Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!bernina!neeri From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Turning off time slices in S7 Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 91 09:10:01 GMT References: <0E010021.82xzfh@gla-aux.uucp> <1991Jun1.070626.2853@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Jun3.015035.5222@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <1991Jun3.142717.103@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1991Jun3.232340.5237@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Sender: news@bernina.ethz.ch (USENET News System) Distribution: comp Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich Lines: 124 In-Reply-To: umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu's message of 4 Jun 91 03:23:40 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: etzj-gw In article <1991Jun3.232340.5237@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >What I am pointing out is that, by the standards of modern operating systems, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the Mac OS is severly deficient. The Mac OS is more "modern" than UNIX :-) >It does not offer protected memory- if one >program crashes, it can crash the entire machine. This might be introduced anytime on the machines with an MMU. >It does not offer threads- >allowing you to do other thing *in the Finder* while disk copying is going on, >for example. While I haven't received my copy of Inside Macintosh VI yet, I *think* this is no longer entirely impossible (The finder could launch an "invisible application" to do the disk copying. I hazily remember having seen a Process Manager chapter in the IM VI stack). >It does not offer support for multiple users on one machine- this >is useful *even if* you are the only user of that machine, to ensure that you >don't do something rash by mistake. I was wondering whether it wouldn't be possible, now with the FileShare feature of System 7, to configure a Mac such that the User has to mount the *local* hard disk as an AppleShare volume. This would provide the protection for files. >It does not offer support for parallel >processing Yes it does. That's what A/ROSE does :-) Seriously, I have seen Macs with transputer cards. Under System 7, access to the file system for other processors should be possible to arrange (FileShare again). >Now a whole bunch of people are going to say that we, common users, don't need >that. This is a load of bull. It doesn't matter what you dow ith your computer- >everyone benefits form a robust environment where the crash of one program does >not affect anything else. Everyone benfits from an environment where time >intensive jobs are shuffled to the background in a separate thread while the ap >you're using remains interactive. I agree fully. >Everyone benefits from the extra CPU >performance parallel processing can bring. Have you ever tried to manipulate 2 >page 24bit graphics? Wouldn't it be nice if that took half a second instead of >30 seconds. Have you ever tried editing sound? Printing out to a quickdraw >printer? Some of these tasks sound like the job for a dedicated graphics coprocessor. This has been done. Others sound like the job for multiple processors (not necessarily 680X0'es) with the Mac acting as a frontend. This has also been done. >Even things the MacOS does like multi-tasking could be speeded up a great deal >if the OS were changed in some way. Context switches on a Mac are *slow* by the >stanadards of many other OSs. Sure, and graphics is *fast* on a Mac by the standards of many other OSs. >Now, what of the competition. Everyone shrinks back at the thought of UNIX. >Dammit- we are interested in UNIX the OS here, not UNIX the shell. Which UNIX ? >The fact is >that as an operating system, UNIX is fundamentally more powerful than the >MacOS. ... and fundamentally more weird. System VR4 supports 14 different file systems. On many UNIXes, to install a new device driver, or change some configuration parameters, you have to recompile the kernel. While I like some of the UNIX ideas, I think today's UNIX kernels are much too complex, partially because they have to provide too much backwards compatibility. >Mach is a kernel based on networking/parallel processing concepts that >is rather more powerful than UNIX, can be customized rather more easily for a >certain task, and can be made to look like UNIX to a programmer- and like UNIX, >to look like anything you want including a Mac, to the user. I like Mach a lot better than UNIX. >Look at AIX. When AIX runs, it takes over the machine- the MacOS is killed. >That doesn't stop you running Mac programs that behave just like always- just >they're using UNIX as their OS, not the native Mac OS, but they still use the >Mac Toolbox. Finally some good news for IBM ! Mac programs run on an IBM RS/6000, you say ? Oh, you meant A/UX, not AIX ? Never mind. (FYI, I *like* A/UX) >There are a few innovative features in the MacOS. Things like resources and >parts of Quickdraw. But most of it is not nearly as good as what is available, As far as I heard, the Hierarchical File System and AppleTalk are also good. The International Utilities/Script Manager are *very* good (How many western computers can be booted up with Hebrew, Arab, Korean and Chinese systems ?). AppleEvents are good, Aliases are good, the Sound Manager is pretty good. So what is "not nearly as good as what is available" ? Multiprocessing, OK, and MS-DOS compatibility. >and it makes no sense to claim either that it is, Most of the Toolbox *is* state of the art. Repent, heathen ! >or that we do not need the >improvements. Certainly, we need the improvements. That's why Apple is constantly improving its System Software. What you seem to underestimate in your post is that "the MacOS" is a moving target. To me, "the MacOS" is everything currently running on a Mac that will let me run my Applications. Therefore, I find it ridiculous to pick on "the MacOS", pointing to A/UX. A/UX *is* a MacOS, and probably shows some of the further directions the "mainstream" System Software is taking. >Maynard Handley Matthias ----- Matthias Neeracher neeri@iis.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_