Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!asd From: asd@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: why Finder replaced Desktop; large HDs Message-ID: <1814@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 16 Mar 89 17:47:05 GMT References: <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Reply-To: asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 51 In article <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 00:17:33 GMT >>From: Kareth >>Subject: IIgs and flakey-ware >> >Ick! That thing runs under ProDOS 8, meaning (among other things) >that actual disk access is much slower than under GS/OS, that it is >forever limited to ProDOS disks, and that New Desk Accessories cannot >be used with it. As I recall, it didn't remember where you had put >icons within your windows, either, and you already mentioned the >lack of color. Its Get Info boxes were extremely boring, and they >were modal. I never used the thing enough to know the rest of its >limitations. True, but the amount of information it can display and the speed of opening windows, etc. is much better than Finder. I'm interested in why Apple chose to make something new that offers less in window opening speed, size of information, etc. when they could have taken work previously done and bring it to GS/OS. >If it still works for you, nobody's stopping you from using it. It's >not the way of the future, though. I expect that the real Finder's >speed and functionality will continue to improve in the future. I would expect so too. Without the large screens like a Mac can have, the current incarnation of the Finder leaves alot to be desired in how much it can show of disk space. I hate having to scroll all over the place just to find a file. Something like the auto-sizing of windows found in Desktop would be greatly appreciated here. Don't get me wrong, I ain't against the Finder (some of the ways it does things sure) but was curious about why Apple went this direction. >EH? GS/OS is perfectly "true" right now. Partitions are not limited I shudda had a fst after GS/OS. Further explanation at bottom. >to 32 Megs except under ProDOS. If and when FSTs are available for Which is all we have cept for a High Sierra. >non-ProDOS file systems (other than High Sierra, which intended for >compact disks and is read-only), there is no reason to doubt that >the current SCSI card will be able to handle them. It requires a >loaded driver (SCSI.DRIVER) anyway, so I don't forsee any problems. Okay, sounds good. >By the way, the ProDOS FST (PRO.FST) _is_ a "real GS/OS FST." All >FSTs impose file-system-specific limitations on things like volume >size, file size, valid characters in filenames, maximum length of >filenames, etc. Okay, picky, picky :-) I didn't mean PRO.FST wasn't a real GS/OS fst. I meant it doesn't support everything GS/OS can. In a sense, PRO.FST might be considered to be a foreign translator, that unfortunately, we have to use until we get our native translator, GSOS.FST. I understand the other stuff, guess I just didn't make myself clear. kareth.