Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!amdahl!key!sjc
From: sjc@key.COM (Steve Correll)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Macintosh OS
Message-ID: <1935@key.COM>
Date: 30 May 90 15:23:17 GMT
References: <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <402@newave.UUCP>
Organization: Key Computer Labs, Fremont, CA
Lines: 18

In article <402@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> 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.

Suppose you implemented the C library standalone on a bare machine, adding the
capability to execute multiple C programs by switching from one to another
during calls to the library. Would that be an operating system? People
accustomed to conventional timesharing systems might answer "no", but people
accustomed to simple ROM-able operating systems might answer "yes".

The Mac OS is a deluxe, highly graphical version of that approach. Myself, I
think Apple's advertising slogan ought to be "The User Interface _is_ the
Computer".
-- 
...{sun,pyramid}!pacbell!key!sjc 				Steve Correll