Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!kth.se!cyklop.nada.kth.se!news
From: d88-jwa@byse.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
Subject: Re: A/UX concerns
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.082410.20817@nada.kth.se>
Date: 20 Feb 91 08:24:10 GMT
References: <8570@etsu.CMI.COM> <250@raysnec.UUCP>
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 17

In article <250@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:

>simply providing a kernel and utilities. Its ability to support both 
>UNIX and Mac applications simultaneously without resort to emulation is
>certainly remarkable. Unless the alleged Mach ports can offer something
>comparable there's little reason to choose it over A/UX.

Well, from what I've heard, the Mach port actually DID support mac
apps - and as separate processes per app, at that ! Oh, and this
"virtual" mac wasn't as doggy as A/UX is (My fx feels like a II :-(
macwise.

							Jon

"The IM-IV file manager chapter documents zillions of calls, all of which
seem to do almost the same thing and none of which seem to do what I want
them to do."  --  Juri Munkki in comp.sys.mac.programmer