Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.92/text0025.txt

INI File | 1996-03-31 | 30.8 KB | 640 lines

[I realize that most of you read the net, but not all of you do]

Dear Folks,

     NeXT is putting together a NeXT demoware CD-ROM.  The deadline for
submission is April 22.  We took time off from our busy V1.2 development
schedule to create a freely redistributable DEMO version of Executor.
You can pick it up via anonymous ftp on "unmvax.cs.unm.edu" in
/usr/spool/ftp/pub/ardi/DEMO/Executor-DEMO.tar.

     The .tar file will expand into a .pkg file which must be installed
when you're logged in as root.  I realize that this will make many of
you uncomfortable, but our code needs kernel modifications to "dispatch
A-line traps quickly."  The source to the kernel mods is provided, but
the source to Executor-DEMO isn't (sorry).

     If you're even marginally interested in Macintosh compatibility
(perhaps just to show to your colleagues who are still using Macs), you
should take a look at what we have.  The directory that Executor-DEMO.tar
is in is "sticky", so for someone other than me to put a malicious
program in there would require that the person break into unvmvax.cs.unm.edu
and gain root access.  I suspect that someone that determined could do
some pretty evil things by messing up a non-set-uid root program on
one of the other servers, but you pays your money (or don't in this case)
and you takes your chances.

     I don't know when the demo CD-ROM will be out, but if you're real
worried about the sanctity of Executor-DEMO.tar, you could wait until
then.  Other possibilities would be for you to purcahse a real copy of
Executor-MSW (it's only $80.00), or I guess to send us a self-addressed
blank disk and we'll send it back to you with Executor-DEMO on it.

     We can't take too much time away from V1.2 develpment, but if you
come up with some awesome comments between now and April 22, we may be
able to work them into the demo.

     The demo has a few features in it that our current production
version of Executor (Executor-MSW V1.1.1) doesn't have in it.  Don't worry
the extra fluff that's in the demo version (and more) will be in V1.2 which
will automatically be sent to anyone who has purchased any of the Executor
versions.


        --Cliff[ord T. Matthews]                iclone![e-mail]
        Abacus R&D, Inc.                        [phone]
        1650 University Blvd., NE
        Albuquerque, NM  87102

From [e-mail]  Wed Apr  8 21:22:45 1992
Received: from l5next.gagetalker.com by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA25240; Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:22:45 -0700
Received: by  l5next.gagetalker.com  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA13910; Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:17:56 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:17:56 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Turner)
Message-Id: <9204090417.AA13910@ l5next.gagetalker.com >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Nice demo, but why does it die?

Nice demo guys!

But will the real executor die after running each mac program?

Scotty

From @amdahl.uts.amdahl.com,@juts.ccc.amdahl.com:[e-mail]  Thu Apr  9 08:29:15 1992
Received: from CHARON.AMDAHL.COM by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA14011; Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:29:15 -0700
Received: from amdahl.uts.amdahl.com by charon.amdahl.com (4.0/SMI-4.1/DNS)
    id AA22174; Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:27:47 PDT
Received: by amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.9)
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:29 PDT
Received: by juts.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.6)
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:29 PDT
Received: by RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.5)
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:29 PDT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:29 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Kent L. Shephard)
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Nice demo, but why does it die?

I had the same question.  On another note I like the program.  An application
that should be on the list is LogicWorks(DesignWorks).  THis is a digital design
entry program and logic simulator.  In the EE department at San Jose State
they don't buy NeXT because there is no engineering software.  They buy DEC
machines and use them to run Magic or a Mac to run LogicWorks.

I like the program but $700 for the full blown version is expensive.  I paid
$400 for SoftPC.  I would Executor for about $400-500 but $700 is very steep.

BTW - That's just my opinion.

From iclone![e-mail]  Thu Apr  9 11:47:22 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA19666; Thu, 9 Apr 92 11:47:22 -0700
Received: from iclone.UUCP by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with UUCP
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 9 Apr 92 12:47:03 -0600
Received: by  iclone  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA05247; Thu, 9 Apr 92 12:42:42 MDT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 12:42:42 MDT
From: iclone![e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
Message-Id: <9204091842.AA05247@ iclone >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: Leonard John Schultz <andrew.cmu.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: upgrades + pricing
Cc: ictv.com![e-mail]

Dear Len,

    I forgot to answer your first question of your last letter,
but luckily the answer fits better here than there.  It is possible
that you heard about V2.0, but only because we didn't finalize our
number scheme until recently.  Probably what you heard about as 2.0
is really going to be in V1.2.  While we are still qualifying the
"big ticket" applications, the revision numbers will increase after
the decimal point.  Here's what we've released so far and what our
plans are:

    V1.0    the first non-beta version Word 4.0 only
    V1.1    limited printing, but basically same as V1.0
    V1.1.1    diacritical character support (this was a real
        mistake on our part; V1.1.1 was released two weeks
        after V1.1 was released.  Our european friends were
        not happy that we forgot to put the support in V1.1,
        so we made V1.1.1 and shipped it to our overseas
        customers)

    DEMO-1    While preparing V1.2 for release we found out that we
        could put a demo version on a soon to be made NeXT
        CD ROM.  However the deadline is April 22.  We took
        time off and put together the demo.  It has a couple
        of features that aren't present in V1.1.1.  When
        something kills Executor, a "Death Certificate" is
        printed, and the application doesn't go away until
        you say so.  This gives people a chance to print a
        screen dump.  DEMO-1 is also able to run programs
        directly off of floppy disks (although since it is
        extremely limited, you can't really use this)

    V1.2:    Is not out yet; illness and the preparation of DEMO-1
        slowed us down a bit.  This version will have
        everything mentioned in the previous versions as well
        as:

        Excel 3.0a support (costs extra to enable this)

        Word 5 support (doesn't cost extra money)

        Quicken, MacMoney, Stuffit, Compactor Pro support
                (these don't require extra money)

        Complete printing support:
               Circles, Arcs, underlining, etc.
               Proper font metrics used so text aligns nicely
               Printing works from other applications

        You will be able to traverse your entire filesystem,
               rather than be limited to "Volumes"

        You will be able to start executor by double clicking
               on applications and files

        Better packaging (probably exceedingly similar to
            Stone Design's packaging for Create and
            DataPhile)

        Better documentation to go in the packaging

        Bug fixes for better interaction with GatorBoxes and
            the like

        Support for multiple floppy drives

        (One thing that was slated to go into V1.2 but isn't
        is direct support for mac formatted hard drives.  We
        may support them as read only volumes, but event that
        looks like it may slip)

    V1.3:    Will take advantage of as much cool stuff in NeXTstep
        3.0 as we can.  We don't have an advance copy of
        NS3.0, so I can't say exactly what will and won't
        work.  My understanding is that V1.2 will work under
        NextStep 3.0 without modification.

        It's speculation, but apps that we'll be working on
        will include QuarkXPress, Mac Draw Pro,
        Cricket Graph and SimAnt.

    more 1.x releases will be made as more applications are
    supported.  We'll focus on the "big ticket" apps, whose
    support will bring in more direct revenue, but also listen
    to our customers and try to get out the important "freebies"

    V2.0 will have color support.  This is probably at least a
    year and a half away.

The upgrade policy is simple:  V1.2 will be shipped automatically,
for free to everyone who purchases V1.2 or an earlier version (so buy
now, your money will just help us grow faster).  After that,
successive upgrades will be available either for the cost of the
support for additional "big ticket" apps that you want, or if you
want an upgrade, but no additional "big ticket" support, it will be
$20.

    --Cliff

From iclone![e-mail]  Thu Apr  9 17:17:05 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA22509; Thu, 9 Apr 92 17:17:05 -0700
Received: from iclone.UUCP by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with UUCP
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:16:51 -0600
Received: by  iclone  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA05544; Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:12:31 MDT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:12:31 MDT
From: iclone![e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
Message-Id: <9204100012.AA05544@ iclone >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: ruts.ccc.amdahl.com![e-mail] (Kent L. Shephard)
Subject: Re: Nice demo, but why does it die?
Cc: ictv.com![e-mail]

I sent Scotty a more lengthy reply than perhaps was appropriate, but
the basic reason that it dies is that is how I thought it should
behave when I wrote it, and now that I can see clearly that I was
wrong, we've rolled that change in with a bunch of other changes that
people have suggest.

We won't be adding applications to the "big ticket" list, but that
doesn't mean that Executor won't run other applications.  Those are
just the applications that you have to pay extra for.  This leads to
my defense of our pricing policy.

With a base price of $80 (includes support for one "big ticket" app),
the only reason you'd need to pay more than $420 would be if you
wanted to run more than 6 of the apps *that are on the list* (you
qualify for the quantity 2-9 discount if you buy support for 6 apps;
6 * $70 = $420).  I don't have the retail prices for these apps, but
I'd guess the average price would be at least $200 (we tried to keep
low cost apps off the list for this very reason).  So I believe that
having people who have a $1,200 investement in software pay $420 to
run that software (as well as all the apps that will work by then and
not be on the "big ticket" list) is a fair exchange to allow people
who have a much smaller investment be able to run apps at a lower
price.  By the time we have all the "big ticket" apps running
flawlessly (approx. 9 months away is my guess), most other apps will
run.  You'll be able to run hundreds of apps for $80; just not the
"big ticket" ones.

Comparing us to SoftPC is fine, but be aware that because SoftPC is
able to license the operating system from Microsoft, you really need
to acknowledge that what they've done is much easier than what we're
proposing (remember, you're talking about the full-blown version of
Executor).  They also don't have anywhere near the legal headaches
that we have, and my understanding is that currently SoftPC is
useless for running graphics programs on a NeXT.

So far, most people who understand our pricing scheme have given us
compliments for it; especially now that the list has been nailed
down.

BTW, there's a piece of software available for the SPARC called
"Liken".  It is similar to Executor in many respects.  It lists for
$700, I believe [our price had been set a long time before we heard
about their price], but you have to "acquire" an Apple System file.
What they've done is much easier than what we've done, (much less
what we're proposing), since they get most of the support directly
out of the System file.  Another company, Quorum, is supposed to have
some Mac emulation software out in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th quarter (the
date appears to be slipping), and I believe they're proposing a >$700
price tag.  Note also that both companies are working in much larger
markets than the NeXT market, so they can afford to price their
software *lower*, although in all honesty, we're using the NeXT as a
loss-leader.  We expect to make our money in other markets.

    --Cliff

From @amdahl.uts.amdahl.com,@juts.ccc.amdahl.com:[e-mail]  Fri Apr 10 06:55:51 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA15135; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55:51 -0700
Received: from charon.amdahl.com by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with SMTP
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 07:55:36 -0600
Received: from amdahl.uts.amdahl.com by charon.amdahl.com (4.0/SMI-4.1/DNS)
    id AA02436; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:54:10 PDT
Received: by amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.9)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55 PDT
Received: by juts.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.6)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55 PDT
Received: by RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.5)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55 PDT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Kent L. Shephard)
To: iclone![e-mail], ruts.ccc.amdahl.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nice demo, but why does it die?
Cc: ictv.com![e-mail]

THe one thing I'd like to say in response is that:
Liken and Quorum both have to emulate the processor, like SoftPC.  The NeXT
on the other hand has a 68K family processor.  So instead of emulating the
whole processor you grab the graphics and system calls.  This is a lot different
than SoftPC and the emulation of a PC on NeXT hardware.  This is the big reason
that SoftPC is slow.  It not only has to emulate the processor but it has to
intercept graphic calls to the bios and hardware.  A much more difficult job
than what's done in Executor.  Liken is the same in that respect.

I would say that Executor is more in the same line of emulators for the Mac that
run on the Amiga and Atari, that is same family of processors so instruction
set mapping or emulation is not needed.

I understand that for the Atari and Amiga you need the ROMS, etc.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Executor, I think it's a great
program.  But I also think that SoftPC and Liken were more difficult to write
just because you have the added difficulty of supporting the native processor
that the stuff originally ran on through software.

I've written a software emulator for a vector processor for a PC.  This
included all registers and a couple of vectored interrupts.  Ran fine, but it
was a pain to support interrupts.

       I hope you see my point.

From iclone![e-mail]  Fri Apr 10 08:15:33 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA17181; Fri, 10 Apr 92 08:15:33 -0700
Received: from iclone.UUCP by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with UUCP
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:15:28 -0600
Received: by  iclone  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA00276; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:10:52 MDT
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:10:52 MDT
From: iclone![e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
Message-Id: <9204101510.AA00276@ iclone >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: ictv.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nice demo, but why does it die?

Dear Folks,

    A recent letter of mine compared Soft-PC to Executor.  I claimed that
Executor is much more difficult a task than Soft-PC (and implicitly did the same
for "Liken", a Mac emulator available for the SPARC).  The letter to which I am
replying here implies that either I don't understand the issues, or that I am
misleading you.  Neither is the case.  In the text below, I will refer to
Soft-PC, Liken, and Executor in some contexts where I'm really talking about the
developers of same (Insignia, Excellerated, and ARDI respectively).  I believe
people are more familiar with the products than the companies, so I
anthropomorphize.

>>THe one thing I'd like to say in response is that:
>>Liken and Quorum both have to emulate the processor, like SoftPC.  The NeXT
>>on the other hand has a 68K family processor.  So instead of emulating the

>>whole processor you grab the graphics and system calls.  This is a lot
different
>>than SoftPC and the emulation of a PC on NeXT hardware.  This is the big
reason
>>that SoftPC is slow.  It not only has to emulate the processor but it has to

>>intercept graphic calls to the bios and hardware.  A much more difficult job
>>than what's done in Executor.  Liken is the same in that respect.

    Writing a synthetic CPU is not a difficult task (compared to what we're
doing).  I speak as the designer and major implementer of our synthetic CPU*
that will be used when we support Executor on other platforms (we will).  There
are two major ways to go about emulating a CPU:  interpretation and dynamic
recompilation.  I believe SoftPC uses the latter and Liken uses the former.  The
former is easier, but to get good speed you usually have to revert to a lot of
assembly language which makes porting your synthetic CPU difficult.  Insignia
claims that the biggest speed problems with Soft-PC on the NeXT are related to
the "BitmapImage" bottleneck and that with NeXTstep-3.0, much of the graphics
slowness will be alleviated.  I believe them; I know much about the
"BitmapImage" bottleneck, it plagues us as well (Yes, Executor should be much
faster if the 3.0 imaging mods live up to NeXT's claims).

    Why is writing a synthetic CPU so much more easy than rewriting the
Macintosh ROMs from scratch?  Regularity, documentation and bulk are the three
major reasons.  The implementers of Soft-PC had a more difficult job than those
of Liken, because the Intel 80x86 architecture isn't as regular as the Motorola
680x0 architecture, but by and large, a synthetic CPU is a fairly regular piece
of work (i.e. you design the synthetic environment and implement a bunch of
routines for manipulating that environment, but "add" is more or less like
"subtract", which is similar, but not the same as "multiply", etc.).  The 80x86
documentation is much more complete than is the specification for what various
"A-line" traps do.  The major source of information for the latter is "Inside
Macintosh" Volumes I through VI.  Inside Macintosh is often incorrect, but is
almost always incomplete.  There are other sources of information, but the
bottom line is that you have a much greater state-space to watch after each
A-line trap (that's how Mac programs make operating system calls) then you do
after each synthetic instruction.  Should the first two reasons not be
compelling, consider bulk.  There are more user callable routines within the
MacOS then there are instructions in a 80x86.  The routines are significantly
larger and more complex than the instructions as well.

    Both Soft-PC and Liken have glue that is necessary in addition to the
synthetic CPU.  Soft-PC needs also emulate the BIOS and Liken needs to emulate
just enough of the ROMs to be able to use all of Apple's code present in the
Apple System file that you must acquire to use their product.  Both of these are
tricky things to do; however they are both miniature versions of what we have to
do (i.e. BIOS is a major subset of DOS; the portions of the ROMs that Liken has
to replicate constitute a major subset of the code that we have to support from
the ROMs and System File).  Remember, Soft-PC gets MS-DOS from Microsoft; Liken
gets MacOS from Apple (although you have to supply it yourself; I guess they
don't feel comfortable purchasing it on your behalf).  We have rewritten the
majority of MacOS-6.

    NOTE:  Several companies have reverse-engineered the BIOS; Phoenix
Technologies pioneered the legal technique (clean room/dirty room), but several
other companies have done it.  A few companies have written glue similar in
scope to what's found in Liken for their Mac compatibility products which, like
Liken, require that the majority of the MacOS code come directly from Apple
itself.  I've been told that there are also other companies that have done
IBM-PC emulators, Acorn for instance, but I don't know; Soft-PC is certainly the
one that everyone thinks of.

>>I would say that Executor is more in the same line of emulators for the Mac
that
>>run on the Amiga and Atari, that is same family of processors so instruction
>>set mapping or emulation is not needed.
>>
>>I understand that for the Atari and Amiga you need the ROMS, etc.
>>I'm not trying to take anything away from Executor, I think it's a great

>>program.  But I also think that SoftPC and Liken were more difficult to write

>>just because you have the added difficulty of supporting the native processor
>>that the stuff originally ran on through software.


    You are mistaken.  We are the first (and currently only) company to have
released a product that has any degree of binary compatibility with the
Macintosh that doesn't require any code being supplied by Apple.  If you believe
"Mac the Knife" in MacWeek 4-6-92, then Apple themselves are having a hard time
reimplementing their code on the PowerPC.  There are synthetic CPUs of various
degrees of usability all over the place, as there are reverse-engineered BIOSs
and various little Mac compatibility things that require Apple code.  The reason
we are unique is not totally because of fear of lawsuits.  What we've done and
what we are doing *is* harder than what Soft-PC and Liken do, and that's not
even taking into consideration the legal hassle of what we do (although Liken
certainly has concerns similar to Executor).

    For anyone doubting my claims, I suggest one of two exercises that may
help settle uncertain minds:

    1) Go to your nearest computer technical bookstore and look at an 80x86
reference, an 680x0 reference and "Inside Macintosh" Volumes I-VI.  Compare the
sizes.  Read a little out of any volume of "Inside Macintosh" and consider
carefully the OS routine that they are documenting.  Think about the various
aspects of the routine that aren't well defined (such as what order to do
various subtasks in, what happens on an error, etc) and then remember that
enough of the information therein is wrong to tick off a large number of
Macintosh software developers, much less someone who is trying to do reverse
engineering.

    2) Sit back and wait.  We will be on non-68k platforms.  When we are,
ask about the amount of development time that was spent on the synthetic CPU.
So far we have been working on the reverse-engineered ROMs for six years.  We
plan to have fewer people working on the synthetic CPU than the ROMs and we plan
to have the synthetic CPU out in one quarter of the time.  Since plans can go
awry, wait until it's shipping; I don't think you'll have to wait for NeXTWORLD
Expo '92.

    --Cliff


__________________
*I wrote a more detailed explanation of synthetic CPU theory and practice,
including just what we were doing in a post to comp.sys.next.misc a few months
back.  I didn't save the article, but it should be available in the archives.

From @amdahl.uts.amdahl.com,@juts.ccc.amdahl.com:[e-mail]  Fri Apr 10 09:00:41 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA18277; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:00:41 -0700
Received: from charon.amdahl.com by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with SMTP
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:00:34 -0600
Received: from amdahl.uts.amdahl.com by charon.amdahl.com (4.0/SMI-4.1/DNS)
    id AA05894; Fri, 10 Apr 92 08:59:09 PDT
Received: by amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.9)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:00 PDT
Received: by juts.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.6)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:00 PDT
Received: by RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (/\../\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.5)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:00 PDT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Kent L. Shephard)
To: iclone![e-mail], ictv.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nice demo, but why does it die?

I stand corrected.  Given that I've only seen the demo version my perceptions
were somewhat off.  I was not aware of the fact that you also were writing a
compatible version of the Mac OS in addition to doing the ROMs.

I'm was not trying to trivialize the task of making a Mac emulator by any means.

Cloning an OS is not an easy task and I never said it was.  I've seen the
problems that Digital Research has with staying compatible with MS-DOS and I'm
sure the Mac OS is an order of magnitude more difficult, at least.

I also forgot to take into account how much is documented in the low level
hardware and software of the NeXT, basically it's not really available. I should
have thought about that especially since I had major problems getting my A/D and
AES/EBU digital box working on the NeXT.

I think that Executor is a good product and will probably order a copy in the
near future when one of the applications that I need on the list becomes
supported.

          Kent

From iclone![e-mail]  Fri Apr 10 09:05:07 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA18399; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:05:07 -0700
Received: from iclone.UUCP by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with UUCP
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:05:02 -0600
Received: by  iclone  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA00916; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:00:44 MDT
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:00:44 MDT
From: iclone![e-mail] (Clifford T. Matthews)
Message-Id: <9204101600.AA00916@ iclone >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: ictv.com![e-mail]
Subject: "Finale"

Is anyone out there using the Mac program "Finale" under Executor?
I've received a few requests for information, specifically about
"Finale".  I know that some people were using it or trying to use it,
but there's a big difference between the two.

    --Cliff

p.s. I'd appreciate any information about the company that makes
"Finale", including but not limited to Name, Address, phone number
and size.  We've had some luck with companies sending us software to
test under Executor.  We'll try with "Finale".

From bosslog!mspboss!milo![e-mail]  Fri Apr 10 09:29:36 1992
Received: from unmvax.cs.unm.edu by ictv.com (5.65+/1.34v1.3)
    id AA19028; Fri, 10 Apr 92 09:29:36 -0700
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by unmvax.cs.unm.edu (5.61/3.3) with SMTP
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:29:28 -0600
Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
    (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA25074; Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:29:28 -0400
Received: from bosslog.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
    (queueing-rmail) id 122822.24525; Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:28:22 EDT
Received: by  bosslog  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA02855; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:43:10 CDT
Received: by  mspboss  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA10039; Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:36:58 CDT
Received: by  milo.ictv.com![e-mail]  (5.65c/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA06008; Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:18:08 -0500
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:18:08 -0500
From: bosslog!mspboss!milo![e-mail] (Pete Clark)
Message-Id: <199204101518.AA06008@ milo.ictv.com![e-mail] >
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63.RR)
To: ictv.com![e-mail]
Subject: Difficulties (Was: Nice demo, but why does it die?)


    I'd like to point out here that although the NeXT does have a
68K and doesn't need to emulate the chip itself, as SoftPC does,
Executor needs to emulate the Mac Toolbox - all 5 volumes of Inside
Mac. This is where Executor is a much more difficult program to
engineer than SoftPC. On the Magic Sac emulator, you need to have
apple's ROMs, as you pointed out, and I believe you don't get to run
Amiga programs concurrently, as you do with Executor. There's a lot
of tricky code in those ROMs, which I think ARDI has done an
admirable job of reverse-enginnering.

    I'll let Cliff be the final judge, but I'd bet that writing
the compatibility routines for the Mac was a lot harder than
reverse-engineering the PC BIOS.

    Best,
        Pete
        [e-mail]


Begin forwarded message:

Sender: mspboss!bosslog!uunet!ictv.com!executor-request
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:55 PDT
From: mspboss!bosslog!uunet!ruts.ccc.amdahl.com!kls30 (Kent L.
Shephard)
To: iclone![e-mail],
ruts.ccc.amdahl.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nice demo, but why does it die?
Cc: ictv.com![e-mail]

THe one thing I'd like to say in response is that:
Liken and Quorum both have to emulate the processor, like SoftPC.
The NeXT
on the other hand has a 68K family processor.  So instead of
emulating the

whole processor you grab the graphics and system calls.  This is a
lot different
than SoftPC and the emulation of a PC on NeXT hardware.  This is the
big reason
that SoftPC is slow.  It not only has to emulate the processor but it
has to

intercept graphic calls to the bios and hardware.  A much more
difficult job
than what's done in Executor.  Liken is the same in that respect.


I would say that Executor is more in the same line of emulators for
the Mac that
run on the Amiga and Atari, that is same family of processors so
instruction
set mapping or emulation is not needed.


I understand that for the Atari and Amiga you need the ROMS, etc.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Executor, I think it's a
great

program.  But I also think that SoftPC and Liken were more difficult
to write

just because you have the added difficulty of supporting the native
processor
that the stuff originally ran on through software.


I've written a software emulator for a vector processor for a PC.
This

included all registers and a couple of vectored interrupts.  Ran
fine, but it

was a pain to support interrupts.


       I hope you see my point.