Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08 From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.) Message-ID: <26200.265dd7be@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Date: 26 May 90 01:11:26 GMT References: <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990May24.114553.10301@phri.nyu.edu> <37@voa3.UUCP> <402@newave.UUCP> Lines: 41 In article <402@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: > 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- > Gee, that's cute. But according to your definitions, there is no such thing as an "operating system" on any computer ever made... after all, they're just a bunch of programs that talk to each other, right? And UNIX even more so... since most UNIX users I know tend to treat commands as programs... :) So- for your next trick, are you going to prove black is white, or that 1 + 1 = 3? [Written with more than a little tongue in cheek... the Mac OS is more of an operating "system" than most, since it *does* have a fairly firm set of rules, as opposed to most machines, which have few outside of the coding of the ROMS and the CPU...] C Irby