From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:25:26 GMT
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 4-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by Daniel N. Johnson@jec324 
> Ok, 3 points. You are talking about additions, but to what interface
> are you adding? I am not familiar with the "old" CUA guidlines as such.
> Are they what windows uses? I didn't think PM had an equivalent for
> the Multiple Document Interface, origionally... does it now?

The additions are to the "old" CUA guidelines set in 1989: thus called
CUA 1989.  These were adopted for Windows 3.0 and the Presentation
Manager in OS/2 1.3.  The new CUA 1991, isn't really an addition to CUA
1989; it's more of a revision or replacement.  Some of the things like
the MDI were kept, while things like the object-oriented interface were
added.  The demo, for example, has an example of "visual programming"
where, instead of writing macros or scripts for small utilities, the
user can do it visually by linking several icons, typing in some of the
properties, etc.  The demo however, is what is IBM wants to achieve, not
what OS/2 2.0 can do now.  
About Multiple Document Interface, or MDI, I think I'd rather do without
it.  It's okay for small resolutions, like 640x480, but at 1024x768 with
a 17 inch screen, it just gets complicated.  I'd rather be able to
organize my screen by document, rather than application.  For example,
if I'm working on a document such as a newsletter, or presentation,
it'll contain graphics, text, numbers, spreadsheets, etc.  With a Mac or
NeXT, I could put all the parts of the document in one section of the
screen, say the upper left corner.  Then I could also work on another
document, say a lab report, with all the documents in the lower right
corner.  Everything is organized by what I'm working on.  With MDI,
however, everything is organized by what I'm working WITH.  That means
that all the spreadsheets that are open are all in the lower left
corner, all the text I'm working on is in the upper left, pictures are
in the upper right etc.  I think this is a major obstacle to the
object-oriented aspects of CUA 1991.  One of the major tenets of CUA
1991 is that people work with documents, stationary, templates etc, NOT
with applications.  (For example, there is no quit option for CUA 1991
apps, because you can't "quit" an object.  However, you can close that
particular "view" of the object.)
MDI makes people work by application, NOT document. Score one for MACs
and -1 for IBM for breaking their own guidelines.

> Also, You say that in PM Chart "right-clicking will bring up the
> worksheet of numbers used [etc]".. doesn't sound like a menu. Perhaps
> it brings up a menu which you can use to do this? Or is it inconsistant?
> Or do I just not get it?
Okay, this is where I get fuzzy too.  I think that if PM Chart was truly
consistant, then right clicking would bring up a menu which will let you
choose what you want to see: a toolbox of options etc, or the properties
of it, or the number used to make the chart.
  
> Lastly, how do the notebooks work in apps?

Here's how a basic notebook is setup.  You see the analog of a notebook
folded in half (on some, even complete with the metal wire binding). 
Along the side, just like a notebook, there are tabs.  The tabs let you
select different options you can changes.  For example, to elaborate on
the Country settings notebook discussed in some other section, the tabs
along the side are named: Country, Time, Date, Numbers, and General. 
The Country setting page lets you choose what country you're in, Time
allows you specify the time format, Date, the date format, etc.  General
is in all notebooks and is the page for the title of the app, and the
Icon. 
 
> |> Workplace shell is just another app just like the Finder.  Can't you
> |> theoretically replace Finder?  Likewise, you can make OS/2 boot up into
> |> >EEK< a command line prompt.  Rumors claims replacement shells are
> |> actually being made by third party developers for those who >like<
> |> *EEEEEEEEKEEKK* _WINDOZE_.  That'll be a leap backwards.
>  
> The Finder is an App, and you can replace it (tho this is rare); I
> was just saying that it sounded like WPS == Finder, but Finder !=
> Mac GUI, so WPS != OS/2 GUI. Get it? :)

Okay, that's what I was getting at too.

> |> > I didn't know OS/2 had any facilities here. What's it got?
> |> 
> |> Nothing comes standard for networking.  By network-aware, I mean that if
> |> Lan Manager or some thing is on the system, and you're connected to a
> |> server, then you see all the mounted drives, just like how a little
> |> "hand with hard drive" icon shows up for Mac's network-mounted drives. 
> |> There are no networking services built in however.  For user
> |> authentication, IBM has a "restricted shell" extension which will let
> |> you login etc.
>  
> Ok, but you gotta have LAN manager or something?

Yeah, that's why I wish it were included.  Carnegie Mellon is a Unix
school so we use TCP/IP, and that's what I've got.  I'm gonna get the X
package sometime soon, but right now, I've got all the things any Unix
computer has: mail, print redirection, talk, telnet, ftp etc.  I also
have all the corresponding daemons.

> |> Don't forget that a Macintosh is a hardware/software package.  That
> |> means that the maker of the OS can assume that the computer running it
> |> will have the same networking hardware.  Therefore, they can add the
> |> network stuff to the OS.  OS/2 is separate of the hardware, and so they
> |> have you buy the package separtely. (Although I wish they would still
> |> give it to us as part of the system)
>  
> I haven't forgotten this, but it isn't relevant. The "hardware" that
> you are refering to is a serial port. The network support is all in software;
> The services (File Sharing, anything else you want to buy, find, or write)
> are based on various protocols in the AppleTalk (Apple events, the Program-
> to-program communcations toolbox, the Appletalk data stream protocol,
> the Appletalk Transaction protocol, the Name Binding Protocol the Datagram
> Delivery Protocol, and others); The trick is that teh lowest
> level protocol- the one that does the "work", is variable. On a localtalk
> network its the Link Access Protocol, on an Ethernet networks its something
> esle (I forget teh name), etc. These (non-localtalk) protocols
> are provided in drivers. Apple includes Ethernet and Token-ring drivers
> with the system. Replacing them lets you use different hardware, instead
> of just the serial port. Of course, all the higher level thigns see
> is a very fast Link Access Protocol if you do this.
>  
> This trick is done entirely in software, as you can see, and it is NOT
> hardware dependant. The main drawback is that you can only communicate
> with one species of network at a time; You can switch between them with
> a control panel but you coulnd't (say) have disks mounted from
> a Localtalk net AND an Ethernet.
>  
> I see no reason why this could not be done under OS/2; it would simply
> mean that network hardware provides would have to give drivers for
> OS/2. Video card manufacturers already must do this. It would also
> make it pretty simple to arrange a localtalk-like serial port
> based networking; Slow but cheap.

Okay, I agree with you here.  Seeing it that way, OS/2 should have had
built-in networking.  But, there's not much we could do about that.  

> But you never ran into stationary? Poor you. [ps tossing around
> anecdotes about how unstable Macs are wont do a thing to convinces
> us happy Mac user types, you know.]

[ps- I'm not trying to convince anyone, if it works for you fine, but
macs hate me.  I'm just trying to defend my system]

> Stationary is a document which loads into an untitled window as if it was
> new. An example: I like to write in New York 12 point text, double spaces
> (Im just such a rebel that way... :) ); So I have a stationary document
> on my desktop. Its just an empty document, with New York 12 point, double
> spaced as the current font, style and spacing, but its saved as "stationary"
> [in the save-as dialog]; when I double click it my word processor loads and
> I get an untitled document which has those current settings. So I can go
> type, wo/ messing with the font, size, etc.

Okay, I vaguely remember this, it's just that I never really used them. 
I never had my own Mac; I used them in one of the computer clusters, so
I didn't really play around with it.
Anyway, stationary sounds a lot like a template, but a template isn't
defined by the application-it's defined by the operating system.  All
files have a checkbox for template in their settings notebook.  It gets
kind of dangerous though, because you can define a .dll as a template. 
Then, when you double click it, the system won't know what created it. 
Of course, you're not "supposed" to do this, but you can, and so it's an
error.  However, apps which are CUA 1991 compliant should create a new
template for its document types in the standard templates folder.  Ex:
Upon install, Describe places a Describe document template in the
folder.  Dragging from this will let you create a new document.  It
should work the same way the "new" apps which haven't come yet.
BTW, while I'm on templates, let me go into some of the advantages of
templates over stationary.  Templates can also be used for things other
than documents.  Ex: OS/2 comes with a template for printers.  To
install a new printer, you drag a printer icon off the template, then a
dialog box opens asking you to configure it (eg, stuff like the port,
printer type etc) and up pops a new printer object on your desktop. 
This is also how you create new folders:  you drag a new folder off the
folder template.  Also, if you want to create a new color pallette, you
drag one of the color pallette template. etc.  For a new program,
there's a program template.
I don't think Macintosh has an analog to this do they?  Templates are a
more centralized idea;  1991 CUA took stationary and generalized them to
include basically everything in the system.  Basically, whenever you
want to make something new in OS/2 2.0, you drag it out of the template
folder.  In a Mac, to make a new folder, you goto the menu bar, install
a new printer, go to chooser, etc.  Right?

> This is part of the standard interface, but it didn't become an official
> type part of the system until System 7.0. Lots of programs had it anyway
> tho. Now there's finder level support too.

> [deletia- I bash the chooser]
> |> 
> |> What's wrong with Chooser?
>  
> It has a very bizzare interface- there's no way to see what the current
> printer is, it is mixed weirdly- ya got printers and file servers in teh
> same place. It doesn't mesh at all with the finder (you'd exect to double
> click the printer icons and have a window show up containging the
> settings, but that's not how it works); Its just a blotch on an otherwise
> nifty system. It would be MUCH better to intergrate it with the finder,
> like they did with the Font/DA mover. Also integrate teh Print Monitor,
> imho.
>  
> Oh, and the localtalk controls are in there too. Its just too weird for
> me, it could be so much better. :(

Yeah, it could be more organized, but OS/2 doesn't have anything like
it.  Here on campus for example, there's an Appleshare network which
runs over the TCP network.  It's broken down into domains.  Whenever you
use chooser, it lets you know all the servers and printers which are on
at the time.  I have yet to see this in a PC.  That's mostly why I like
it.

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu