Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bcstec!iftccu!bressler
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Re: terminology (Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.))
Message-ID: <880002@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 6 Jun 90 22:07:53 GMT
References: <6480@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 79


>        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.

I maintain that there is a price here.  The price is portability.  If
every computer in the world ran the MAC OS I'd agree with you.  I don't
think that this is likely to happen.  It seems that you are arguing for
standard API's and if that is the case, I couldn't agree with you more.

I remember reading a review a while ago about a set of libraries
available for the PC that when linked with MAC applications written in
C, would run on a PC with virtually the same look and feel of the
original application on the MAC. (Sorry I can't remember the source,
damaged short term memory I guess :-) I don't know from personal
experience how well this package actually works, but in principle it
should be possible to run just about any operating system/application
look-alike on most any hardware platform.  ( I'm not saying I'd
necessarily like the *challenge* of doing this myself :-)

The main point here is that this provides at least one dividing line
between operating system and application.  Obviously the PC at this
point is not running the Mac operating system, but it certainly is
running a MAC application.  True, the interface is not supplied with the
PC but then the MAC supplies only it's own API flavor as well.  The
point is that the operating system portion is not portable, the API is.

How about this for a partial working definition:

When you create an application the part you worry about is the API, the
part you don't care about is the OS.  Admittedly under this definition
the MAC still bundles together an OS and an API, but as in the PC
example above, the OS and the API *can* still treated separately.  It
could even be done on the MAC, admittedly with a major re-structuring of
its current 'OS'.

Certainly you can run PC applications on the MAC but only with the
purchase of hardware that in effect converts the MAC to a pc :-).

>        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.

Ah.  What are the fundamentals?  I suspect that as long as we have
multiple computer manufacturers this will be a problem.  That is why I
favor better dividing lines between OS and API.  Why be stuck with a BMW
when a Fararri comes along.  If for the sake of argument I allow that the
MAC GUI is currently the best user interface, do you really believe that
all advances will stop here?  If the user interfaces are separate
applications, it will always be possible to develop an API to new and
old operating systems, and preserve old code.  Indeed the vendors will
be compelled to support the popular API's when they bring out new
hardware and OS software.

>        Plus also don't forget to note you can customize Mac with INITs and
>CDEVs, also absent from Windows, OS/2, Unix, et al.

Well you can do this under DOS too, and to a far less extent under
Windows / OS2. I wonder, is IBM/MICROSOFT moving backwards?  While I
personally enjoy playing with such versatility, It doesn't seem
consistent with what I perceive as a call on your part for standards.


>        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

I think each manufacturer is going to bundle their API with their own
hardware.  The key question is how many *other* API's are available for
a given hardware platform.

Rick.