From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:07:04 GMT

In <ewright.718563260@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1avro0INNdl0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

[...]

>>All the 24-bit video cards have Windows drivers, if they don't, they
>>can't expect to stay in business.

>But not all Windows drivers are compatible with all Windows programs.

Just like not all Macintoshs are compatible with all Macintosh programs.

>"Device independence" on PCs is a joke.  Even programs that don't *use*
>the video display, like network drivers, won't work with some video
>drivers and displays. 

You don't know what you're talking about. It's of course true
that device drivers can't compensate for each and every
design flaw in the original IBM PC architecture. But I fail
to see what hardware conflicts like video and network cards
using the very same interrupt lines have to do with 
features of the software architecture, like device independant
program interfaces to abstract i/o devices.

>>>> HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.
>>>A) is it any good? and B) is anything written to support it)
>>Good?  That's a very subjective term, each person has his/her own tastes
>>and opinions, I personally think it's quite intuitive, your milage may
>>vary.  

>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. 

I for my part do not intend to adapt my personal preferences to
any kind of Interface Guidlines, Human or not. I have my
own tastes and opinions, indeed, and I have my own sense
of aesthetics. 

>>Specific hardware?  Not necessarily, you can run multimedia apps with
>>existing hardware, even digitized sound from the internal speaker/
>>beeper.  

>You can play digitized sound using hardware that can't synthesize
>waveforms and can only play a single note of fixed duration?  

Indeed! How did you know?

>You
>really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here,
>have you?  

Sure he has.

[...]

>Ten programs under Windows?  Hah!  Maybe if you're talking little
>toy applications.  I've seldom managed to get five programs to run 
>without crashing the system.  And if I start Ventura Publisher, I
>can't start any more programs until I quit that.

I seldom managed to get more than one program to run
on a Macintosh, without crashing the system. 

(Well, it depends on the program, and on the Macintosh.)

>On the Macintosh, however, I can open as many programs as I have
>memory for.

On Windows, I can open more programs than I have memory for.

[...]

>>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.

>Even with perfect memory protection, Windows would not be any
>better than the Mac with no memory protection at all.  Why?
>Because the Windows applications I use crash at least 10 times 
>as often as my Mac applications do.  So if one crash on the
>Mac brings down 10 applications, I'm no worse off than having
>10 crashes under Windows, each of which affects only a single
>application.  However, most programs that crash on the Macintosh
>do not bring down the entire house.  I can almost always Force
>Quit the offending application and continue with the rest of my
>work.

Crashes are the result of good memory protection. Don't blame the messenger.

>The real solution to program crashes is not memory protection.

No. Program crashes are the result of memory protection.

>It's for programmers to write applications that don't crash.
Exactly

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>