Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.misc Subject: Re: Macintosh OS (was: 68000 and Workstations.) Message-ID: Date: 8 Jun 90 14:21:22 GMT References: <6392@scolex.sco.COM> <880001@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> <1990Jun6.133723.9416@agate.berkeley.edu> <:LZ3SIE@xds13.ferranti.com> <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 27 In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: > The Mac is a *limited* copy of the Star? The Mac was a limited copy of the Star. The Star has a multitasking O/S, with complete file and application transparency over a network. This would have never fit into the Mac's combined 192K of RAM and ROM, so it was deliberately designed as a standalone, single-tasking subset of the Xerox 1100 and Star. > I saw a Star a week or two ago at the Xerox showroom. I saw a Star 8 years ago at a Xerox booth. It was quite zippy for the time, and certainly faster than a 68000-based Mac. It was also faster than the Lisa. > It's slow, the interface is *very* primitive, and there wasn't much else > to say about it... even the Xerox people weren't proud of it. The Mac has gained considerable horsepower in the past 4 years. The Star has pretty much stood still. The Star and the Lisa suffered from being too early in the game, and so were left by the wayside. Even so, people I know who've used the Star and the Mac extensively prefer the Star just because of the greater level of integration between apps. And the Mac system software is still not up to the Star's standard, simply because it's never recovered from that original 192K diet. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.