Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!srcsip!jhereg!wd0gol!newave!john From: john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.) Summary: Is it really an OS? Message-ID: <402@newave.UUCP> Date: 25 May 90 21:45:34 GMT References: <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990May24.114553.10301@phri.nyu.edu> <37@voa3.UUCP> Reply-To: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 25 In article <37@voa3.UUCP> ck@voa3.UUCP (Chris Kern) writes: >For those of use who don't have any experience with the Mac OS, could >someone explain what its deficiencies are with respect to multitasking? Can the Macintosh System be called an "Operating System"? Ignoring system 7.0, the Mac is a collection of procedures, some of which are in ROM, that everyone agrees to call in the right order. If anyone screws up, you get a bomb. There is no real multi-tasking, no scheduler, no device or file locking, memory protection, processes, forking, etc. What many people refer to as the O/S is really the finder program. And yes, it is an application just like any other, and you are not required to use it. In fact, Apple has a thing called "mini-finder" that allows you to start Mac programs without running finder. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but does this qualify as an O/S. How about MS-DOS? -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================