Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08 From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Newsgroups: comp.os.misc Subject: Re: Re: terminology (Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.)) Message-ID: <26636.266e6bc8@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Date: 7 Jun 90 14:59:20 GMT References: <6480@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <880002@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> Lines: 100 In article <880002@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes: >> 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. A lot of the portability is being taken care of by the people who write and rewrite compilers... a well-written C program ought to run on most any machine (if the dialect of C is consistent across platforms). Once you have the base code laid out, it's just interface.... :) (Yes, I know that's a gross oversimplification, but I have seen some stuff that runs on *anything* with a good compiler...) > > 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 :-) > You might be able to get it to *run*, but as far as looking like Mac apps, I wouldn't bet on it... Let's just say this must have been either a dream or deceptive advertising. The PC just doesn't have the right stuff built into it's ROMs to get away with this... you can see how improbable this is by looking at Windows 3.0, then comparing it to a Mac Plus... unless you have a *very* fast 286 or a nice 386 with a lot of memory, it looks like a kludgy Mac on Valium... not to mention that you're still riding on top of MS-DOS. > > > 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 :-). > Sorry. Not true. SoftPC (to name one) lets you run MS-DOS apps on an unmodified Mac... with the right setup, you might be able to run A/UX, Mac applications, and MS-DOS applications... all at the same time... with memory protection under A/UX... [other subjects deleted] > > 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. That's why I prefer blurring them even more! Sooner or later, we might get away from the whole distinction/division of "OS" and "Applications." When you buy a new program, the OS would just reach out and merge the features of that application with the body of the operating system... ;) There are some systems that do this right now, but not in a fully integrated fashion. Could be fun. >>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. The answer to "Why only Apple..." is that the other folks want to *sell* their add-ons... :) So far, the majority of add-on interfaces (Windows, X-Windows, etc) are cosmetic changes slapped over a text-oriented machine to make it look like a Mac. Once people discover just how little improvement there is, they get this "Graphical OS sucks" attitude... ;) The Amiga OS looks like it has promise, but the graphical side of it is *not* in the Mac league- and that's due to the lack of consistency. Give them another generation or two, and who knows...? C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax