Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ames!uhccux!waikato.ac.nz!ldo
From: ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Gripes about System 7.0
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.183443.2825@waikato.ac.nz>
Date: 25 Jan 91 05:34:43 GMT
References: <5611@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <3810@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> <2899@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1991Jan24.224108.19413@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Lines: 53

In article <1991Jan24.224108.19413@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) has a few things
to say about AppleTalk and the Macintosh system:

"I think Apple BLEW IT on AppleTalk.

"The only interesting idea they had was the plug-and-play nature of the
thing."

No, there are *two* interesting ideas, as far as I'm concerned: dynamic
node address assignment (the single major reason for the plug-and-play
nature), and transaction-based protocols. See pages I-14 to I-15 of
Inside AppleTalk, 2nd Ed.

"The protocol itself is horrendously myopic; it just won't scale to
large internetworks.  That's why they've patched in Phase 2."

AppleTalk is a great local-area networking system (better with Phase 2),
lousy on wide-area networking, agreed. TCP/IP is a fairly good, very
well understood wide-area networking system, a real headache in a local-area
network. What network protocols do you know of that work well in both
situations? Are they available today?

"Even the hardware was bad; nobody in their right mind uses real LocalTalk,
because the cable is expensive and the connectors fall out.  PhoneNet is
cheaper, more reliable, and has fewer distance/topology limitations."

Ding! You've just proven that AppleTalk is properly designed after all!
If it wasn't, you wouldn't have such a choice of different physical
media.

Even the ease with which you can replace LocalTalk cabling with
PhoneNet tells you something about the design of that particular
data-link layer...

"... Macintosh is a GUI without an operating system."

Rubbish.

Note: talking about the design of an operating system is meaningless
unless you keep in mind the needs of actual applications. Macintosh
is not an operating system like traditional ones running on time-shared
machines. But then, the applications that run under it are not like the
traditional ones developed for time-shared systems.

Yes, Macintosh needs preemptive multi-tasking. But I would assert
that the claimed benefits of memory protection and virtual memory are
*overrated*.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro                       fone: +64-71-562-889
Computer Services Dept                     fax: +64-71-384-066
University of Waikato            electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand    37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+13:00