Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14371 comp.windows.misc:378
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!decwrl!decvax!dartvax!eleazar!hugo
From: hugo@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Su)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac toolbox, etc
Message-ID: <8449@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 23 Mar 88 13:18:52 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> <7656@apple.Apple.Com> <7670@apple.Apple.Com>
Reply-To: hugo@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Su)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 46

In article <7670@apple.Apple.Com> goldman@apple.UUCP (Phil Goldman) writes:
>I agree.  MultiFinder has made life more difficult (only a little, though)
>for application developers in order to make life a great deal easier for
>end-users.  I think much of the argument depends on what point of view
>you take.  Adam argues from the programmer's point of view, Larry (and
>other Apple people) from the user's.
>

I think one of the problems I have with Multifinder, nay, the whole Mac pseudo-OS
is that it doesn't have to make life so difficult for programmers.  A great
example of this is in memory management.  The kinds of gyrations developers have
to go through to make sure they have enough memory around is just disgusting.
What's worse, methods for handling memory management at the OS level (e.g. virtual
memory) have been around for about 25 years.  So, to Apple I say, the user
interface is there, but there is no OS under neath it.

And someone else said:
>>>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.
>>

See, but they should be aware that if the system they are buying has better OS
support for things like networking, tasking, and MM, then applications that they
run will almost always be more robust and more numerous.

>I think one point you are both missing out on is that preemptive multitasking
>requires hardware support not available on a 68000.  It is not compatibility

Seems to me a few years ago Sun had a little 68000 box with VM and Unix on it...

The problem isn't that the 68K can't do it, the problem is that originally Apple
made a decision not to put enough support hardware into the Mac to let this
happen.  They had it in the Lisa, but the took it out mostly for financial
reasons, I would guess.

>-Phil Goldman
>Apple Computer

Pete

-- 
CSNET: hugo@darmouth.edu                  UUCP: hugo@eleazar.UUCP (Sorry)
ARPA: hugo%dartmouth.edu@relay.cs.net

QUOTE:"Our president's crazy!  Did you hear what he said?" - Talking Heads