Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!dorourke From: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional -- Six Years Later Keywords: frustration really about OS Message-ID: <5857@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Date: 18 Nov 88 00:25:11 GMT References: <17069@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Lines: 114 In article <17069@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> 128a-3aj@e260-3a.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) writes: >I can't believe it, these Mac Programmers, particularly the OS people, are >still in the dark ages! High and low memory? Sounds like the Apple II, for >chrissake. "We hope!" You shouldn't have to HOPE about anything. And the >last thing we need is more kludgy bits in each application. These OS >programmers don't have VISION- they're stuck in a certain primitive mode of >thought- a 1982 Apple II mode of thought. I would hardly call the Mac's memory manager "Dark Ages". And if I remember my Computer Arch. books, all computers have high memory, low memory. The problem that the poster is talking about referes to memory fragmentation problems. Solutions to this problem can be to load things at different end of Heap space and have the heap grow towards the middle. This has the effect of only effecting at most half of the heap for any recompactions, less memory to move, fast performance. Kludgy bits in each application. Bit's are to be used to indicate information about things, if we use them to indicate attributes of a process then that's what they should be for. Also the basic arch. of the Apple ][ is 1979 or so, it hasn't changed that much, by 1982 it was pretty well established. Your suggestion that the Macintosh design has a lot to do with the Apple II is completely unfounded. >Except for I/O addresses, there should be no fixed locations in the OS. All >memory should be allocated through a memory manager which returns something >in your memory which could be anywhere in the 32-bit address space of the >microprocessor, and you should NOT DEPEND ON ANYTHING MORE. Applications >should not be monolithic in memory usage, they should be segmented. Why stop at I/O addresses?? Facts of the matter are that most all computer systems have some hard coded addresses for the OS. I don't think making a memory manager call for each one is the best solution, but it's one. Why not make a data stucture availible that describes all of the OS values, ect... There are several options. Making a memory manager call for each OS data value might be considered a no-vision Apple II design decision. Macintosh applications are segmented! What more do I need to say. The 68000 has 24-bit addressing, get your facts straight. {However after reading your article I can see you have a problem with this} >THIS IS THE WAY EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT, ignoring implementation details. Unix Who the heck is everyone. I don't think the IBM PC does this. Unisys computer {2nd largest computer manufacturer in the world doesn't do it this way on all of their systems.} Ignoring implementations details. WAKE UP. What we're talking about is "IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS", I don't think you can ignore them. The facts of the matter are this statment is stupid. I'm sure most everyone reading this message can think of a computer that doesn't do it this way. Again avoid broad generalities, you might be wrong. >does it this way. The Amiga does it this way, and NOTHING EVER CONFLICTS >WITH ANYTHING ELSE! On my Amiga, I worry about one number: Free memory left. >I can load as many things as I have memory for and run them all at once and >each one thinks it owns the machine. Pre-emptive multitasking and >common-sensible memory management. Segmented self-relocating code. No fixed >addresses. Order of loading applications makes zero difference. "Background >printing is great!" Of course. That's like saying round wheels are great. >There should be NO OTHER KIND of printing. Do I really need to say anyting about the Amiga's OS. Sure it's got some strong points. But it's printing isn't one of them. And as far as the order of loading of applications, not too many Mac Programs worrry about loading in order. The Amiga folks are lucky they don't have MS doing any software for them, otherwise they might have the same problems. Also the Amiga's not the end all in OS's, the OS is buggy, and any application can take over the machine and start stepping on other Application's memory space {so can the Mac}, this is a big problem for micro computers, and will be until HW memory management becomes a reality to the general public. >I heard from some people at Microsoft that Excel had to be "significantly >rewritten" to use more than 1 megabyte. How many version of the Amiga OS are there?? "I heard from some people that the Amiga OS had to be "significantly rewritten" to be any good!" Not everyone always plays by the rules, and software evolves. I also heard that Unix has been rewritten, MS-Dos has been written. What's the big deal! >USERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ALL THIS! Users don't. However on the Amiga they do! I've tried changing printers and getting some applications to work. This is not something to be attempted by the faint of heart!! >I feel sorry for Apple's current employees who are faced with the tremendous >intertia of a large installed base of screwed-up software. But I really >empathize with the users who have to worry about this baloney when they really >just want to get work done. 98-99% of all software on the Macintosh works fine. You're picking on one popular package from over 3000 packages. Hardly a large installed base of screwed-up software. BTW: Has Amiga World finally broken the 100 page limit? I've always enjoyed reading that pamplet! >Apple, what are your plans for the OS? The time to abandon this precambrian >MS-DOS style memory manager and OS-scheme is NOW. Name one part of the Macintosh design that ressembles MS-Dos. Haven't you read about Apple's plans. They published all of their plans for the next 3 OS released perhaps what you need is more research. >Jonathan Dubman >UC Berkeley Math/CS student Stick to math John, you're no CS student! -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!