Mac OS 9 Development Requests (OS Level Items)

[MacTron]

I don't think that improving dual processor support must be a priority. I have tested this topic at user level, and eventroug dual CPU can theoretically double the speed of our computers, there is a lot of bottlenecks that dramatically limit the success of multi CPU support. Even the faster 166 Mhz system bus on a MDDs is a bottleneck for most dual CPUs apps, let  aside slow ATA 66 or ATA 100 Hard Disk ...

As I use to tell, if you wish speed on a Classic Mac install a nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600, a  SSD with a SeriTek 64 bits SATA PCI card into a MDD single 1.25. And finally  add an xServe 1.33 CPU and overclocked it to 1.50 Ghz...

... but don't bore with dual CPU's ... IMHO

[nanopico]

I don't think that improving dual processor support must be a priority. I have tested this topic at user level, and eventroug dual CPU can theoretically double the speed of our computers, there is a lot of bottlenecks that dramatically limit the success of multi CPU support. Even the faster 166 Mhz system bus on a MDDs is a bottleneck for most dual CPUs apps, let  aside slow ATA 66 or ATA 100 Hard Disk ...

As I use to tell, if you wish speed on a Classic Mac install a nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600, a  SSD with a SeriTek 64 bits SATA PCI card into a MDD single 1.25. And finally  add an xServe 1.33 CPU and overclocked it to 1.50 Ghz...

... but don't bore with dual CPU's ... IMHO

I couldn't agree more.  I think dual cpu support would be something I would only do once I have every other possible thing implemented.  And by that point I'm just not sure about it.

[Front 424]

Hmm.  I wasn't sure about the feasibility or method of implementation if one were to do so regarding multiprocessor, and I guess I'm even less sure now.  It's a neat thought, though, if it were doable. 
If I understand correctly, doesn't OS X have some innate multiprocessor/multicore assignment scheme?  I believe recent Windows versions do the same, utilizing several cores without the application code necessarily being optimized for that.  Or maybe I'm wrong on that?

[Front 424]

As I use to tell, if you wish speed on a Classic Mac install a nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600, a  SSD with a SeriTek 64 bits SATA PCI card into a MDD single 1.25. And finally  add an xServe 1.33 CPU and overclocked it to 1.50 Ghz...

... but don't bore with dual CPU's ... IMHO

Been interested in a compatible SSD, but I'm just scratching the surface.  So tell me about this SeriTek PCI card, and what kinds of performance increase have you or others experienced with SSD?

Also, I assume the xServe CPU is the fastest currently compatible processor with OS 9?  I saw some discussion on the forum just recently about it.

[devils_advisor]

Dual cpu in our case is very delicate.  You risking stability.  Most of these apps aren't aware of 2 cpus and totally ignore the second one. If you enforce it you will end up with a disaster. I would leave it as it is and focus on other things that can be done without leveraging stability and other stuff that everybody needs. After all how many of you have a dedicated test system at hand to check for incompatibility? By dedicated i mean a fully equipped test system with specs as your first system. And another thing would be how do you think you go about reverse engineering the apps to implement dual cpu support?

[Front 424]

It was mentioned above, and I thought it was interesting.

In general I am not missing much with Mac OS 9. Most things are at a user level:

-) modern PDF Viewer - could be quickly done with the existing Ghostscript & MacGSView
-) Improved Classilla
-) Possibility to use .odt/xml textfiles
-) some modern Video Codecs (best would be a PCI decodercard like the Wired4DVD was for MPG2)

What I would really like to see at OS level at 9 machines is the possibility to use both CPU at Dual computers in general. Something like "1 program at this CPU the other one at the other". Cameron Kaiser made some tests int his directions (he tried to use the 2nd CPU for JavaScript) but stopped at some point.

I'd like to see better usage of dual CPU's as well.  The Process Manager would probably be need to be updated so that it can control execution of each application and distribute it between the CPU's.  Also I believe protected memory would have to be implemented so to prevent memory corruption between the two CPU's.

As it is right now.  The second CPU is initialized and then set to what equates to an infinite loop.  If an application is designed for multiple CPU's it can use both of them and both can access the ram, but the application decides which processor access which part of the heap.  If the application designer isn't careful with that they could hit a deadlock.

All good input though, thanks.

Assigning an application to one or the other is probably the easiest to achieve, if any usage of dual cpu is possible.  I was just interested and wondering really about how one would go about it if one were to attempt it. 
Nanopico is still trying to fully understand the memory and processor managers, anyway, so this would be down the list.

[devils_advisor]

Yes but keep in mind you can only work or patch the os, the application is still the same as it was before. The program needs to recognize and utilize a second cpu which would mean you have to reverse the app without the blessing of the company. They would never release the source to you.

[nanopico]

 

Yes but keep in mind you can only work or patch the os, the application is still the same as it was before. The program needs to recognize and utilize a second cpu which would mean you have to reverse the app without the blessing of the company. They would never release the source to you.

I think the advantage if it were able to work at the OS level is that you could have two apps running at the same time with out task switching and one having to give control to the other.  But that is in theory.
I believe I'm in agreement with you on this one though.  As even if two app's ran at once, they still could access the same resources and if the multitasking isn't re-written (which would probably break just about every application out there) You would easily get in a dead lock and that would not be fun.

[Protools5LEGuy]

Improving sherlock to include google/yahoo and bing as search engines. Sherlock is in Mac OS 9 included app and should be considered at OS level.

Create plugs for Quicktime to be closer to 2016 standarts. Audio streams/Internet Radio.

Improving disk utility to understand GUID partitions.

[davisdelo]

Improving sherlock to include google/yahoo and bing as search engines. Sherlock is in Mac OS 9 included app and should be considered at OS level.

Here's some pretty good resources for Sherlock plugin creation:
http://www.macos.utah.edu/documentation/general_software_and_utilities/sherlock_utilities.html

http://pwrsearchr.users1.50megs.com/sherlock/srclinks.html

I managed to make a Google.com plugin that looks the part, but I'm not sure if it functions right now because the only thing I have to test it on is Sheepshaver with 8.6, which Sherlock likes to crash every few seconds.  Once I have a monitor for my MDD though I'll be all over this 

[it0uchpods]

Improved right click/CTRL+click menus with Copy, Paste, etc...
Screensavers!

[Front 424]

Improved right click/CTRL+click menus with Copy, Paste, etc...
Screensavers!

I've been thinking about right click menu for a while and glad you mentioned it!
There should be an "open with" when you right click on a file that brings up a submenu for that filetype with a selection of applications that can be modified by a control panel.  And you can modify the default program as well.

I know there are some extensions that are similar, maybe there is already one that does this?

[IIO]

i believe that anything new in that field should indeed use the contextmenu plug-in interface.

there are already plugins like "open with filebuddy" - maybe one should just try to hack one of them to match another app.

p.s. should be possible with applescript, btw.

[IIO]

here it is, voila.

i would have been suprised if something like this was not in my 1000 items strong OS9 extensions collection!

[IIO]

here are two alternatives.

where "open with" will give you all apps scanned, "open with cm" will let you create you a custom list and "open with process" allows the file only to be opened using a currently running program.

have fun!

[IIO]

hint: dont install them all 3 at the same time, or you dont know what you are seeing.

[Front 424]

hint: dont install them all 3 at the same time, or you dont know what you are seeing.

Thanks IIO!  I'm going to try Open With CM first, that sounds like the most desirable for my usage.

[Knezzen]

IIO: Is there any way to make you share your extension collection or parts of it? Would be wonderful to have on Macintosh Garden or here

[Front 424]

I tried out Open With CM.  It works admirably.  I was hoping ultimately for something that is filetype/application dependent, so you can have a separate list for audio/video/text files etc, BUT, it is still an improvement over having nothing at all for sure! 

Thanks IIO!

[Front 424]

IIO: Is there any way to make you share your extension collection or parts of it? Would be wonderful to have on Macintosh Garden or here

I've seen you post over at Macintosh Garden.  Are you a mod over there?