Hi Jecel
The CRISP was too slow, and had other problems in its details. Sakoman liked it
...
Bill Atkinson did Hypercard ... Larry made many other contributions at Xerox
and Apple
To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical specs
(there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the tablet).
Cheers,
Alan
>________________________________
> From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <je...@merlintec.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
>
>Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
>> Yep, I was there and trying to get the Newton project off the awful ATT chip
>> they had first chosen.
>
>Interesting - a few months ago I studied the datasheets for the Hobbit
>and read all the old CRISP papers and found this chip rather cute. It is
>even more C centric than RISCs (specially the ARM) so might not be a
>good choice for other languages. Another project that started out using
>this and then had to switch (to the PowerPC) was the BeBox. In the link
>I give below it says both projects were done by the same people (Jean
>Louis Gassée and Steve Sakoman), so in a way it was really just one
>project that used the chip.
>
>> Larry Tesler (who worked with us at PARC) finally wound up taking over this
>> project and doing a number of much better things with it.
>
>He was also responsible for giving us Hypercard, right?
>
>> Overall what happened with Newton was too bad -- it could have been much
>> better -- but there were many too many different opinions and power bases
>> involved.
>
>This looks like a reasonable history of the Newton project (though some
>parts that I know aren't quite right, so I can't guess how accurate the
>parts I didn't know are):
>
>http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/john-sculley-newton-origin.html
>
>It doesn't mention NewtonScript nor Object Soups. I have never used it
>myself, only read about it and seen some demos. But my impression is
>that this was the closest thing we have had to the dynabook yet.
>
>> If you have a good version of confinement (which is pretty simple HW-wise)
>> you
>> can use Butler Lampson's schemes for Cal-TSS to make a workable version of a
>> capability system.
>
>The 286 protected mode was good enough for this, and was extended in the
>386. I am not sure all modern x86 processors still implement these, and
>if they do it is likely that actually using them will hurt performance
>so much that it isn't an option in practice.
>
>> And, yep, I managed to get them to allow interpreters to run on the iPad,
>> but was
>> not able to get Steve to countermand the "no sharing" rule.
>
>That is a pity, though at least having native languages makes these
>devices a reasonable replacement for my old Radio Shack PC-4 calculator.
>I noticed that neither Matlab nor Mathematica are available for the
>iPad, but only simple terminal apps that allow you to access these
>applications running on your PC. What a waste!
>
>-- Jecel
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
