Jump to content
Toni_

Progress on our new Mac App Compatibility Environment

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dog Cow said:

I run 10.5.8 for HFS-write compatibility. Any chance you could compile with 10.5.x support too?

Hi,

 

It will be possible someday, but it will take a little bit more work than the 10.6 compatibility. My main development machine, which we use to create bundles, is running Xcode 9 on Mac OS X 10.12 which can go only down to 10.6, which allowed the 10.6.8 support to be relatively easily added. We do however also have lower end machines, and I can do builds on Xcode 4 on Mac OS X 10.7 on Mac Mini C2D, but we will also need to prep up a test machine with Mac OS X version lower than 10.6 to do the tests. Also, I am not sure how low SDL2 (our current front-end) can go. Pukka has mentioned a couple times, that he would like us to try to go as low as at least PowerPC G4 with OS X 10.3, so we definitely will not be ruling out lower end, it just will be a lower priority at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Toni_ said:

This is not yet a problem, but at some point there will be work needed to see whether process manager support is better to be implemented as System 7-style cooperative multitasking using exact process manager emulation, or whether for example launching of applications could be delegated to host system. This would however create challenges on how to handle program-to-program-communications, "shared" memory (on real Macs all apps share the same address space, and thus see each other AND the temporary memory allocated from the process manager/system heap).

This is why I was thinking of the nanoKernel. Apple had a solution for running older cooperative code along side preemptive memory-protected code (I don't understand the details of how they did that but my understanding is that the nanoKernel was the key that made that happen.) Rather than using the host OS to do the program-to-program communication, reproduce the parts (nanoKernel?) that Apple made to do that and keep it inside the emulation environment.

Is that a reasonable idea?

 

14 hours ago, Toni_ said:

(it's actually very ironic, and kind of sad, that how blazingly fast the 10.6.8 is on iMac 2006 compared to 10.14 on 2015 MacBook Pro...with less memory, spinning hard drive, and much older CPU...)

Yes, it is! I think there is a community-wide yearning for a smaller simpler system that's both performant on a range of hardware AND doesn't corral us in to Walled Gardens !! 6 months ago I was doing some research into SK8 (Hypercard on steroids) and I was BLOWN AWAY on how FAST emulating MacOS 7.6.1 on 68K was !!! It blew my mind! The ONLY reason I'm not primarily running classic MacOS today is that the emulators are not reliable.

 

This "dream" is certainly the core of my earlier post!

Perhaps diverging off topic but maybe "the dream" needs to be defined.

 

1) A reliable emulator for running existing software

(The M.A.C.E. project is VERY exciting! I'm actually considering using Hypercard for REAL projects again once it is up and running :-)

2) Independent Mac OS 7/9 operating system. capable of running original software (FULL compatibility not required). NanoKernel included to provide a preemptive, memory protected space for "new" community created applications.

3) Poor man's Copland. Simplified versions of "some" of the Copland features. Document-Centric computing would be my #1 vote! OpenDoc compatibility NOT required.

 

Like I said, it's the "dream".

What do you guys think? Does it match your thoughts?

 

j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Builder1 said:

What do you guys think? Does it match your thoughts?

Absolutely!  I'd try and do real work with system 7-9 stuff if there was a reliable emulator and the ability to run system 7-9 apps in a fully working compatibility environment.  I think both together would be awesome. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross application communication could be done easily using Apple Events.

Each application could run in its own Toolbox environment.

It seems like Elliot Nunn is disassembling the Classic ROM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×