Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!bu-tyng!three!cory
From: cory@three.MV.COM (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re^2: Macintosh OS
Message-ID: <356@three.MV.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 90 02:00:07 GMT
References: <1990May30.230248.6200@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1935@key.COM> <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <402@newave.UUCP> <1990Jun2.132847.14292@oracle.com> <6479@scolex.sco.COM>
Organization: Three Letter Co. Nashua, NH.
Lines: 25

seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes:

>Ok, how about this:  a single-tasking "OS" is a true OS if a program written
>for it can be moved to a multi-tasking version of said OS without breaking
>in anyway.  That is, if it worked before, it should work now.

>I don't believe the Mac does this properly

Sorry, you loose.  When the Mac went from single finder to multifinder,
most (the last figure that I saw was 93%) applications did not break.

The applications that did were, in general, ones that decided to shave 
corners (well, *I KNOW* that this information is stored here... why
should I bother with that routine that Apple wrote?  I can save 30 
cycles).

As to the original question, my OS class (and Peterson/Silberschatz)
defined an operating system as a program that provides an interface
to hardware and manages (the sharing of) resources

+C
-- 
Cory Kempf				I do speak for the company (sometimes).
Three Letter Company						603 883 2474
email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory