From: David Ensteness (denstene_at_mac.com)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:58:56 PST
> I didn't know Apple manufactured LSD... (You meant Digital Lifestyle
> Device - or DLD).
First, where did you get that acronym? Honest, silly.
> Back on topic:
Second, what did you base any of your other stipulations on?
> 1: If someone got ahold of the code for the OS and integrated Apps, we
> could have a Newton clone with all the third-party extensions developed
> over the years integrated into the OS. This could be done,
> conservatively, in under two years.
You have a timeline you call conservative without any basis that I am
aware of, since to my knowledge (from your past posts and our
conversations) you have no experience in programming higher level
operating systems, porting of system level software, complex APIs, or
the specific knowledge about the Newton as a platform required to make
any sort of estimate about such a project.
> 2: It seems to me that the code for the NOS is no longer intact. All
> the NOS2.x programmers would have to be rounded up and set in a room to
> pool the remains of their knowledge and get it down on paper/hard
> drive.
The Newton OS source code probably exists somewhere, perhaps in a
closet, perhaps on a server, perhaps on some floppies in a night stand,
who knows. Its not really does it exist? The question is more along the
lines of is it accessible, and its generally believed its not.
I don't know how rounding up all the Newton people would help since it
was just a couple who wrote the OS, but that said, its not like they
memorized the code, the original coding was done about ten years ago
and no one who does something wants to do it the exact same way a
second time because as we live we learn.
> 3: If the above statement is true (about the code no longer being
> intact), there is no way a working Newton could be produced again.
Uhm, I hate to argue both sides, but that is sorta the definition and
part of the reason for reverse engineering ... so while your conclusion
might be true your statement is false.
> Conclusion:
> A complete rewrite of the Newton OS would have to take place in order
> for a working Newton-like device to ever make it past the "vision"
> stage.
About the Newton needing to be completely rewritten, not really sure
how that is the case either, many things are ported without being
rewritten completely, that is sorta the point of porting, take what you
have here, make it run there, not start over. If you were going to
start over, why not start with something else, in which case, its
really not a Newton is it?
> The facts are - we have no intact OS code, we have no source for the
> old chips (or compatibles) and ---- ----- ---... well, those are the
> facts. Nothing we, or anyone else, can do about it.
> I'd love a revived Newton as much as the next guy, but it just can't
> and won't happen. Now, onto expanding Newton 2100's supported WiFi
> cards.
The Newton supports a ton of readily available wireless cards so I
guess most people are not too concerned about it.
I also have to point out how ironic your e-mail is since like two days
ago you were the one that sent an e-mail claiming that a revived Newton
was "imminent."
Cheers,
David
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:30:01 PST