Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!att!mcdchg!mcdphx!phx.mcd.mot.com!geranen
From: geranen@phx.mcd.mot.com (Scott Geranen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: ABI vs Apple Toolbox
Keywords: ABI, 88K, Macintosh
Message-ID: <14099@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 21 Nov 90 20:54:06 GMT
References: <43399@mips.mips.COM>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: geranen@phx.mcd.mot.com (Scott Geranen)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 28

In article <43399@mips.mips.COM> crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) writes:
>I am curious if someone out there can shed some light on how Apple might
>continue to support their toolbox scheme for dealing with hardware and
>yet offer an 88open ABI compliant system assuming they are building
>an 88K based Macintosh. Not being an expert in programming or the Mac
>or the 88K, maybe I'm missing something, but it would appear to me that
>they would be able to do one or the other; not both.
>

The 88open ABI, a.k.a. BCS, defines the lowest common denominator for
compliant systems.  An application that uses only BCS system calls
will execute on any BCS certified platform.  Currently, the basic
operating system, networking, and X11R3 are defined by the BCS.

Apple could make a BCS compliant system that includes toolbox support.
An application written to use the toolbox would probably not run on
any other vendor's hardware.  However, any BCS certified application
would still run on the 88k Mac.

Disclaimer:  I have no idea if Apple is working on an 88k Mac, I'm just
trying to make a point.  Motorola's BCS compliant systems have several 
system calls that are not in defined by the BCS, but it is BCS compliant 
none the less.

--

Scott Geranen
geranen@phx.mcd.mot.com