers from DEC to get that.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Who's shifting goalposts. its speculation as to what would have happened if Apple had been dominant and not M$.

Also as you say above macOS didn't virtual memory for ages.

Even after it had it it was cr@p at actually using it.

Why do you think Apple dumped it and stole another OS to make OSX?

Reply to
dennis

IIRC clones of IBM PC came out 1982/83 and the price dropped from about £4k per unit to about £1k for an Amstrad for example You have to admit that ******* Gates recognised that the money was in software not hardware. He licensed PCDOS to IBM but retained the commercial rights to MSDOS. When licensing Dos to hardware sellers they were prohibited from preloading any other operating system. There was a graphics based OS called Gem around long before Windows but it was strangled at birth by this ruse.

Reply to
hugh

In message , Tim Streater writes

Well why not?. They've stolen/copied almost everything else over the years.

Reply to
hugh

Mmmm no (again). The 030 was the first in the 68k line to have an

*on-board* MMU. You could perfectly well use a 68020 and use the 68851 MMU as a co-processor with it.
Reply to
Tim Streater

[1] - see below

You. Got you bang to rights.

Yes yes, pure speculation. And you didn't answer my Q about why anyone would still be using OS 8 some 11 years after OS 9 came out

Ah, so you admit that what you wrote at [1] above is crap then?

Reply to
Tim Streater

I don't think you understand this thread. just who would Apple have copied to get virtual memory if windows wasn't the dominant OS?

Reply to
dennis

Didn't the Apple Lisa have virtual memory?

Reply to
polygonum

Which MacOS used one of those? Anyway they didn't work very well.

Reply to
dennis
[snip dennis moving goalposts]

They wouldn't have had to "copy" anyone. Any decent OS systems engineer could have done it - if they were able to start from scratch. MS had to get people from DEC, who certainly understood how to write an OS. Remember that virtual memory systems, even by the 1990s, had been around for 30 years (Atlas started it all off in the very early 60s).

Apple simply had to wait until Jobs came back, after which they bought Next (dunno where you got "stole" from - or do you make it up as you go along?).

Anyway that's enough correcting of Menace's balderdash for this thread. If you want to know more you can look it up for yourself.

Reply to
Tim Streater

The later versions of classic MacOS, with virtual memory, would certainly have run on an 020 Mac with MMU.

Do you mean the 020? (Used in the TGV and Eurofighter according to WinkyPedia). Or the MMU.

Having written a tiny OS for the 68000 (see ) I can state that it's a much better processor than the 8086 ever was. Just a shame that the 68008 wasn't out in time for IBM to use in the original PC instead of the 8088.

Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.