Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!rex!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08 From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Newsgroups: comp.os.misc Subject: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.) Message-ID: <26294.2663daa9@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Date: 30 May 90 14:37:29 GMT References: <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990May24.114553.10301@phri.nyu.edu> <37@voa3.UUCP> <402@newave.UUCP> <26200.265dd7be@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <6392@scolex.sco.COM> <36860@think.Think.COM> Followup-To: .ferranti.com> Lines: 48 In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <36860@think.Think.COM> > barmar@nugodot.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >> There sure is alot of misconception about what an OS is. An OS is a set of >> procedures that make it easier for application programs to use the >> hardware. > > This is a definition of an operating system that is so watered down as to > be meaningless. To me, an operating system is a resource manager: it > allocates resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, devices, and so > on to various user agents (i.e. programs). An adequate operating system > should manage at least the major resources: disk space, memory, CPU time, > and I/O devices. The Macintosh system software does not, at this point in > time, manage CPU time in anything like an adequate manner. It has a weird > memory manager, an excellent I/O manager, and a competant if hairy disk > space manager. But without a scheduler it's just another DOS. > -- Let's turn this around- UNIX has most of those :-), but it has a *lousy* user interface. To most folks, the interface controls the amount of work you can get out of a computer. They don't want to spend six months learning how to get the thing to print a directory... Someone (with a :) or two) might say that UNIX isn't an OS- it's just a programming language with a Napoleon complex... And if an adequate operating system is supposed to "manage" disk space, why does UNIX take up so much of it? Here's some more smileys to make the point... :) :) ;) :-) :P You're doing the same thing- "If it doesn't act like MY machine, it's not a *real* OS..." Instead of trying to rewrite the definition of "OS," why not see what people think an OS is? The average computer user isn't going to buy your argument. [To be honest, it's starting to sound like those "A Mac isn't a _real_ computer" gripes from a few years back...] C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax "Oh, yeah? Well, I suppose you think because you're big and tough you can just walk in here and [thud]..."