Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!thorin!
unc!bolter
From: bol...@unc.cs.unc.edu (Jay D. Bolter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: DA question
Message-ID: <2896@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 31 May 88 14:20:11 GMT
Sender: ne...@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Lines: 10
Can anyone suggest how to create a Desk Accessory with a large
amount of code (say 70 or 80K)? What are the factors that limit
you to 32K? Is it possible, for example, to store more code in one's
own resources (in addition to the DRVR resource) and then call in
that code as needed. If so, how do you pass control to and from these
code resources? Can anyone suggest any books or articles that discuss
problems of large DAs? (I am programming in MPW Pascal.)
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!amdahl!apple!dan
From: d...@Apple.COM (Dan Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: DA question
Message-ID: <11388@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 1 Jun 88 04:02:13 GMT
References: <2896@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Reply-To: dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 20
About DAs of the 70K size, written in MPW Pascal...
DAs do not have their own A5 World, ordinarily. This means no global
data, no jump data (no code segments), and no own QuickDraw globals,
among other things.
If a desk accessory can save and restore A5 then these problems would go
away. As I have mentioned in this forum previously, this was actually
under consideration here at Apple, but had problems.
The party line today is to not write DAs that big: just write an
application which **does** have its own A5 World, and use MultiFinder!
If this very simple solution to the problem (or sidestepping of the
problem) is not adequate, please tell me more. We'd like to do what we
can in solving developer's problems.
Dan Allen
Software Explorer
Apple Computer
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!guido
From: gu...@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <523@sering.cwi.nl>
Date: 1 Jun 88 14:32:43 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 33
In article <11...@apple.Apple.Com> dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes:
>About DAs of the 70K size, written in MPW Pascal...
>[...]
>The party line today is to not write DAs that big: just write an
>application which **does** have its own A5 World, and use MultiFinder!
This is not the first time I notice that Apple has essentially given up
support for machines as "small" as a Megabyte. Running MultiFinder on a
1M machine is not realistic. It doesn't work with any interesting
program (Dan may read this as MPW or HyperCard, for the rest of you
folks, I really mean LightspeedC :-). An unexpanded Mac+ (with HD) is
just fine for for my development needs, and apparently all that my
institute wants to afford for a while. I'm not asking support for 128K
old ROM Macs; but surely the Mac+ (which is still sold!) deserves a
better future than being made obsolete by ever-growing system files and
other software.
I can see two reasons for this attitude at Apple:
1) (malicious) They want to sell more Mac IIs. What would be
more appropriate than to gradually make the software to big
or too slow for the smaller models...
2) (naive) All programmers at Apple have Mac IIs on their desks
and have forgotten about all those users who can't afford an
upgrade on a one-year old machine.
PS: don't tell me that using MultiFinder on a Mac+ is doable. It isn't,
for any serious purpose.
--
Guido van Rossum, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI), Amsterdam
gu...@piring.cwi.nl or mcvax!piring!guido or guido%pir...@uunet.uu.net
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!
plaid!chuq
From: ch...@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <55070@sun.uucp>
Date: 2 Jun 88 00:09:02 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality
Lines: 17
>This is not the first time I notice that Apple has essentially given up
>support for machines as "small" as a Megabyte. Running MultiFinder on a
>1M machine is not realistic.
Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) the
standard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away, and the
minimum memory is 2 Meg.
Considering this is their official position, I don't see any problem with
telling people to write applications instead of 70K DA's....
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we
read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!
andante!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!amdahl!pyramid!voder!apple!dan
From: dan@apple.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <11505@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 2 Jun 88 20:00:24 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl> <55070@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 18
Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:00:24 1988
>Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this
fall) thestandard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going
away,and the
minimum memory is 2 Meg.
>Chuq Von Rospach
*** I am dumb: will somebody tell me how to quote stuff with vi ? ***
Anyway, although these sentiments about Unifinder going away and 2 MB
are certainly discussed, the RAM shortage still requires us to consider
our mainline machines to be Mac Pluses.
I am NOT aware of any official pronouncments about System Tools 7.0, let
alone that it will require 2MB. We ARE moving in that direction, but
slowly.
Dan Allen
Apple Computer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!
andante!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!amdahl!pyramid!voder!apple!dan
From: dan@apple.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <11507@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 2 Jun 88 20:13:45 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl>
Reply-To: dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 35
Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:13:45 1988
I mentioned previously that the "party line" was to write Apps, not DAs.
I should add that I am (personally), not of this "party". I very much
sympathize with the many Mac Plus owners, and yes, for development in
LightSpeed C or with Turbo Pascal or with MPW, MultiFinder does not work
in 1 MB. (With Turbo 1.1, MF doesn't work no matter how much RAM you
have.)
Yes, all of the programmer's at work DO have Mac IIs, and yes, we DO
forget about the many that have Mac Pluses. But after a recent trip
that I made to the University of Michigan, I realized that VERY FEW
people use Mac IIs, use MultiFinder, or have more than 1 MB of RAM.
I sincerely hope that Apple does NOT require the use of MultiFinder
until we can be assured that everyone in the Real World has 2 MB of RAM.
Alternately, we could require MultiFinder if we could get MPW and
HyperCard to each run in about 500K doing everything, but that just
won't happen.
If you have problems with these things, WRITE PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY AT
APPLE AND COMPLAIN. If you have problems with anything to do with
Developement software (using MPW, 32K global limits, MPW being a memory
hog, etc.), write the head of Development Software. He does not read
the net, but can be reached through AppleLink at THOMAS3 or write to him
at:
Jim Thomas
Apple Computer
20525 Mariani MS 27E
Cupertino, CA 95014
Or write Jean-Louie Gassee at the same address (leave off the mail
stop). They need to hear.
Dan Allen
Software Explorer
Apple Computer
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!alberta!teletron!andrew
From: andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <348@teletron.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jun 88 15:52:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: teletron.348
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl> <55070@sun.uucp>
Organization: TeleTronic Communications Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.
Lines: 16
In article <55070@sun.uucp>, ch...@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
> Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) the
> standard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away, and the
> minimum memory is 2 Meg.
I've seen this statement before, and I'm curious. How will this affect
programs that fail under the current Multifinder? Is Apple going to make
Multifinder as robust as the regular Finder? Or will I have to keep an old
version of "Classic Finder" around to boot from when I want to run some
old applications?
Just wondering...
--
Andrew Scott andrew@teletron.uucp - or -
{att, ubc-cs, watmath, ..}!alberta!teletron!andrew
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: ch...@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <55442@sun.uucp>
Date: 5 Jun 88 01:42:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun.55442
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl> <55070@sun.uucp>
<348@teletron.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality
Lines: 20
>I've seen this statement before, and I'm curious. How will this affect
>programs that fail under the current Multifinder? Is Apple going to make
>Multifinder as robust as the regular Finder? Or will I have to keep an old
>version of "Classic Finder" around to boot from when I want to run some
>old applications?
Well, I think a similar precedent was set between MFS and HFS. There was
some compatility attempts made, but in general, it was either updated or it
went away. (Or you learned to boot that program on a floopy with an old
system on it). At least this time you don't have to worry about ROM
incompatibilities, so it's always possible to fix it with a re-boot.
A year from now, any program that isn't Multifinder compatible will be
unsaleable on the marketplace. For the most part, that's already true.
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we
read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!oliveb!sun!
plaid!chuq
From: ch...@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <55443@sun.uucp>
Date: 5 Jun 88 01:46:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun.55443
References: <55070@sun.uucp> <348@teletron.UUCP> <55442@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality
Lines: 22
>A year from now, any program that isn't Multifinder compatible will be
>unsaleable on the marketplace. For the most part, that's already true.
Damn. One clarifications BEFORE everyone yells at me on this. A major market
segment where this is NOT true is games. That'll probably continue to be
true for the forseeable future (many games would have trouble dealing with
sharing their environment, frankly). but it's something that is going to
have to be dealt with sometime. I'm already at the point where if it isn't
Multifinder compatible, I don't bother because I know I won't play it -- my
primary game playing time is with a 50 page document in the laserwriter
spooler, which doesn't lend itself well to rebooting and playing Crystal
Quest (unless, of course, the OTHER Mac isn't being used, which is rare
these days....).
So except for games, it has to be MF compatible. And games better start
thinking about it, or System release 7.0 is going to really slap some folks
in the face.
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we
read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!ht!spt!mcp!mdc
From: m...@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Summary: Some Slogans for the ReSt Of Us...
Message-ID: <172@mcp.entity.com>
Date: 6 Jun 88 00:40:39 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl>
<11507@apple.Apple.Com> <3072@polyslo.UUCP>
Lines: 57
...
(please take what follows with a grain of salt, or a sip of Coke)
After spending ALL my money on a Mac+, and then through some sleazoid
connection getting simms for a full load of memory, now I get to watch
as the Mac OS gets so big that it won't fit in a MEG and I have to
start deleting stuff off my 20 meg hard disk. And people are talking
calmly about how this AMAZING DEBUGGER will ONLY take 512K!! OOO
AHHH!! I hope it writes code for us too (cause with no memory left,
somebody's got to!)
DaMn!! I guess I won't be able to run that new ULTIMATE SCREENSAVER
now. (y'know... would someone who mainly is trying to NOT LOOK AT THEIR
SCREEN please just sell me their keyboard and mouse? Think of it as
KEYSAVER AND MOUSESAVER).
This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but
I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to
something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting
paid by the hour so they don't spend time trying to make it smaller.
Maybe next contract Apple should add: "And after adding these new
features the core operating system will still run fine on a 1 (2????)
meg Mac+.
Then of course the BoYs in MaRKetTing don't usually know chit about
computers, except to say at some meeting in front of the right
managerial types: "Well, you know Jean Louis, those kids at SUN are
gonna be adding Feature X[11,12,13] to the SUN OS V007.0, can I go down
the hall and hassle your operating systems guy in to hanging a large
bag off the side of the MAC OS so we can announce this feature in
System 7.0?"
Who's to say? Any you boys (or girls) at apple have any idea how we
can get the system software on a weight reduction plan?
Of course, barring that, perhaps the NEXT (inc.) thing to do is help
Apple keep it's priorities straight with a little MAD Magazine style
'yumah' (as we say down east)...
Must Be time for some Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts!
Macintosh II: "It simply costs more!!"
The Few, The Proud: "The people with enough memory to run MultiFinder."
(or) "The people with enough memory to run System 7.0"
or how about:
Macintosh: "The computer for a few of thousand more than I have!!"
Think about it, Apple... And "Thanks for your support!"
--
----------------
Marty Connor
Director of Innovation, The Entity
m...@mcp.entity.com, ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mcp!mdc
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!killer!pollux!ti-csl!
mips!holland
From: hol...@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Message-ID: <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>
Date: 10 Jun 88 21:00:18 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl>
<11507@apple.Apple.Com> <3072@polyslo.UUCP> <172@mcp.entity.com>
Sender: news@ti-csl.CSNET
Reply-To: holland@mips.UUCP (Fred Hollander)
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 20
In article <1...@mcp.entity.com> m...@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes:
>...
>This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but
>I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to
>something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting
Am I misunderstanding this? If you're complaining about the size of the
System growing AND you're satisfied with the features and the way the current
System works, WHY don't you just continue to use the old System? There are
people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more capable software.
People who are satisfied with the old software shouldn't care if new software
requires 1Meg or 10Meg. If they don't want to upgrade, they simply won't buy
the new software.
Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela
The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ht!spt!mcp!mdc
From: m...@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
Summary: tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow...
Message-ID: <175@mcp.entity.com>
Date: 11 Jun 88 09:16:05 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl>
<11507@apple.Apple.Com> <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>
Lines: 72
In article <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>, hol...@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes:
> In article <1...@mcp.entity.com> m...@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes:
> >... This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but
> >I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to
> >something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting
> Am I misunderstanding this? If you're complaining about the size of the
> System growing AND you're satisfied with the features and the way the current
> System works, WHY don't you just continue to use the old System?
Yes, you misunderstood. I am reasonably satisfied with the current
system software, and I am complaining that the software is overtaking
the hardware TOO QUICKLY.
Just because I am currently satiated does not mean that I must never
have urges again. (quote that out of context...)
I like sexy features as much as the next guy, but when you tell me "loads
of new features, but too bad if your machine is over 18 months old..."
or "I sure hope you have 2.5meg..." I have to say:
Hey! What about us, Mac+ users!
You see, as someone who wants to develop software for the Mac (this is
comp.sys.mac.programmer), I have to have a machine (HARDWARE +
software) that is current enough to allow meaningful contribution.
Sure, I know a few folks happily running on 512k macs, using the last
stable 64k system, running Word 1.05, and I say more (or less) power
to them. Of course, they had the chance for a nice $300 ROM and disk
Upgrade to help them some, as I remember...
> There are people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more
> capable software.
^^^^^^^ ARGH!!
** NEWS FLASH **
WILLINGNESS ALONE DOES NOT UPGRADE MACHINES.
CASH upgrades machines, and I seem to have just
spent loads of it on this Mac+. That is why I wrote in. I am trying
to make sure that now that all the developers at Apple are using
Mac-II's that they don't forget TOO SOON about the fact that they
SOLD ALL THOSE MAC+s (which can't be upgraded to Mac-II's) I believe.
What I am asking is that they give a care to the size of things.
{Make it good, Make it fast, make it small.}
> People who are satisfied with the old software shouldn't care if new software
> requires 1Meg or 10Meg. If they don't want to upgrade, they simply won't buy
> the new software.
Agreed. Well, perhaps you will sink whatever is a small fortune for
you into a Mac-XX, and then about a year or two later have someone
tell you that you have to spend triple the investment to stay in the
game. (not just a few hundred for an upgrade, or something easy).
Then you might understand why some poor loser would want to
write in and remind the guys with the Mac-II's and ALL THAT RAM what is
going on. But hey, why should you care?
I don't see this issue as 1/0, btw; I agree the system should evolve,
but not without a little self-restraint. It's easy to forget last
year sometimes...
> Fred Hollander
> Computer Science Center
> Texas Instruments, Inc.
> holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela
>
> The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
--
----------------
Marty Connor
Director of Innovation, The Entity
m...@mcp.entity.com, ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mcp!mdc