Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!bungia!orbit!pnet51!shawn
From: shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: IIgs and flakey-ware
Message-ID: <767@orbit.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 89 22:05:04 GMT
Sender: root@orbit.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 26

asd@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes:
>2) Why in the world did you guys at Apple dump the Desktop (found on the
>earlier system.disks)?  I still have this in a ROMdrive that I use when
>I want semi-ProSel speed with a Desktop interface.  Windows fly open at
>least 10 times faster than the finder can manage.  Everything is smaller yet
>still very readable and can present a lot more information than the Finder
>can in one screen.  Except for some Finder commands (just a few) and the
>ability to work in color, the Desktop version seems to have a lot better
>speed and therefore useability compared to incredibly slow Finder.  Maybe
>if there was a GS+ but even then the Desktop would be incredibly fast compared
>to the Finder.  When I got the first version of the Finder, I though, "You've
>got to be kidding!  This is slower than molasses (or something to that
>effect)"

Mind if I try and answer this one?  As I understand it, the Desktop was
basically the ProDOS 8 version of the Finder.

I like the Finder better, myself.  I don't think it's that much slower, but
then I use a hard drive.  Also, the Finder interfaces directly with the
toolbox functions, and the NDA's are readily available.  I guess what I'm
trying to say is that while you think of them as two different products, it
does seem that Apple thinks of the Finder as the latest version of the Desktop
program.

UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn
INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com