[NTLK] Restarting Newton development?!

Tue Aug 7 19:56:36 EDT 2018

Terence: Agreed. Public perception helped to doom the Newton. It was so different than anything else at the time, it HAD BETTER work perfectly, or it will be dismissed, perhaps as a brilliant but non-functional idea. I have read much on this, and another thing that comes up (also in Noah’s film) is that the time between announcement and final product introduction/demonstration was perhaps too long. Today even a few weeks can be a killer. That didn’t help, as public perception was the device was not ready, it was vaporware. This was Apple before the return of Steve Jobs, before even the iPod—certainly not the behemoth it is today. There was not the reputation (yet) for “insanely great” products.

Sylvain: Excellent, well-considered points. Again, I agree. While it is fun to speculate on how we could do this, one of the things you are saying is spot on—if we want to create the Next Generation of Newton then I think it should have most if not all of the Newton’s best features in both its hardware and software (the “soul” of the Newton)...else it is not a Newton but a completely different device.

I thought the purpose of this discussion,  at least at first, was to share ideas on how to build a device that could eventually replace the aging hardware of our Newtons. While it would probably be an upgrade to have a high resolution color display and a more modern way to browse the Internet (perhaps in a sort of Reading Mode, as you said), for example, we already have these things in the iPad and the various other tablet devices out there. Without the integration of all of its software together—“soups”—and the working HWR, I think that’s all we have. Another tablet, but this one with the Newton name on it.

Each of us has an idea what he or she would want in a more modern version of the Newton. I have said before here that I would forego the ability to watch video on it—for much of the reasons Pawel says, it is content creation not content consumption. Likewise, an HD color display is only important to me to better view Internet imagery, for example. But then again, there is video imagery on the Internet, so I contradict myself. Where is the fine line between watching something on Netflix vs. watching an instructional video on YouTube? Perhaps I need to consume some content in this way to CREATE content.

Again, just my opinions.

Mahalo,
Forrest

Sent from my T-Mobile iPhone 6S Plus

> On Aug 7, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Sylvain Pilet <sylvain at pilet.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi, everybody, 
> Salut à tous (in French after English)
> 
> 
> Your latest thoughts on this project are interesting. But I have a few things to say...
> 
> We are here, on the NewtonTalk list, and I think everyone here wants a NewT Generation (NewTon new Generation) more than a new Smartphone or a new Tablet, am I wrong or not? 
> 
> For me, one of the first things to define is whether this future OS will be compatible with NewtonOS2.x or not. 
> If so, will it work, or not, on the current Newton 2x00/eMate architecture?
> If not, then the targeted material must be defined. 
> On this subject, my opinion is that: if we want to develop a new OS in the spirit of Newton, should we not also develop (or select) also the hardware. So he too can be in the same spirit? Yes, I know, developing hardware is even harder than developing software. But what would be the interest to develop an OS compatible with everything, there are already many OS projects in progress around the world.
> 
> But before going any further, and without wanting to hurt any of the developers who have come forward on this project. I think that the objective to be achieved is not well enough defined at the present time. In any case, for me, whatever the development environment, the important thing is the final objective. But what exactly is the final objective?
> If I understood correctly, and if I didn't miss a message. It seems to me that the objective is to make an Operating System different from all those that exist, like NewtonOS. Is that correct? If so, then let us ask the right questions, and most importantly, what problems we want to solve. 
> 
> Do we want to develop a new OS that would compete with other OS, or a very different OS? I think you and I are choosing the second option, a very different OS. But what for? For me, the answer is: for a different use!
> That is what must be defined as a priority! What will it bring different in use, this OS? 
> For example, how will this OS use the Internet? If it is to have the same thing as on our Computers, Smartphones, Tablets, I do not see the interest of a new OS. If it's to watch videos on Youtube, Netflix, idem, no interest. If it is to not manage to read an article, on a site, because we find it more, because it is drowned in advertising, no interest also. If it's to load the system, with hundreds of APIs, pointing to Google and so on, there's no point there either in doing what already exists. Same for using java (client side) should we allow java (and load the system) I would say no, because it's a bit like Flash at one time, besides, java is practically an OS in an OS ! 
> For me, you have to be able to take advantage of the Internet, without having to suffer it, without having to be dependent on codes (add-on, scripts...) not developed for this new OS. For internet, it would be necessary that we can have permanently, the same result, as the reading mode of Safari. That's where I'd rather go anyway.
> 
> In the immediate future, the priority should be to define: 
> What environment (hardware and software) do developers want to work on today and in the future for this project.
> In order for developers consult each other, to prepare the tools they will need.
> At the same time, we need a team that will define what this OS will be in the end, developers can of course participate in this reflection, it would be even better.
> 
> About handwriting recognition. If the objective of this OS is not to propose the use of handwriting. Then we can't talk about Newton's legacy, and this project could very well be discussed on another list! Yes I know NewtonOS is not based solely on handwriting, but it is a bit the soul of Newton that would be removed, if this ability were not integrated. 
> 
> To start thinking about what this new OS could be, we could for example start from the sentence Noah says in his interview with Pawel, which summarizes very well the difference between a Newton and all the other computers.
> 
> "... because the Newton is really a content creation device, not a content consumption device. The emphasis is on computer manipulation and use, not video or game viewing. »
> 
> This is a good start : what will this new OS be?
> 
> Sylvain Pilet
> - - - -
> 
> 
> [French]
> Salut à tous,
> 
> Vos dernières réflexions sur ce projet sont intéressantes. Mais j’aurais quelques petites choses à dire…
> 
> Nous sommes ici, sur la liste NewtonTalk, et je pense, que tous ceux qui sont ici, ont plus envie d’un « NewT Generation » (pour NewTon new Generation), que d’un nouveau Smartphone ou une nouvelle Tablette, je me trompe ou pas ? 
> 
> Pour moi l’une des premières chose à définir, est de savoir si ce future OS va être compatible NewtonOS2.x ou pas. 
> Si oui, fonctionnera t-il, ou pas, sur l’architecture actuelle des Newton 2x00/eMate ?
> Si non, alors il faut définir le matériel ciblé. 
> A ce propos, mon avis est que : si l’on veut développer un nouvel OS dans l’esprit des Newton, ne faudrait-il pas aussi développer (ou sélectionner) aussi le hardware. Pour qu’il soit, lui aussi, dans le même esprit ? Oui, je sais, développer du hardware est encore plus difficile que de développer du software. Mais quel serait l’intérêt de développer un OS compatible avec tout, il y a déjà beaucoup de projets d’OS encours de part le monde.
> 
> Mais avant d’aller plus loin, et sans ne vouloir blesser aucun des développeurs qui se sont manifestés sur ce projet. Je pense que l’objectif à atteindre, n’est pas assez bien définit à l’heure actuelle. En tous cas, pour moi, peut importe l’environnement de développement, l’important c’est l’objectif final. Mais justement, c’est quoi l’objectif final ?
> Si j’ai bien compris, et si je n’ai pas raté un message. Il me semble que l’objectif est de faire un Système d’exploitation différent de tous ceux qui existent, à l’image de NewtonOS. C’est bien cela ? Si oui, alors posons-nous les bonnes questions, et le plus important, quels sont les problèmes auquel nous voulons apporter des solutions. 
> 
> Voulons nous développer un nouvel OS qui serait concurrent des autres OS, ou bien, un OS très différent des autres ? Je pense, que vous et moi, choisissons la deuxième option, un OS très différent. Mais pour quoi faire ? Pour moi, la réponse est : pour une utilisation différente !
> C’est cela qu’il faut définir en priorité ! Qu’apportera t’il de différent dans l’utilisation, cet OS ? 
> Par exemple, comment cet OS, utilisera t-il Internet ? Si c’est pour avoir la même chose que sur nos Ordinateurs, Smartphones, Tablettes, je ne vois pas l’intérêt d’un nouvel OS. Si c’est pour regarder des vidéos sur Youtube, Netflix, idem, aucun intérêt. Si c’est pour ne pas arriver à lire un article, sur un site, car on le trouve plus, parce qu’il est noyé dans la pub, aucun intérêt également. Si c’est pour charger le système, avec des centaines d’API, qui pointe vers Google et consorts, aucun intérêt là aussi de faire ce qui existe déjà. Pareil pour l’utilisation de java (coté client) doit t’on autoriser java (et charger le système) je dirais non, car c’est un peu comme Flash à une époque, de plus, java est pratiquement un OS dans un OS ! 
> Pour moi, il faut pouvoir profiter d’internet, sans le subir, ne pas être obligé d’être dépendant de codes (add-on, scripts…) non développés pour ce nouvel OS. Pour internet, il faudrait que l’on puisse avoir en permanence, le même résultat, que le mode lecture de Safari. C’est ce vers quoi, je préférerais allez en tout cas.
> 
> Dans l’immédiat il faudrait en priorité définir : 
> -sur quel environnement (hardware et software) les développeurs veulent-ils travailler aujourd’hui et dans l’avenir pour ce projet.
> Afin de les développeurs se concertent, pour préparer les outils qu’ils auront besoin.
> En même temps, il faudrait une équipe qui définira ce que sera au final cet OS, les développeurs peuvent bien entendu participer à cette réflexion, ce serait même mieux.
> 
> Au sujet de la reconnaissance de l’écriture manuscrite. Si l’objectif de cet OS est de ne pas proposer l’utilisation de l’écriture manuscrite. Alors, on ne pourra pas parler d’héritage du Newton, et ce projet pourrait très bien être discuté sur une autre liste ! Oui je sais NewtonOS ne repose pas uniquement sur l’écriture manuscrite, mais c’est un peu l’âme des Newton que l’on retirerait, si cette capacité n’était pas intégrée. 
> 
> Pour commencer à réfléchir à ce que pourrait être ce nouvel OS, on pourrait par exemple partir de la phrase que Noah dit dans son interview avec Pawel, qui résume très bien la différence entre un Newton et tous les autres ordinateurs.
> « … parce que le Newton, est vraiment un appareil de création de contenu, ce n’est pas un appareil de consommation de contenu. L'accent est mis sur la manipulation et l’utilisation de l'ordinateur, et non sur le visionnement de vidéos ou de jeux. »
> 
> Voilà une bonne base départ : que sera ce nouvel OS ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sylvain Pilet
> 
> NPDS | Newton Personal Data Sharing 
> http://messagepad.no-ip.org:3680 (TRACKER)
> http://messagepad.no-ip.org
> 
> http://message-pad.net
> https://www.facebook.com/message.pad.net
> https://twitter.com/MessagePad_net
> 
>> Le 7 août 2018 à 18:57, Steven Frank <stevenf at panic.com> a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2018, at 10:35 PM, j <thej at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From your descriptions, number 3 sounds like the best place to start from.
>>> 
>>> It would give the community an Apple-free version of the Newton where number 2 (backward compatibility) and number 4 (future enhancements & modernization) can be launched from.
>>> 
>>> If I understand this correctly, it would also allow a clean NewtonScript implementation that runs on current OSes allowing NewtonScript development and training for this new Newton-like system.
>> 
>> I tend to agree, and for the same reasons.  This route doesn't lead to a 1:1 re-creation of a Newton, but I still think it could be very interesting research.  
>> 
>> It's a gargantuan project no matter where you start, so I tend to look for opportunities to divide-and-conquer.  And that's how I ended up looking around for isolated implementations of both a NewtonScript compiler and interpreter, ideally as simple, portable C/C++ command line tools.  That just seems like the natural starting point for anyone wanting to explore that route.
>> 
>> Walter's "Prota" interpreter sure seems like it would fit the bill for an interpreter, but I don't really have any way of experimenting with it without a compiler.
>> 
>> I'm not aware of a project that is just the compiler piece without a bunch of other stuff.  tntk appears to have been that project, but it crashes on 64-bit.  Matthias has his 64-bit hack version, but it would be nice to have a hack-free 64-bit compiler and interpreter.  I don't know if I'm smart enough to be the one who makes it, but if nothing else, I can try to familiarize myself with the source of those two projects in my spare time.
>> 
>> Steven
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> http://newtontalk.net/
>> http://twitter.com/newtontalk
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> http://newtontalk.net/
> http://twitter.com/newtontalk