Re: [Missing Something] Re: Let's hope XP doesn't keep this "one-up" on OS X!
Re: [Missing Something] Re: Let's hope XP doesn't keep this "one-up" on OS X!
- Subject: Re: [Missing Something] Re: Let's hope XP doesn't keep this "one-up" on OS X!
- From: Ryan Dary <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:37:30 -0700
This wouldn't be a decision based on what Mac OS has or hasn't ever done
before. This of course would be something new. Now it is true that Mac
OS has never (before) been configured to run multiple instances of an
application, however we are not dealing with Classic Mac here. We are
talking about a new and improved way of working.
Being that Unix is the base here, there is nothing that forbids multiple
instances of the same application except the upper layers of the OS.
The core is perfectly capable of running multiple instances for each
logged in user if the case requires. So enabling this is simply a
matter of preparing the UI to handle what the core can already do. It
is basically built in right now, with the exception that the UI portion
currently prohibits it.
In any event, my request and desire for this (new) feature is not based
on what the Mac has been able to do, but it's incredible potential to be
more than ever before!
- Ryan
On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 10:30 AM, email@hidden wrote:
Did we all forget the Mac OS has never allowed multiple instances of
an application? Windows always has and it was probably easy to build
on top of this "functionality"
cocoa CAN run multiple instances of a single app using different
users. but imagine if a user was running First Class or Fizzila and
fast-switched. It would make it impossible for another user to use
these apps.