Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14057 comp.windows.misc:309
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!chekmate
From: chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool...( Hum Interface)
Message-ID: <3832@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 17 Mar 88 02:54:48 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 102

David W. Berry writes:
>	Well, fortunately, the definiton of the Macintosh OS allows
>such things as multitasking and other OS features to be cleanly and
>simply integrated in later.

This is not true.  Multitasking is one of the most fundamental aspects
of an OS, affecting things like memory management, interrupt handling,
and data storage.  You can't even BEGIN to write an OS until you
decide how to address these issues.  When you write a single-tasking
OS, you're dealing with different questions, and your answers will not
be appropriate to a multitasking environment.  What happens when two
tasks demand access to the same memory location, the same interrupt,
the same file?  These aren't problems you can fix by twiddling a data
field or even replacing a module.  Your decisions on issues like these
_define_ your OS.  A different decision demands a different OS.

>>>		    All other things equal, which they basically are,
>>						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>consistency makes the Macintosh interface and MultiFinder simpler to
>>>learn and use than X, NeWS, or SunView.
>>
>>I really can't let this go by.  Would you mind supporting that statement?
>	Well, MultiFinder provides multitasking.  It allows 95% of all
>users to do all the things one expects of a multitasking system.  That
>seems pretty equal to me.

Quick answer:  95% ~= 100% (I'm a math major, you know. :-))
Long answer:  What are you claiming is equal here?  This workstation
I'm using has more pixels, a bigger screen, more RAM, more ROM, more
speed, NFS, BSD 4.3, Emacs, INGRES, MACSYMA, Xtrek, Xconq, and a
God-knows-how-many-thousands-of-dollars-a-year service contract with
DEC.  In other words:
	What are these "things???"

>			Your arguments that "I don't have any
>any macintosh software therefore macintosh software doesn't matter"
>indicates that you choose to deny a reality Apple and the rest of
>the microcomputer industry has to deal with.

This really wasn't intended to be one of my arguments.
It was a joke.  You know, :-) :-) <-- these are smiley faces :-)

Seriously, there are lots of real world variables I've been ignoring,
because I wanted to keep the discussion tightly focused.  Software
isn't the only variable I've been ignoring.  How about price?  Speed?
Expandability?  Software philosophy?  (Mac software patronizes me.  I
HATE BEING PATRONIZED!!!)  You see, there are a lot of REASONS why I
don't own any Mac software, and they're just outside the scope of this
discussion.

>								Since you
>were discrediting MultiFinder I assumed you were declaring a preference
>for Unix.

Please, I'm not trying to discredit anything, or declare a preference
for anything.  If you must know, I think Unix is too hard to use, the
Mac doesn't have enough power, and the Amiga doesn't have enough
software.  (Oh god, now I'm gonna get flamed by EVERYBODY.)

All I really wanted to say is:
>>> MultiFinder is not multitasking. <<<

I'm not judging Apple's decision to create it, I'm not judging your
decision to buy it.  I'm clarifying a definition.

>>As a tool for switching between tasks, MultiFinder has absolutely no
>>advantage over multitasking.
				:
>	1.  MultiFinder provides multitasking services to an existing
>windowing system which has proven easy to learn and use.
>	2.  MultiFinder allows millions of people to continue using
>there existing software, most of it with no changes and still have
>all the advantages of multitasking.

Your two points are really only one.  And I was very careful in
phrasing my point: "As a tool for switching between tasks . . ."  Not
"As a tool for switching between Mac programs . . ."  Please note the
latter point is what you're arguing, and the latter point is too
limited for my interest.  Maybe if I wanted to discuss Switcher vs.
MultiFinder.

Nevertheless, there is nothing inherent in my definition of
multitasking that says it can't run Mac programs.  You would need to
write such an OS from scratch, but when done, such an OS would be
faster, cleaner, more powerful -- more ELEGANT than Mac with
MultiFinder.

Yes yes, such an OS does not exist yet.  I admit that's a problem.
But I really don't want to discuss Mac specific OS's.

And about this definition debate - please see my replies to Robert
Reed.

>-- 
>David W. Berry
>dwb@Delphi	dwb@apple.com	973-5168@408.MaBell
>Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly
>	wouldn't want if they did.

Thank you for the apology.  I overreacted.

Adam