Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!hub!6600pete From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: What do I want to see in the Apple of the 90's? Message-ID: <3273@hub.UUCP> Date: 9 Dec 89 04:20:11 GMT References: <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> Sender: news@hub.UUCP Lines: 166 > o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C > complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. > Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then > Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? How do you rewrite the OS in Pascal but make the calling sequence ANSI C compliant? I agree that CtoPstr() et. al. are hurtful wastes of resources, but you seem to have put apples and oranges together as a solution. > o Simplify calls to the toolbox. I hate having to call functions > with a bazillion arguments. I also dislike sending in "mystery" > parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and > system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 > boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. The "mystery" parameters are often used by cheap hackers like me. Plus, 7.0 will run on any Mac with memory management, which includes the by-now lowly Mac II (with an extra chip). > o Speed up the interface. I can't stand having to wait for all of > those windows to redraw themselves. If necessary, install hardware > blitter hardware to do a lot of the work for you. When the Mac > was a small inexpensive box, then it was correct to do lots of > stuff in software. Now that Mac CPUs cost upwards of $3,000-$4,000, > Apple can afford a little specialized hardware. I agree. I think some stuff in this area was done, but one of the problems is supporting multiple graphics boards, and the blitter would have to be on each board, methinks. I don't know too much about this technology, but I do remember turning the color off on my beautiful $700 monitor while I had it because the text scrolling was unaaceptably slow in 8-bit mode. > o Virtual memory and memory management. Apple IIs use the 68030 chip > which also includes memory management and process protection/mode > switching. USE that capability. Give us multitasking and virutal > memory. It's here. I have it. It will be in System 7.0. And certainly not on the Apple II, but I knew what you were talking about. > o Update the interface. Let's face it... the Mac interface was > inovative 5 years ago, but compared to Motif on X windows or the > NeXT computer interface, its a dog. This is actually a very complex > issue: Yes, it is. I don't think you've considered the complexity enough. > The look and feel of Macintosh windows is very sparten. I would like > to see an interfacethat looks more elegant even if it is no more > functional. Consider the Motif interface in X Windows... very nice > textured panels with 3-D buttons and shadowing. Beautiful. Now look > at Mac windows and dialog boxes... a couple of lines and the samey old > radio buttons and click buttons. Boring. This could be done with CDEF resources. People just haven't done it yet. And to look really NeXTy, people would have to adopt the convention of using a grey background pattern in their windows. None of this would be Apple's responsibility, because it is already possible. > To rid ourselves of this sameyness, there should be a tool on the Mac > very similar to the NeXT computer's interface builder. Such a tool > would let you prototype windows and dialog boxes but froma larger > pallette of "panels" and textures. Various buttons and effects > (shadowing, highlighting, blinking) should be available. Different > types of window panes, controls and menuing paradigms should be > available. This hypothetical tool would allow the user to prototype > windows by draggin each item from a menu and simply placing them on > the window. The tool might then generate a framework of code which > the user can fill in later. It should also be possible for the user > to create his/her own controls and plug them into the library of > things attachable to a window or box. This tool exists. It is called Prototyper. There is another called AppMaker. Neither have the aesthetic diversity you're after, but this is a good thing. The changes you're after should be system-wide; consistency is essential to the success of the Mac. (Which is why I think HyperCard is a Bad Thing, but...) > All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering each > other's applications too! This is also up to third parties. Apple has made it possible for applications to be launched more than once on a server. It's now up to developers to play by the rules that make it possible. > o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days > when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be > greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware > is there... but the Finders just don't use it! That's what ColorFinder is for. You can get it via anonymous ftp to apple.com. I think it's in /pub/dts/mac/hacks. > o It should be possible to run an X Windows based MultiFinder with true > multitasking. X Windows is there.... why ignore it! Integrate the > thing right into the MultiFinder and polish up the interface (although > it would probably run a little slow). MacX isn't a total solution. Competing interfaces on the Mac would kill it. There is A/UX and there is an X-Windows package for it. Also, you will get your true multi-tasking eventually. Maybe in System 8.0. 7.0 won't be anything to sneeze at in that department, either. > o Make the OS more Posix call-complient. Functions like FSGetFile are > a good thing but there should also be ANSI conformant Unix "open" > "read" "write" calls. The Unix OS interface is simplicity in itself. > Don't ignore the tide of support for Unix and OS STANDARDS. The OS > looks like it came out of a 128K machine from the mid 1980's. Wonder > why? Get THINK (Lightspeed) C. It handles all of that kind of stuff. MPW and Aztec probably do too, but I haven't looked at either of them in very much depth. > Although it's an over-used buzz-word, the OS might support some > kind of object-oriented ontology. I like the idea of building modules > functionality and clicking them together in different ways. Well, I've already said a little something about Mac CASE tools. > The Mac already supports this with CDEVS, INITs and so forth... thus > if you want a window or panel with different functionality than those > provided... you just write a CDEF and install it. This is very cool > but it often means a LOT of code and that code is pretty esoteric > stuff. No, to define a new window, you use a WDEF. But that's just nit-picking. I agree that there should be more object orientation on the Mac. So does Apple. That's why they developed Object Pascal with Wirth and that's why they have a C++ compiler coming out in cooperation with AT&T. As for the esoteric qualities of xDEF's, don't be fooled by Steve Jobs' rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. > An object-oriented programming way of looking at things might make > this more modular and easier to program. Might facilitate sharing > of building blocks (OOPS classes and libraries) better too! Ever hear of MacApp? Or the THINK Class Library? > o Scalable picture and font technology. I realize that this is coming > in some form or other however it doesn't look like Apple's new > scalable fonts will be Postscript compatible. It would be great if > all of the draw and paint programs on the new machine integrated > scalable colour text and graphics in an integrated fashion. Can > you say Postscript? Can you ask "Why?" as long as the new technology is just as versatile and powerful? Can you think of a reason Apple would castrate its font technology for System 7.0? They're not that stupid. > I know that what I've just described sounds a LOT like the NeXT computer > and for good reason. Jobs and Co. have done a wonderful job of synthesising > various technologies into one beautifully designed package that didn't worry > about being backward compatible. The Mac is still the computer for the > 80's and shows it. The 80's over. What will the Mac of the > 90's look like? I composed a reply to this, but I realized it belonged in alt.religion.computers, so I deleted it. In short, I think this assertion is both premature and unfounded. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills