Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!keith
From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: why Finder replaced Desktop; large HDs
Message-ID: <27413@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 89 19:53:42 GMT
References: <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> <1814@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 50

In article <1814@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes:
>In article <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes:
>>>
>>>	[ comments from Kareth about Desktop & Finder deleted ]
>>>
>>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.

David hit some of the high points in his '>>' comments above. Here are some 
more:

1) I don't have Desktop handy, but I seem to recall that it was big; it had
to implement all of its own graphics, windows, menus, scrolling, etc. By 
writing a Finder that used the built-in ToolBox, we could make it smaller. Also,
it would take advantage of any improvements made to the Toolbox.

2) I, for one, HATED the way Desktop redrew ALL of its windows when an update
occured (when windows were closed or re-ordered, for example). Desktop did not
have region maintenance like QuickDraw, and couldn't keep track of just the
windows and parts of windows that needed to be updated.

3) Desktop was not written by Apple. It took quite a bit of effort to get the
original developer to get it to the state you currently see it in. By having
a Finder that we owned completely, we would be able to make changes ourselves
without having to take any lip from someone outside the company.

4) One of the things that made the Mac so successful, and that we're trying
to bring to the Apple IIGS, is consistancy of user interface. Not only does
this mean consistancy with the Mac, but also consistancy with other Apple IIGS
applications. The old Desktop program looked and acted quite differently from
the way we encourage 3rd party developers to make their programs look and act.
What kind of example would we be setting?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin  ---  Apple Computer, Inc.  ---  Developer Technical Support
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
    UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions