Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:13838 comp.windows.misc:255 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!amdahl!nsc!voder!apple!lsr From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool...( Hum Interface) Message-ID: <7656@apple.Apple.Com> Date: 11 Mar 88 19:36:18 GMT References: <4129@hoptoad.uucp> <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu> <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <9829@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <7593@apple.Apple.Com> <3609@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) Organization: Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer Lines: 32 Keywords: window human computer interface In article <3609@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes: > >greatest benefits of multitasking. Seeing as how the Mac has >single-tasking written all over its OS I don't see how Multifinder >can be anything but large and complicated. In other words: >---> IT'S A HACK. <--- Large and complicated compared to what? Sure it would have been easier and smaller to design in MultiTasking from the start, but MultiFinder is not large (50K) and it works very well. As you said, it brings many of the benefits of multitasking to Mac users, without having to rewrite applications. >What does Multifinder have over multitasking? In other words: >---> WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO USE MULTIFINDER??? <--- > >What's that? Mac software? Who cares about Mac software? Millions of people care. The available Mac software is in fact MultiFinder's advantage over the Amiga or UNIX. There are many tasks for which the Mac is the best tool. (There are tasks for which the Amiga or UNIX is the best tool.) If you simply judge systems on the basis of multitasking, then MultiFinder would not offer any advantages. Most users, however, don't buy computers based on operating system features. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 32E Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr