From: kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Center for Complex Systems Research
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:24:33 GMT

dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
>Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of the basic features
>that define a REAL operating system.  
Well, I guess this is what an advocacy group is for: being able to use
a loaded and essentially meaningless adjective such as REAL.

>Where is Memory protection? 
This is probably the biggest feature lacking in the MacOS. From what
I understand, though, it's a highly nontrivial task to graft this onto
the OS now. Microsoft did add memory protection to Win3, at the expense of
essentially breaking all Win2 applications, which didn't matter since
no one was using any Win2 applications. I, for one, think it's a
good decision by Apple not to require everyone to update every one of
their applications (& you think the complaining about incompatibilities
w/ Sys 7 was bad).

>A
>system level scripting language that isn't third party?  
Apple is working on AppleScript. Again, a nontrivial task: just what
should a scripting language for a graphical interface look like?

>Preemptive
>multitasking?
For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue. You can't word
process in the background. Unless you're a developer (small minority)
or doing large numerical simulations (in which case you're silly to be
running on a Mac), the current system is more than adequate. THIS WILL
CHANGE as applications begin passing more & more Apple Events around, but
hopefully Apple will have its microkernel done by then.

>Command-line shells?  
Buy MPW. Heck, ftp it from ftp.apple.com.

>All these are things that Apple has
>been promising us for years.
Other than AppleScript, Apple never promised any of this for System 7.
For me, the things that *were* dropped seem more important: the Line
Manager, the better Print architecture.

In article <BvDFMz.K7F@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry
Thiel) wrote:
> After working alot with Unix I can
> really see the Macs weaknesses in these areas. A marriage of the Mac user
> interface and Unix functionality would be an unbeatable combination.  
Well, there *is* A/UX. Or buy a NeXT.
If all you want is the scripting & pipes, get MPW. It is essentially has
the features of Unix shells (minus multitasking), although you'll quickly
figure out why the rest of us complain so much about CLIs.

> If the Mac doesn't get these features it is doomed to obsolesence.
It's doomed anyway.

David Vandeven also wrote:
> >OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to workable GUIs. And
> >whether the base consumer wants such technical functionality or not, these
> >are features, and features are what sell systems/software to the unwashed
> >masses. 
There are always two important considerations when talking about features:
1. The feature itself.
2. How well it is implemented.
Apple, to its credit, has long realized the second is at least as important
as the first, and that if it can't be implemented well, then it can wait.
Features should not be added merely to fill in check marks on a
comparison chart.

Kenneth Chang
kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy