From: pottier@clipper.ens.fr (Francois Pottier)
Subject: csmp-digest-v3-043
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 13:50:38 +0200 (MET DST)
C.S.M.P. Digest Sat, 09 Jul 94 Volume 3 : Issue 43
Today's Topics:
7.5 Floating Window (How To use?)
Can Mac's survive without AppleTalk?
CodeWarrior and CODE Resources
Fast full screen scrolling: impossible?
MacPerl- Redirecting STDIN & STDOUT
PowerPC floating point issue
Q: Thread Manager - How do I benefit?
prevent update when call TEDelete, TEInsert??
The Comp.Sys.Mac.Programmer Digest is moderated by Francois Pottier
(pottier@clipper.ens.fr).
The digest is a collection of article threads from the internet newsgroup
comp.sys.mac.programmer. It is designed for people who read c.s.m.p. semi-
regularly and want an archive of the discussions. If you don't know what a
newsgroup is, you probably don't have access to it. Ask your systems
administrator(s) for details. If you don't have access to news, you may
still be able to post messages to the group by using a mail server like
anon.penet.fi (mail help@anon.penet.fi for more information).
Each issue of the digest contains one or more sets of articles (called
threads), with each set corresponding to a 'discussion' of a particular
subject. The articles are not edited; all articles included in this digest
are in their original posted form (as received by our news server at
nef.ens.fr). Article threads are not added to the digest until the last
article added to the thread is at least two weeks old (this is to ensure that
the thread is dead before adding it to the digest). Article threads that
consist of only one message are generally not included in the digest.
The digest is officially distributed by two means, by email and ftp.
If you want to receive the digest by mail, send email to listserv@ens.fr
with no subject and one of the following commands as body:
help Sends you a summary of commands
subscribe csmp-digest Your Name Adds you to the mailing list
signoff csmp-digest Removes you from the list
Once you have subscribed, you will automatically receive each new
issue as it is created.
The official ftp info is //ftp.dartmouth.edu/pub/csmp-digest.
Questions related to the ftp site should be directed to
scott.silver@dartmouth.edu. Currently no previous volumes of the CSMP
digest are available there.
Also, the digests are available to WAIS users. To search back issues
with WAIS, use comp.sys.mac.programmer.src. With Mosaic, use
http://www.wais.com/wais-dbs/comp.sys.mac.programmer.html.
-------------------------------------------------------
>From denboer@cc.umanitoba.ca (David Den Boer)
Subject: 7.5 Floating Window (How To use?)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 01:49:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba
I have seen various discussions on the appearance of the 7.5 floater, but
I don't care about that (although I find it quite attractive!)
I want to know how to use it from my apps?!?!
Is there a standard built in WDEF, or do I have to copy and paste it from
some other resource?
How to unlock the funkiness of the window is a more appropriate title...
Thanks
--
David A. denBoer University of Manitoba
denboer@CC.UManitoba.CA Computer Services -- User Services
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From trygve@netcom.com (Trygve Isaacson)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 03:30:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
The resource ID is 125. So when creating your window, specify a procID of
125*16 + variants to use it. The variants I've discovered are:
4 - adds a zoom box
8 - puts the title bar on the left
(12 for both)
Trygve Isaacson
Wall Data Incorporated
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From tgaul@halcyon.com (Troy Gaul)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:14:02 -0700
Organization: Infinity Systems
In article <2u85bm$aik@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, denboer@cc.umanitoba.ca
(David Den Boer) wrote:
> I have seen various discussions on the appearance of the 7.5 floater, but
> I don't care about that (although I find it quite attractive!)
> I want to know how to use it from my apps?!?!
> Is there a standard built in WDEF, or do I have to copy and paste it from
> some other resource?
>
> How to unlock the funkiness of the window is a more appropriate title...
First, make sure the user is running System 7.5. It isn't available in
eariler System versions -- Apple has said that they will release a
'compatibility' WDEF that you will be able to include in your App that will
call through to the System floater WDEF if it is present (like the Movable
Modal WDEF they released for compatibility with System 6).
Second, call NewWindow:
wind = NewWindow(wStorage, &rBounds, title, visFlag, wDefProcID,
behind,
goAwayFlag, refCon);
For the wDefProcID, pass in:
(125 * 16 + procID)
125 is the ID of the WDEF resource in the System file, and this is the
equation Apple describes to make the Window Manager use a custom WDEF. The
procID will modify the WDEF in the following way:
Add To Get
--- ------
1 A windoid that hilights and dims depending on HiliteWindow.
The default is for the titlebar to always show the pattern.
(The default is bad if a dialog will appear in front of the
floater because then the floater should appear dimmed.)
2 To get a grow box.
4 To get a zoom box.
8 For a titlebar down the left hand side.
They can be added together to get a combination of the effects. Also, if
you pass in a non-empty string in 'title', it will be displayed in Geneva 9
plain (assuming the titlebar is across the top).
Note that if you use a grow box, there is a problem where the grow box will
show through any windows in your application that appear above it.
Appearantly, the new WDEF is not obeying the window's clipping region when
drawing the grow box.
Also, the grow box is one pixel narrower than the standard grow box, which
means that a scroll bar will look strange when scaled to match it, and it
doesn't dim then the rest of the windoid dims (when procID 1 is used).
The titlebar flashes more than it needs to when being redrawn, and I have
also heard that there are some problems with multiple monitors.
_troy
//////// //////___Troy Gaul_________________________tgaul@halcyon.com__ //
// // Infinity Systems ; Redmond, Washington //
// // // "Insert witty quote here." //
// //////________________________________________________________ //
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From peter.lewis@info.curtin.edu.au (Peter N Lewis)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:35:07 +0800
Organization: NCRPDA, Curtin University
In article <2u85bm$aik@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, denboer@cc.umanitoba.ca
(David Den Boer) wrote:
>I have seen various discussions on the appearance of the 7.5 floater, but
>I don't care about that (although I find it quite attractive!)
>I want to know how to use it from my apps?!?!
>Is there a standard built in WDEF, or do I have to copy and paste it from
>some other resource?
>
>How to unlock the funkiness of the window is a more appropriate title...
Use WDEF 125, ie proc id 125*16+x where x is between 0 and 15 depending on
whether you want a left hand title bar, with or without close/zoom boxes.
wp:=NewWindow(nil,bounds,"'Hello',true,125*16,pointer(-1),true,0);
Enjoy,
Peter.
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter N Lewis <peter.lewis@info.curtin.edu.au> Ph: +61 9 368 2055
---------------------------
>From mxmora@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora)
Subject: Can Mac's survive without AppleTalk?
Date: 16 Jun 1994 11:56:40 -0700
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
So if I only have a MacTCP connection from my mac to the network
will I still be able to print, File Share, do PowerTalk stuff,
connect to other programs running on other macs, use the new MovieTalk,
network backup and other cool things?
What would happen if Appletalk wasn't supported on your net?
Maybe I'm blowing this thing out of proportion and other companies
are doing the same things. Does this sound like a logical thing
to do? Is this going to save money?
Thanks
Xavier
--
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Xavier Mora Matt_Mora@sri.com
SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com
333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA. 94025
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From stan@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Stan Horwitz)
Date: 16 Jun 1994 20:19:57 GMT
Organization: Temple University, Academic Computer Services
Matt Mora (mxmora@unix.sri.com) wrote:
: They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
: fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
: they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
: into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
: ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
: They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
: near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
Macs can survive without Appletalk just fine. The Mac I am using now is
ethernetted and it works fine in general and its much faster than Appletalk.
The only thing I hate about this setup is that when the network service you
are using, or the network itself, goes down or slows up, it can make your
Mac look like it hangs until things on the network normalize again. This
may just be a quirk in the ethernet card (Asante) my Mac has in it though.
--
My name is Stan Horwitz and my E-mail address is stan@astro.ocis.temple.edu
My opinions are all mine. They do not reflect those of my employer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From Carl R. Osterwald <carl_osterwald@nrel.gov>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 22:49:15 GMT
Organization: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
In article <2tq798$s6t@unix.sri.com> Matt Mora, mxmora@unix.sri.com
writes:
>They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
>fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
>they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
>into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
>ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
>They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
>near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
>
>Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
>that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
>I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
It is very common to confuse to completely different terms -- AppleTalk
and LocalTalk. AppleTalk is a network protocol, and LocalTalk is a
method of network wiring. AppleTalk can operate over LocalTalk, Ethernet
or through a modem using ARA, for example. Modern Ethernet routers are
multiprotocal, which means they know how to deliver packets for a variety
of protocols, including AppleTalk. I suspect that what your networking
types meant was that they would no longer support LocalTalk wiring (or
PhoneNet, for that matter) which runs at about 240 kbs. I really don't
see Apple sacking AppleTalk (the protocol).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From Sean McMains <mcmains@unt.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 1994 22:02:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
In article <2tq798$s6t@unix.sri.com> Matt Mora, mxmora@unix.sri.com
writes:
>Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
>that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
>I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
It looks like some folks are getting confused on the AppleTalk vs.
LocalTalk distinction. Ready? Everyone together:
"AppleTalk is a protocol. LocalTalk is a transport." :-)
With that out of my system, your question would seem to indicated that
the net boys at your place are planning not to route AppleTalk from
subnet to subnet on an ethernet network. In the current networking
incarnation, this would mean that all the network stuff that doesn't rely
on MacTCP would not work.
Apple has something called Open Transport in the works which will allow
use of other transports to provide various functionality in a modular
form (sort of a souped up, network-studly communication toolbox kinda
thing). I don't know how backward compatible it will be, but the
presentation I saw made it clear that they would not be replacing
AppleTalk. I would suggest you fight as hard as you can to keep Appletalk
routing on your networks until we see what Open Transport will do (and
how backward-compatible it is with existing software).
========================================================================
Sean McMains | P.O. Box 13495 | Phone:817.565.2039
Macintosh Support | Denton TX 76203 | Fax :817.565.4060
University of North Texas | EMail: mcmains@unt.edu |
WWW: http://gaia.nms.unt.edu/cchome/mcmains/mcmains.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From mxmora@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora)
Date: 16 Jun 1994 14:07:46 -0700
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In article <2tqc5d$av@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> stan@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Stan Horwitz) writes:
>Macs can survive without Appletalk just fine. The Mac I am using now is
>ethernetted and it works fine in general and its much faster than Appletalk.
>The only thing I hate about this setup is that when the network service you
>are using, or the network itself, goes down or slows up, it can make your
>Mac look like it hangs until things on the network normalize again. This
>may just be a quirk in the ethernet card (Asante) my Mac has in it though.
I just want to make it clear I'm talking about AppleTalk not LocalTalk.
LocalTalk is the Twisted Pair wiring that runs a 230kb. I'm talking
about the AppleTalk protocol that runs on any network medium be it LocalTalk
Ethernet or what ever.
Xavier
--
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Xavier Mora Matt_Mora@sri.com
SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com
333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA. 94025
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From aelman@cs.stanford.edu (Adam Elman)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 16:38:31 -0800
Organization: Residential Computing, Stanford University
In article <2tqc5d$av@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>, stan@astro.ocis.temple.edu
(Stan Horwitz) wrote:
> Matt Mora (mxmora@unix.sri.com) wrote:
> : They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
> : fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
> : they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
> : into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
> : ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
> : They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
> : near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
>
> Macs can survive without Appletalk just fine. The Mac I am using now is
> ethernetted and it works fine in general and its much faster than Appletalk.
> The only thing I hate about this setup is that when the network service you
> are using, or the network itself, goes down or slows up, it can make your
> Mac look like it hangs until things on the network normalize again. This
> may just be a quirk in the ethernet card (Asante) my Mac has in it though.
There is some confusion on this point: AppleTalk is the software protocol,
which is critical to standard Mac networking (printing, AppleShare, the new
PowerTalk stuff, etc.). The standard Mac hardware network wiring protocol,
which was originally named AppleTalk, was renamed LocalTalk. Farallon
markets a version of LocalTalk which runs over standard phone wire and is
called PhoneNet; this has generally become much more common than Apple's
original LocalTalk wiring.
AppleTalk runs just fine over Ethernet, fiber, whatever. Apple is
definitely moving away from LocalTalk -- all new Macs except for the lowest
models have built-in Ethernet ports. But Apple is certainly not moving
away from the software protocol.
--
Adam Elman | WWW: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~elmanad/
aelman@cs.stanford.edu | Finger me or check out my Web page for PGP key!!!
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask 'Why me?' Then a voice answers
'Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.'" -- Peanuts
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From jwbaxter@olympus.net (John W. Baxter)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 19:18:36 -0700
Organization: Internet for the Olympic Peninsula
In article <2tq798$s6t@unix.sri.com>, mxmora@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora)
wrote:
> They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
> fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
> they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
> into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
> ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
> They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
> near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
>
> Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
> that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
> I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
Well, the new machines have EtherNet built in. One could certainly read a
long-term trend away from AppleTalk in that. And it makes
sense...AppleTalk was fine 10 years ago...it's slow now, and not really
likely to get faster (it's stressing the serial connection as it is).
>
> What would happen if Appletalk wasn't supported on your net?
I'd plug in the EtherNet connection on my 8100, and buy an EtherNet card
for my IIci. I may anyhow.
--
John Baxter Port Ludlow, WA, USA [West shore, Puget Sound]
No hablo Intel.
jwbaxter@pt.olympus.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From jonpugh@netcom.com (Jon Pugh)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 11:13:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Matt Mora (mxmora@unix.sri.com) wrote:
> Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
> that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
> I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
Open Transport (remember them? You got a T shirt at the netter's
dinner) is only intended to replace MacTCP and the software layers,
not the actual AppleTalk protocol.
Definately put up a fight. I know that network guys just hate AppleTalk's
constant address pinging. ;) As Nixon always said, "<expletive deleted>
them." Don't let them demote AppleTalk to a second class protocol.
Jon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From mxmora@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora)
Date: 17 Jun 1994 11:45:44 -0700
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In article <jonpughCrJGIA.B08@netcom.com> jonpugh@netcom.com (Jon Pugh) writes:
>Matt Mora (mxmora@unix.sri.com) wrote:
>
>> Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
>> that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
>> I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
>
>Open Transport (remember them? You got a T shirt at the netter's
>dinner) is only intended to replace MacTCP and the software layers,
>not the actual AppleTalk protocol.
Yes I remember the shirt. I was wearing it yesterday at the standards meeting
when I stood up and officially protested.
>Definately put up a fight. I know that network guys just hate AppleTalk's
>constant address pinging. ;) As Nixon always said, "<expletive deleted>
>them." Don't let them demote AppleTalk to a second class protocol.
Well I talked to our network guru (the actual engineer here that is resposible
for the new net) and he said that they have to pass Appletalk if we are
going to continue to have Macs here. What does he care its just another
protocol. He also said that he could install one gatorbox to just broadcast
zone names if need be.
As always management has its collective head up a dark orafice. :-)
Xavier
--
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Xavier Mora Matt_Mora@sri.com
SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com
333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA. 94025
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From doc@miracle.farallon.com (eric doc kampman)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 17:44:49 -0800
Organization: farallon
In article <jonpughCrJGIA.B08@netcom.com>, jonpugh@netcom.com (Jon Pugh)
wrote:
> Matt Mora (mxmora@unix.sri.com) wrote:
>
> > Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
> > that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
> > I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
>
> Open Transport (remember them? You got a T shirt at the netter's
> dinner) is only intended to replace MacTCP and the software layers,
> not the actual AppleTalk protocol.
uh oh. anybody know what this means for custom 'mdev's? (alternate LAP
layer interfaces for MacTCP).
--
doc@miracle.farallon.com
Farallon didn't write this, Farallon isn't responsible for its con-
tents, besides, who's Farallon anyway?
******************************************************************
Look for the thing you can't find/Seeing with eyes makes you blind
You know you're out of your mind
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 01:46:44 +1200 (NZST)
Organization: (none)
jwbaxter@olympus.net (John W. Baxter) writes:
> > Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
> > that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
> > I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
>
> Well, the new machines have EtherNet built in. One could certainly read a
> long-term trend away from AppleTalk in that. And it makes
> sense...AppleTalk was fine 10 years ago...it's slow now, and not really
> likely to get faster (it's stressing the serial connection as it is).
>
> >
> > What would happen if Appletalk wasn't supported on your net?
>
> I'd plug in the EtherNet connection on my 8100, and buy an EtherNet card
> for my IIci. I may anyhow.
Aaarrggghhhh!!!!
Those EtherNet connections *are* running AppleTalk (99% of them, anyway)
Matt was quite clearly talking about AppleTalk-the-protocol-stack, and not
AppleTalk-the-low-speed-wiring-system. Even if you didn't know that the
wiring has been called LocalTalk for at least five years now, it was pretty
clear that he was talking about TCP/IP vs AppleTalk and not EtherTalk vs
LocalTalk.
-- Bruce
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From ce_rupn@pavo.concordia.ca (RUPNIK, CHRISTOPHER E.)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 16:20:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
In article <2854835204@hoult.actrix.gen.nz>, Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) writes...
>jwbaxter@olympus.net (John W. Baxter) writes:
>> > Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
>> > that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
>> > I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
>>
>> Well, the new machines have EtherNet built in. One could certainly read a
>> long-term trend away from AppleTalk in that. And it makes
>> sense...AppleTalk was fine 10 years ago...it's slow now, and not really
>> likely to get faster (it's stressing the serial connection as it is).
>>
>> >
>> > What would happen if Appletalk wasn't supported on your net?
>>
>> I'd plug in the EtherNet connection on my 8100, and buy an EtherNet card
>> for my IIci. I may anyhow.
>
>Aaarrggghhhh!!!!
>
>Those EtherNet connections *are* running AppleTalk (99% of them, anyway)
>
>Matt was quite clearly talking about AppleTalk-the-protocol-stack, and not
>AppleTalk-the-low-speed-wiring-system. Even if you didn't know that the
>wiring has been called LocalTalk for at least five years now, it was pretty
>clear that he was talking about TCP/IP vs AppleTalk and not EtherTalk vs
>LocalTalk.
>
>-- Bruce
Yes, he is correct. It appears that mac people will never learn the
appletalk/localtalk/ethertalk differences and what whey actually mean.
As for Appletalk being "dead" the original poster is correct. Apple is
supposed to implement a completely rewritten new stack called Oxx something
The reason for this is that the appletalk stack is not native powerpc, this
means that an appleshare server based on powermac is just not going give
a reasonable performance....
Chris Rupnik
ce_rupn@pavo.concordia.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From jep@unlinfo.unl.edu (Stephen Panarelli)
Date: 19 Jun 1994 11:30:40 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Carl R. Osterwald (carl_osterwald@nrel.gov) wrote:
: In article <2tq798$s6t@unix.sri.com> Matt Mora, mxmora@unix.sri.com
: writes:
: >They are about to re-do the networks around here, putting in
: >fiber and ethernet everywhere. They were saying that
: >they would no longer support AppleTalk. Of course I went
: >into a tizzy and started sending memo's everywhere to whom
: >ever I thought was in charge (which at SRI could be anybody or nobody).
: >They mention the AppleTalk support would only be supported in the
: >near future and that you could do appletalk on subnets.
: >
: >Is Apple moving away from AppleTalk? They seem to be under the impression
: >that Apple is going away from appletalk and are moving to something else.
: >I was at the WWDC and I don't remember any thing mentioned like this.
: It is very common to confuse to completely different terms -- AppleTalk
: and LocalTalk. AppleTalk is a network protocol, and LocalTalk is a
: method of network wiring. AppleTalk can operate over LocalTalk, Ethernet
Then there's LocalTalk Link Access Protocall....(:
: or through a modem using ARA, for example. Modern Ethernet routers are
: multiprotocal, which means they know how to deliver packets for a variety
: of protocols, including AppleTalk. I suspect that what your networking
: types meant was that they would no longer support LocalTalk wiring (or
: PhoneNet, for that matter) which runs at about 240 kbs. I really don't
: see Apple sacking AppleTalk (the protocol).
steve.
--
_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ | Stephen Kemal Panarelli
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | University of Nebraska
_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ | Electrical Engineering
_/ _/ _/ _/ | jep@unlinfo.unl.edu
_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | panzar@yoda.unl.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)
Date: 20 Jun 94 17:15:51 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
In article <jonpughCrJGIA.B08@netcom.com>, jonpugh@netcom.com (Jon Pugh) writes:
>
> Definately put up a fight. I know that network guys just hate AppleTalk's
> constant address pinging. ;)
That pinging is the sound of AppleTalk configuring itself, so you don't have
to!
We have maybe 500 Macs on campus. Nearly every one is an AppleTalk
node, and most of them are TCP/IP nodes as well. There are a roughly equal
number of Intel-based machines, workstations and the like, which are also
TCP/IP nodes. So the ratio of TCP/IP nodes to AppleTalk nodes is 2:1. What
do you think the administration overhead is? More like 10:1 in terms of
personnel, time spent on address housekeeping, sorting out configuration
stuffups by stupid users, and general aggro.
AppleTalk still remains the world's easiest-to-use local area networking
protocol. No contest.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro fone: +64-7-856-2889
Info & Tech Services Division fax: +64-7-838-4066
University of Waikato electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand 37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+12:00
Where would we be without rhetorical questions?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From somogyi@ziff.com (Stephan Somogyi)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 06:32:10 GMT
Organization: Digital Media
In article <jonpughCrJGIA.B08@netcom.com>, jonpugh@netcom.com (Jon Pugh) wrote:
> Open Transport (remember them? You got a T shirt at the netter's dinner)
> is only intended to replace MacTCP and the software layers, not the
> actual AppleTalk protocol.
Nonono!
OpenTransport comes with brand new protocol stacks for both AppleTalk and
TCP/IP.
OT has a compatibility mode that allows existing software using today's
AppleTalk and MacTCP API's to function, but internally it's all new stuff.
OT will also be the only native AppleTalk protocol stack.
Back to Matt's original question: even if they ban AppleTalk off the
backbone, you can still use it locally; it just won't be propagated
through the router that connects you to the rest of your organization.
This isn't necessarily a fundamentally Bad Thing -- it depends on whether
you use AppleTalk services that are on the far end of your backbone
router.
____________________________________________________________________________
Stephan Somogyi Vorsprung durch Technik Digital Media
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From somogyi@ziff.com (Stephan Somogyi)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 06:33:31 GMT
Organization: Digital Media
In article <doc-170694174449@163.176.12.68>, doc@miracle.farallon.com
(eric doc kampman) wrote:
> uh oh. anybody know what this means for custom 'mdev's? (alternate LAP
> layer interfaces for MacTCP).
Check out the OpenTransport docs on the WWDC CD. Methinks there should be
some info in there on how such stuff is handled under OT.
____________________________________________________________________________
Stephan Somogyi Vorsprung durch Technik Digital Media
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From poorman@convex.com (Peter W. Poorman)
Date: 20 Jun 94 16:50:10 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA
In <doc-170694174449@163.176.12.68> doc@miracle.farallon.com (eric doc kampman) writes:
>uh oh. anybody know what this means for custom 'mdev's? (alternate LAP
>layer interfaces for MacTCP).
The docs I looked at said that custom mdevs would NOT be supported. This
may have changed -- it's been awhile. The docs were ftp-able from
seeding.apple.com.
-- Pete
poorman@convex.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From gabe@shiva.com (Gabriel Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 21:47:28 GMT
Organization: Shiva Corporation
>>uh oh. anybody know what this means for custom 'mdev's? (alternate LAP
>>layer interfaces for MacTCP).
>
>The docs I looked at said that custom mdevs would NOT be supported. This
>may have changed -- it's been awhile. The docs were ftp-able from
>seeding.apple.com.
As far as I can know, adevs, mdevs, and CommToolBox tools are all rendered
obsolete by the Open Transport architecture.
Adevs and mdevs are both LAP layer protocol switching mechanisms which are
redundant under Streams. In general, Streams allows a lot more flexibility
in constructing protocol stacks. Rather than just switching among the
bottom (LAP) layers, you can construct a complete custom stack that contains
the protocol layers you need to use. This design also allows you to run
multiple protocol stacks simultaneously.
CTB tools are considered flawed because you cannot layer them. Personally,
I never much cared for the interfaces either. Streams provides a standard
way to layer modules so that you can customize your comm tools to your
hearts content.
=Gabe=
- ----------------------
Gabriel Lawrence Shiva Corporation
Software Tool "All Disclaimers Apply" gabe@shiva.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From quinn@cs.uwa.edu.au (Quinn "The Eskimo!")
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 16:11:01 +0800
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Western Australia
In article <1994Jun20.171551.29956@waikato.ac.nz>, ldo@waikato.ac.nz
(Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) wrote:
>AppleTalk still remains the world's easiest-to-use local area networking
>protocol. No contest.
Definitely. Until you want to change zones names of course ):
--
Quinn "The Eskimo!" <quinn@cs.uwa.edu.au> "Support HAVOC!"
Department of Computer Science, The University of Western Australia
Who's changed zone names twice in the past year and is getting
very bitter and twisted about it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From garryh@seeding.apple.com (Garry Hornbuckle)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 16:17:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer
> In article <doc-170694174449@163.176.12.68>, doc@miracle.farallon.com
> (eric doc kampman) wrote:
>
> > uh oh. anybody know what this means for custom 'mdev's? (alternate LAP
> > layer interfaces for MacTCP).
1 - AppleTalk is not going away or dying. Apple still feels that AppleTalk
is important and useful.
2 - We are making a conscious effort at bringing our support of other
protocols, especially TCP/IP, a more visibile and 'expected' thing. Such as
moving MacTCP into system software. I'd like people to begin to think of
the Macintosh as not just the machine with 'built-in networking', but the
machine with 'multiprotocol built-in networking'
3 - Down with protocol prejudice of all kinds. AppleTalk, TCP/IP, etc. each
have their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps even more importantly, they
were designed with different goals and different environments in mind. One
size does not fit all.
4 - Open Transport is designed to make it easier to write one application
that can use the protocol of choice (AppleTalk, TCP, IPX, etc.) without
having to make changes to the program source code to change protocols. It
does this by providing a common set of APIs, and by offering a very fast
dynamic linking and loading mechanism. An application that is written to
the new APIs can then "make up its mind" about the protocol it wants at run
time.
5 - Open Transport will offer outstanding backward compatibility for those
developers that write to the AppleTalk and MacTCP parameter block APIs, and
for those developers who write 'adevs', who write to .enet, .tokn, etc. and
who write to the LAPManager.
6 - mdev backward compatibility is still under review. We'd like to figure
this out, but there are some hard problems. I have a list of the 'top 10'
(like the SLIP and PPP mdevs). But if there are other mdevs out there, it
would be helpful if you'd send me an email letting me know about you mdev
and your backward compatibility needs and desires....
7 - As Stephan said, more info is available on Open Trnasport by anonymous
ftp to 'seeding.apple.com.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Hornbuckle Product Manager, Communications & Collaboration
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I told you that I | email garryh@seeding.apple.com
spoke only for myself | applelink HORNBUCKLE1
would you believe me?" | fax (408) 974-1211
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From gabe@shiva.com (Gabriel Lawrence)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 94 04:42:11 GMT
Organization: Shiva Corporation
>>AppleTalk still remains the world's easiest-to-use local area networking
>>protocol. No contest.
>
>Definitely. Until you want to change zones names of course ):
I would agree. Unfortunately, the biggest advantage to using AppleTalk (its
dynamic configurability) is also it's biggest drawback. The "user
friendliness" of AppleTalk prevents it from scaling well. Intelligent
routers that "learn" things like zone names are great - until your network
becomes very large and you want to change zone names or network numbers.
Then you have to go through a tedious process of shutting down routers,
restarting seed routers, etc... It's certainly no picnic.
Emerging AppleTalk standards like AURP help to alleviate some of these
difficulties but they all work by imposing some sort of static network
mapping on interconnected networks. That of course means that these are
typically not "plug and play" solutions. Oh well.
=Gabe=
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Lawrence gabe@shiva.com
Software Tool
Shiva Corporation
---------------------------
>From Peter Vanags <peterv@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: CodeWarrior and CODE Resources
Date: 23 Jun 1994 01:41:23 GMT
Organization: UCB
>From reading all the raves about CodeWarrior here, I have no doubt that
it's the environment of choice for applications development. But what
about stand-alone CODE resource development?
Symantec's environment doesn't really give me all of what I need. Their
C++ compiler doesn't support virtual functions in CODE resources, which
dramatically cripples the object design. I can use C with Object
Extensions to get virtual functions, but then I lose lots of desireable
C++ features, like templates, constructor arguments, multiple
inheritance, passing by reference, and so on. But I do get inline
assembler in switching back to C. The A4-based globals in Symantec's
environment are a great feature.
Does CodeWarrior support A4 globals like Symantec? How about inline (not
function-call) assembler in C++? (Very important due to strange calling
conventions of some CODE resources.) Custom CODE resource headers? (This
would probably require inline assembler.) Virtual functions? The lack of
templates in CW is a bummer, since I use a lot of container classes. If
CW had all these features, I'd switch in a minute.
As I understand it, the only missing thing is the inline assembler. I
assume it's because CW supports 68K/PPC development simultaneously. Will
some clever CW feature make this possible soon? Would I have to write
companion PPC assembler to the 68K stuff, and use pragmas to make sure
the right version is compiled to each?
Also, how easy is it to compile these hybrid PPC/68K CODE resources in
CW? I haven't delved into the PPC code fragment business yet, but to
judge from the number of pages written about it in the develop article,
it's not simple. What tools does CW provide to aid this process?
Peter
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From Jens Miltner <jmiltner@theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: 24 Jun 1994 23:49:38 GMT
Organization: Pole Position Software
In article <2uap83$ghe@agate.berkeley.edu> Peter Vanags,
peterv@uclink.berkeley.edu writes:
>From reading all the raves about CodeWarrior here, I have no doubt that
>it's the environment of choice for applications development. But what
>about stand-alone CODE resource development?
>
>Symantec's environment doesn't really give me all of what I need. Their
>C++ compiler doesn't support virtual functions in CODE resources, which
>dramatically cripples the object design. I can use C with Object
>Extensions to get virtual functions, but then I lose lots of desireable
>C++ features, like templates, constructor arguments, multiple
>inheritance, passing by reference, and so on. But I do get inline
>assembler in switching back to C. The A4-based globals in Symantec's
>environment are a great feature.
I guess the problem with virtual functions in CODE resources is that
someone has to set up the virtual jump tables (which is usually done
by the initialization code in an app - but there aint no such thing
in a code resource...)
>Does CodeWarrior support A4 globals like Symantec? How about inline (not
>function-call) assembler in C++? (Very important due to strange calling
>conventions of some CODE resources.) Custom CODE resource headers? (This
>would probably require inline assembler.) Virtual functions? The lack of
>templates in CW is a bummer, since I use a lot of container classes. If
>CW had all these features, I'd switch in a minute.
Yes, they do support A4 globals as well as some sort of inline assembly.
The only drawback I found is that the inline assembler only works at
function level, i.e. you have to define a complete function as being
inline assembler.
Also, there is no way to generate CODE resources with a custom header.
Each CODE resource will have a standard header (as proposed by Apple,
I think). However, this means you can't write things like an RDEV, since
they need some different header...
>As I understand it, the only missing thing is the inline assembler. I
>assume it's because CW supports 68K/PPC development simultaneously. Will
>some clever CW feature make this possible soon? Would I have to write
>companion PPC assembler to the 68K stuff, and use pragmas to make sure
>the right version is compiled to each?
Actually, there is little or no need to use assembler with the PowerPC,
since for PPC, a C-Interface exists for all known/important functions
and callbacks - even for those that used to need assembly routines.
>Also, how easy is it to compile these hybrid PPC/68K CODE resources in
>CW? I haven't delved into the PPC code fragment business yet, but to
>judge from the number of pages written about it in the develop article,
>it's not simple. What tools does CW provide to aid this process?
What do you mean by 'hybrid CODE resources'? If you talk about e.g.
fat binaries, there is no direct support yet. There is however an
easy way to build native CODE resources with MW.
Calling either CODE res type from either architecture is actually
not really difficult. I guess there are samples out there that show
how to use MixedMode and the CodeFragmentManager... If you've got
it right once, it's peanuts the next time ;-)
-- Jens
---------------------------
>From y-tony@bu.edu (Yan Lee)
Subject: Fast full screen scrolling: impossible?
Date: 8 Jun 1994 20:59:27 GMT
Organization: Boston University
Hello,
I have been reading a bit about animation and the Mac. I have
read that full screen scrolling is almost impossible to do well on the
Mac. I do understand that game machines have chips that specialize in
such activities. Howver, is it still not possible for the Mac to do it?
Did C64 and PCs have special chips/functions that helped them to do rapid
full-screen scrolling? I would like to try to do rapid full-screen
scroilling on the Mac , but I am wondering if this ambition is a waste of
time. I need opinions please!
Tony
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++