Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!zodiac!jtn From: jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: What do I want to see in the Apple of the 90's? Summary: mac of the 90's Message-ID: <10077@zodiac.ADS.COM> Date: 14 Dec 89 16:44:38 GMT References: <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> <3273@hub.UUCP> Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mountain View, CA 94043, (415) 960-7300 Lines: 112 In article <3273@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >> o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C >> complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. >> Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then >> Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? > >How do you rewrite the OS in Pascal but make the calling sequence ANSI C >compliant? I agree that CtoPstr() et. al. are hurtful wastes of resources, My mistake. That should read: "Rewrite the system in C." So what if we throw Pascal users out on the streets? ;-) ;-) ;-) >This could be done with CDEF resources. People just haven't done it yet. And >to look really NeXTy, people would have to adopt the convention of using a >grey background pattern in their windows. None of this would be Apple's >responsibility, because it is already possible. Why hasn't apple developed sets of resources WDEFS CDEFS and so on to extend the Mac OS becuase it sounds like this is just what resources are good for? At the very LEAST Apple could act as the distribution center for such new extensions. It looks to me like Apple isn't doing a whole lot to help the little guy or the public domain BBOARDS. They just don't seem to participate (although individual employeess do). I've found APDA to be a pretty poor solution as well. I'm not a big-time developer, just a hacker. I also thinkApple is pretty poor concerning their warrantys, service, technical support, etc. Do they think third parties can do it all? >> All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering >> each other's applications too! > >This is also up to third parties. Apple has made it possible for applications >to be launched more than once on a server. It's now up to developers to play >by the rules that make it possible. Apple could incoprporate more good ideas from outside sources. They might also pay more attention to fixing the work they've started, as opposed to intensifying on their grand visionary strategies (like MultiMedia, portable Macintoshes, etc). Actually system 7.0 is a step in the right direction since it makes up for many things that the old system is lacking (virtual memory, scalable font technology, etc). I guess what I'm asking for is more support at the low level. >> o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days >> when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be >> greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware >> is there... but the Finders just don't use it! > >That's what ColorFinder is for. You can get it via anonymous ftp to >apple.com. I think it's in /pub/dts/mac/hacks. Thanks... I'll check it out. I've heard of this "colorFinder" but all I know is what I pick up on the street. Why can't Apple sponsor an organization like BMUG which would make these things known? A news letter would be nice for a start. >Competing interfaces on the Mac would kill it. There is A/UX and there is >an X-Windows package for it. Also, you will get your true multi-tasking >eventually. Maybe in System 8.0. 7.0 won't be anything to sneeze at in >that department, either. I'm looking forward to it, although the initial release of 7.0 will have mostly hooks for multitasking. It will also have something called "active clipboards (?)" whatever that is. Sounds like Unix pipes to me. >Get THINK (Lightspeed) C. It handles all of that kind of stuff. MPW and Aztec >probably do too, but I haven't looked at either of them in very much depth. Yes the THINK C implementation is very nice and quite comprehensive. I shouldn't have to rely on a third party library to provide this compatibility though. >No, to define a new window, you use a WDEF. But that's just nit-picking. >I agree that there should be more object orientation on the Mac. So does >Apple. That's why they developed Object Pascal with Wirth and that's why >they have a C++ compiler coming out in cooperation with AT&T. Actually a C++ front-end probably based on Cfront. A true compiler would be preferable since it would support debugging C++ code better. I suppose they'll integrate all of this with MPW and make it work. >As for the esoteric qualities of xDEF's, don't be fooled by Steve Jobs' >rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective >C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new >objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything >on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. Granted, both are obtuse. I don't have experience with the NeXT (wish I did) to make comparisons. The only reason I'm going with a Mac now and not a NeXT is because the software I need is available on the Mac NOW. >Ever hear of MacApp? Or the THINK Class Library? Yes. I have THINK C and the Class library is quite nice. Makes building the interface easier than if you just used straight C code. Again Apple is relying on a third party developr to provide products and then the end user to integrate and develop the extensions. >In short, I think this assertion is both premature and unfounded. Probably... but then I'm only expressing my desires, not a path to attaining them. We can all dream and I dream of a Mac with more capability, cleaner design, attention to standards, hopefully fewer bugs and better support from Apple Computer. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611