Received: from sloth.swcp.com (sloth.swcp.com [198.59.115.25]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA03673 for <executor@nacm.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:40:23 -0800
Received: from iclone.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by sloth.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with UUCP id WAA14252; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:40:05 -0700
Received: from beaut.ardi.com by mailhost with smtp
(nextstep Smail3.1.29.0 #11) id m0tFE1U-000YcHC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 22:35 MST
Received: by beaut.ardi.com (linux Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
id m0tFE1T-00002YC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 22:35 MST
Message-Id: <m0tFE1T-00002YC@beaut.ardi.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 22:35 MST
From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews)
To: Bill Miller <wjm@wwa.com>
Cc: "'executor@nacm.com'" <executor@nacm.com>
Subject: Re: System 7.x (5)
In-Reply-To: <01BAB186.E7ACB760@vh1-015.wwa.com>
References: <01BAB186.E7ACB760@vh1-015.wwa.com>
Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
Precedence: bulk
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Miller <wjm@wwa.com> writes:
Bill> I was wondering, what would happen if I were to install
Bill> system 7.x on = top of Executor.
I would guess that it will crash immediately, since we don't support
low-level I/O operations.
Bill> If you don't know, I may be able to try it at school. = We
Bill> have a site license for System 7, and a bunch of macs that
Bill> have the = DOS compatibility cards, and a T1 link to the
Bill> net.
That site license is for Macs, so putting one of those copies of
System 7 on top of Executor on a PC is probably a violation of the
license, even if you were to put it on the DOS compatibility card
within the Mac, although I am not a lawyer and I haven't seen the
terms of our site license.
My understanding was that Executor wouldn't run on the DOS cards
inside of Macs. Is that the case, or not?
Bill> The other question is, can it be done in under 10 minutes
Bill> under = Executor?
Bill> I think that by putting Apple System 7.5, you will
Bill> elliminate the = problems, because they all (at least the
Bill> program crashes I have = observed) seem to come from the
Bill> faked system 6 implementation. Your = Syn68K seems to run
Bill> fine, if it can run PhotoShop, and Pagemaker, and =
Bill> Illustrator.
Yes and no. Syn68k is pretty solid, indeed. The problem is there's
more to a Mac than a CPU and the ROMs/System File; there's also all
sorts of I/O and "glue" that holds everything together. To write the
glue and to get it correct, we'd need to disassemble what the glue
connects to (i.e. the ROMs and System File). That would turn our
"clean" engineers into "dirty" engineers -- that's a price that's too
high for us.
Once we have enough money to be able to afford a dirty team that is
separated from the clean team, then we can do what you propose. We're
hoping that 2.0 sales will give us that money. If not, we'll probably
have to start dealing with venture capital people, something we've
avoided so far.
Bill> Just out of curiosity, why not make it a Dynamic recompiler,
Bill> so that it = only needs to be translated once. Do the same
Bill> thing Connectix Speed = Doubler does.
Executor is a dynamic recompiler, which is why we get speeds better
