From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:12:06 GMT

jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins) writes:

>u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

>>I have all my function keys bound to commonly used applications, frequently
>>entered CLI commands, cut/copy/paste etc. and would be frustrated if I had
>>to make trips to the menu bar or wade through systems of requestors for
>>these functions.

>>With a more complex system, new users can use the menus and requestors, more
>>advanced users can hit hotkeys without taking their hands from the keyboard.
>>Provided, of course, your keyboard has any decent hotkeys.  Looking at this
>>Mac right here running the terminal emulator, I see it only has one
>>available (clover key).

>actually there are two, the alt/option key and the command key (clover key)?
>That and the fact that there are also 15 function keys in front of me.  
>Hum that seems to be more than one.

This Mac is running a term emulator, the option key is reserved for control.
This keyboard has no function keys, no keypad, no escape, no control key.
Since the only free meta key is command, many menu options have no keyboard
shortcuts.

>>> The Mac doesn't have preemptive multitasking unless you are running A/UX.
>>> Are you running A/UX? No? Well run it and your problem will go away.

>>A/UX is expensive, huge, memory hungry, CPU intensive, and requires a Sun
>>workstation, which is not a cheap piece of hardware.  And it still does not
>>make the Mac pre-emptively multitask, because Macs cannot pre-emptively
>>multitask.  Think A/UX will make the problem go away?  Sounds like a source
>>of endless new problems to me.

>Requires a SUN Workstation.  What?  First off A/UX runs on any mac with a
>MMU on it (68030's and up, and 68020's with PMMU's)

Yes, my mistake.  The Mac user I asked told me it was basically an interface
to a host machine running UNIX.
But then, some Mac users on here have claimed that the A4000 and Emplant
don't exist, so I ain't the first...

>Secondly any machine
>can pre-emptively multitask.  A 6502 can do it and so can 68030 and a 486 and
>any chip.  It is the operating system decides this, not the processor.

It's also a matter of the available hardware.  No chip can multitask without
the hardware support.  To multitask effectively you need DMA controllers,
good interrupt hardware, and preferably a dual-mode processor.  The Mac's DMA
isn't sufficient to handle decent multitasking.  I don't know about its
interrupt hardware.  No amount of clever coding will make the Mac multitask
as well as the Amiga.

>As for being expensive, huge, memory hungry, CPU intensive, so is any unix
>system, just A/UX is worse.  Before you start saying things, please get your
>facts straight.

This Mac Plus has a 68000, 1 Mb of RAM, and two low-density floppy drives.
There is NO WAY this machine can pre-emptively multitask.  Hell, it can't
multitask at all.  A/UX costs several thousand dollars, on top of all the
extra hardware needed to beef up the computer to support it?  No thanks,
keep it... if I want to multitask I'll use my cheapo Amiga...  I imagine it
will do a better job than A/UX anyway.

Does A/UX allow you to multitask two Mac programs, or only UNIX-specific
programs?  If I can't run two Mac apps simultaneously, what is the point?

>>I accept it, and only feel glad that Commodore did not lock its users into
>>non-proportional scroll bars, just for the sake of the first few hours when
>>the new user is learning to use the system.  I have no recollection of ever
>>being confused by proportional scroll bars while learning about my system.

>This is personal preference.  I have worked with both and I have not had 
>problem with either.  I had never given it any thought actually until
>this STUPID argument about which is better and why.

Good, looks like that subject is done.

>>Many of the Mac advocacy articles here, arguing about graphics quality,
>>sound, multitasking, you name it, seem to consist solely of several
>>instances of the phrase "This is not an issue in System 7".  How many Mac
>>users have System 7?  None that I know.  I certainly can't run it on this
>>machine.

>Actually any macintosh plus and above can run system 7.

Given 4 Mb RAM minimum, a hard drive, and an accelerator card if you want to
get anything done in a reasonable time.  I don't have that kind of money,
I'm afraid.

>  And to answer your
>other question about how many mac users have system 7.  I would have to say
>close to half.  All new machines are sold with it.  I also work at the
>computing center and have had the opportunity to see that most areas of the
>university have upgraded their macintoshes to system 7.

Gee, some people get it lucky.  We have one multitasking machine (an A1000)
available for student use at our university of 8000 students... *sigh*

>>Yes folks, it's the familiar usenet "get a life" catch-phrase; grossly
>>overused and devoid of meaning.  Think about it - did using this really add
>>anything to your arguments?

>No, but it can be said that you should pay attention to what you say from
>now on, since a large portion of your reply was filled with inaccuracies.

One (1) section of my reply contained one (1) inaccuracy.

>-justin m. collins <jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu>

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy