David: You've missed my point about Finale's upgrade schedule entirely. The point is that a Carbonized application runs on MacOS from 8.6 to X.x. Coda did not implement the incremental changes over the last four years that would have made the final step from a Classic application to a Carbonized one the equivalent of a minor upgrade. Since Jari had no rebuttal to my post on the topic, I assume that he has understood what I have been attempting to communicate from the few technical details mentioned. You obviously have not. However, Jari is a very able programmer and undoubtedly more familiar with my way of explaining technical things in a terse manner.
Please drop this thread. Philip On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at 08:12 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > On 13 Jul 2002, at 7:55, Philip Aker wrote: >> On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 02:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: >>>> If you read my reply to Jari Williamsson on the same topic, >>>> you will see that had Coda been implementing the changes for >>>> Carbon incrementally, the adaption to MacOS X would be >>>> comparable to a minor upgrade. That is because it's possible >>>> to have a single Carbon executable which runs on MacOS from >>>> 8.6 upwards to X. >>>> If you have access to a Mac, I can demonstrate with with a >>>> small Carbon test application I've been using to explore the >>>> APIs. >> [...] >>> Mac OS X is not by any stretch of the imagination a minor upgrade. >> What I said was: >> "...had Coda been implementing the changes for Carbon >> incrementally, the adaption to MacOS X would be comparable to a >> minor upgrade." >> I don't think you really know what I'm talking about because you >> are not a Mac user and are incorrectly trying to make parallels >> between Apple's migration strategies and those from Redmond. My >> post to Jari went some way to explaining that. Please read it >> again. > No. > I do in fact know that OS X is not the MacOS. It is a version of UNIX. > that alone means that it is fundamentally different from any > previous Mac > operating system. That means that every structure built atop > that new OS > may behave differently, even if it is an implementation of something in > the basic Carbon API. > It is all a question of exactly how the API call gets > translated into the > actually communication with the underlying OS and then the hardware > itself. The API call itself may be identical, but called atop a > different > basic OS, the result can be very different. > So, however long the Carbon API has been available and usable, > writing to > that API is no guarantee of predictable results on the new OS. Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca § _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
