Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!tornado.Berkeley.EDU!dankg
From: dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.)
Summary: Why is it becoming Jihad anytime we talk about Mac?
Keywords: Mac, OS
Message-ID: <1990Jun6.133723.9416@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 90 13:37:23 GMT
References: <6392@scolex.sco.COM> <880001@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai)
Organization: ucb
Lines: 57

In article <880001@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>Many of us would call a user interface an APPLICATION, not an operating system.
>I guess it all depends on your point of view.  From my background (large scale
>IBM, --- hey, we all had to start somewhere :-) ) We called the part that 
>managed the system resources the O.S. and the part that talked to the user the 
>application.  Probably the blurring of the line is why the MAC takes some 
>heat from lots of folks with traditional views. Windows and OS/2  have some 
>of the same 'features' :-).  Unix is capable of any variety of user 
>interfaces, the MAC only one.  :-). My question is, do we really want 
>everything (user interface, database manager etc. )to be a part of the 
>operating system, or do we want the freedom to pick and choose our 
>'applications' or even perhaps run multiple user interfaces on a single 
>platform?  This is where the traditional view helps.  

	Choice!  But are you going to choose bunch of Yugos and Hyndais when
you have a BMW?  You have more choice of crap in Xwindow/Window and
Presentation Manager.  I just didn't choose a crap and I'm glad.
	And what you call "freedom of choice" is not free--it not only takes
user's money but pain.  Mac OS is free for all Mac users.  How much does
Window cost?  And Presentation Manager?  You can buy a decent Plus for the
price of Presentation Manager and I'd rather choose a Mac Plus.
	And too much freedom in such fundamentals as OS gives nothing but
pain--and interface is such a precious fundamental that I think it should
be integrated in OS--it's like car's cockpit.  Imagine you gas pedal is on
the left and you drive with joystick, not Steering wheel.  I always have
trouble driving in Japan but the only difference there is left and right.
GUI is even more chaotic but the one of the Mac is not only the most confort-
able but also consistent.  Consistency counts more than freedom in case of
interface.
	Plus also don't forget to note you can customize Mac with INITs and
CDEVs, also absent from Windows, OS/2, Unix, et al.

>My vote is that the os is the part that manages the system resources and 
>provides a standard interface to the hardware. Anything else should be 
>an application.  Course, then what do we call OS/2 Windows/ MAC??

	I agree.  Then why only Apple include GUI as standard interface still?
Xwindow is not standard OS.  Windows and OS/2 is more like application than
OS in a sense you have to buy it separately.  IBM/Clone is not Windows
but Mac is indeed Mac by itself and system

>Now if only the MAC had a decent command line shell processor ......... :-) :-).

	I hate to admit I love CLI also.  You can get one via MPW or A/UX but
you have to pay for it:  It's funny everything is upside down between Macs
and others.  For others, you have to pay for GUI.  For Macs, you have to pay
for CLI.

----------------
____  __  __    + Dan The "Mac Bigot" Man
    ||__||__|   + E-mail:	dankg@ocf.berkeley.edu
____| ______ 	+ Voice:	+1 415-549-6111
|     |__|__|	+ USnail:	1730 Laloma Berkeley, CA 94709 U.S.A
|___  |__|__|	+	
    |____|____	+ "What's the biggest U.S. export to Japan?" 	
  \_|    |      + "Bullshit.  It makes the best fertilizer for their rice"