From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:25:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.718662347
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1b44r7INN99d@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>I don't care what problems you had with your network driver, 

No, I forget.  You don't care about hardware.  You only want
to discuss the wonderful, whizzy things that OS2 can do.  And
if OS2 fails to do them, it's only because of hardware limitations.

Unfortunately, most of us have to use hardware in order to *run*
our software.  What software can *theoretically* do doesn't matter
to use, only what it can actually do running on real-world hardware.   

>Device Independent Graphics means one thing to me: it's a software 
>implementation that lets you use the full capability of your video hardware 
>with the appropriate device driver, nothing else.  

Nope.  If it depends on having "the appropriate device driver,"
it's device *dependent*.

>If certain programs 
>doesn't work with such driver, it doesn't mean Windows or OS/2 don't 
>have DIG, it only means that such program (or the device driver) are 
>poorly written.

If programs that shouldn't even need to be *aware* of that device
driver, much less depend on it, can fail because of it, it's a 
symptom of an underlying architectural problem. It shouldn't even
be *possible* for a program that doesn't use graphics to fail because
you have the wrong graphics driver.


>>Yeah, well, you see, that's the problem.  Everyone in the PC world
>>thinks that human factors issues are entirely subjective, each
>>person has his/her own tastes and opinions, it's simply a matter
>>of aesthetics, etc., etc., etc. 

>Right, all Mac users are sheeps and they simply follow the herd.

No, we are the shepherds, trying to lead you out of the darkness.
(Comments like that give you a world of credibility when you whine
about my "abusive tone.")


>"The PAS-16 is compatible with the Thunderboard, they both come from the
> same company, after all.  PAS-16 is also compatible with the SoundBlaster,
> and SoundBlaster Pro, the de facto PC sound standard."

>And now you insinuate that I said something to the effect that these two
>sound cards "produced files that were 100% compatible", I didn't.  

If two sound boards don't produce/use compatible sound files, they aren't
compatible.  By definition.  (Though you still haven't explained why
anyone would need to buy sound boards.  Didn't you just claim that PCs 
can play digitized sound without digitized sound boards?)

>But I did say that the PAS-16 (16-bit sampling) is compatible with the 
>Thunderboard (8-bit sampling), not vise versa, 

Nonsense.  If the PAS-16 is compatible with the Thunderboard, 
then the Thunderboard must be at least partially compatible
with the PAS-16.  In fact, neither board is compatible since,
as you admit the file formats are different.

>meaning the PAS-16 can do everything the Thunderboard can do.  Don't 
>twist my words, I've got everything on record here.

And probably violated Federal laws by posting private email to
the net, but we'll let that go by this time. :-)


>>>As to the benefit of memory protection, I think lots of Mac users here 
>>>would disagree with you.                        ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^

>>I don't think someone who apparently knows so little about the
>>Mac should speak for Mac users.
                       ^^^ ^^^^^
>Can't resist slipping a little cheap shot in there, can you?  When did I
>presume to speak for all Mac users?  

When did I *say* that you tried to speak for "all Mac users."  No,
you merely presumed to speak for "lots of Mac users," but I didn't
even say that.  So that shot of yours blows right up in your face.   

>I just made a comment based on my
>observation of other Mac users' postings, Daniel Johnson, Douglous
>Floyd, and a few others have all stated they want memory protection.
            ^ ^^^ ^^^^^^

Strange, I thought there was a difference between "a few" and "lots"
of Mac users.


>We've gone through this in email before and I really don't feel like
>going through it again.  If you think preemptive MT and MP is useless,
>fine, just don't change your mind when the microkernel from Apple 
>comes out that has MP and preemptive instead of cooperative MT.

Change my mind?  If and when Apple comes out with such a monstrosity,
I won't even use it if at all possible.  However, despite the wishes
of some people on the net (many of whom are Mac bashers to begin with
-- conincidence?), I have not seen any *official* statement that Preemptive 
Multitasking Syndrome will be part of the future Macintosh operating system.