From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:12:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8enZ=qC00iUxE4moVI
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@vccnw0 
> |> > |> > * Human Interface Guidelines and standards sufficient to form
> |> consistancy
> |> >  
> |> > |> >   between applications (Not, Perhaps)
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> IBM Cua (Common User Access(Something like that))  Recently
revised in
>  
> |> > |> 1991- totally object oriented.  Workplace Shell conforms to
this.  Che
> ck
> |> > |> out the CUA Demo IBM has.  It's cool. 
> |> >  
> |> > How widespread is exceptance of this GUI? It may be wonderfull,
> |> > but the programs gotta use it..
> |> 
> |> I agree with you: like I said in my first post, iff (not a typo, if and
> |> only if) WPS had more WPS-aware apps then it would be a much better
> |> interface than Apple's.  Again, I do agree that programs have to use it.
> |>  Unfortunately, right now, only one or two "real" apps use it.
> |>   
>  
> Do you have either? What I am getting at here is that a while ago on
> comp.os.os2.somethingorother, advocacy I think, I tried to find out
> just what this new interface WAS. I never did. People talked a lot
> about their neato new thing called the Workplace Shell, but it sounded
> like the Finder, very much. (ie not the interface itself, just part of it)
>  
> If you have one of these "real" apps, perhaps you could explain their
> interface to me.

Sure, one of the standards set is the use of the second mouse button. 
In OS/2 the second mouse button either brings up a menu of actions,
settings, something to that accord.  For example, in PM Chart by
Micrografx (it's one of the free apps that comes with 2.0) when you have
a chart on screen, right-clicking will bring up the worksheet of numbers
used to create the chart.  This follows in Describe.  Example: Select
text.  Then when on that block of text, you can right click, and up pops
a toolbox of different style settings like font, fontsize, superscript,
bold, etc.  You can even do this on a picture, graph, etc.  Appropriate
toolboxes popup according to what is clicked on.  Unfortunately, there
aren't many apps which take advantage of this.  Supposedly the new apps
are coming this or the next quarter: Wordperfect 6.0,  Lotus Ami, Lotus
1-2-3, Freelance Graphics, you know, the basic "bread and butter" apps. 
They all claim to support the new standards.  We'll see then.  
Another standard is the notebook which is used for settings and what
used to be called control panels.  These are used by more apps, but
again, not enough.
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.

> |> > |> > * Standard color picker (Not, Not)
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> Do you mean like a control panel?  Or some system level thing
> |> > |> controlling the pallette or something like that?  Control
panels: yes.
>  
> |> >  
> |> > No. He means a standard dialog to select a color.
> |> 
> |> Yes, there is one.
>  
> What's it like? I can't say I think too much of the Macintosh one..
> I'd like an option to select from a small set of colors, so that I
> can be sure that I am getting the same color if I choose more than once.
> [ie make several things the third blue on the right, instead of having
> to remember rgb values to get an exact match]

It's just like the mac-rgb values to get an exact match.

> |> > |> Now let me start. . .
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> Pre-emptive multitasking.  Yeah, I know it's been on the net
before, b
> ut
> |> > |> I'll reiterate it's importance.  It's important so that one app can't
> |> > |> take over the whole system.  This is great for communications
because 
> if
> |> > |> one app doesn't release control to a background program doing file
> |> > |> transfer, you'll lose the transfer.  There are other things, but in a
> |> > |> world where networking and communications are becoming the
norm (enoug
> h
> |> > |> so that System 7 includes basic networking, NT will be
released with i
> t,
> |> > |> WPS IS network aware (just doesn't include the apps), Windows for
> |> > |> Workgroups, and of course UNIX), preemptive multitasking could
be need
> ed
> |> > |> more.
> |> >  
> |> > <sigh> Ive heard this one too often. Let me make one thing clear:
> |> > I like Pre-emtive multitasking. I want it. Its good. Pre-emptive
> |> > multitasking is your friend.
> |> >  
> |> > However, this does NOT imply that co-operative multitasking does
not work
> ,
> |> > or cannot work.
> |> 
> |> I never said cooperative multitasking doesn't work.  It does. Read
below. .
>  .
>  
> Sorry. I just hear people bash the MAcintosh because it
> "can't multitask". Gets my dander up.
>  
> |> > I'll leave it at that (tho it is very temping to rant awhile), unless
> |> > you dispute this.
> |> 
> |> Yes, but there is the rule of thumb: Cooperative multitasking is only as
> |> good as the worst written app.  That means that on a Mac, if you're
> |> running some shareware hack that was written in five minutes and won't
> |> give up processor time, then you just may lose control of you system
> |> because of that app.
>  
> The shareware hacks DO give up processor time. Really. :) Macintosh
> shareware tends to be really good, imho. One of the best multitaskers
> I have is freeware. (DownLine.. you can get the next-to-latest
> version free, but the latest costs money)
>  
> However, that some apps should be "better" than others at this does
> show that something aint right. But lots do; its really trivial to
> arrange you know. (tho apple could have done better than it did
> in this respect)

Eventually though, I hear Apple is going to a pre-emptive style, so the
point is moot.  (Please inform me if I'm wrong)


> |> > Oh, one unrelated point: system 7 has more than basic networking in it.
> |> > System 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 :) had basic networking- that is an API,
basically
> .
> |> > With system 7, you also get File sharing, some user authentication junk,
> |> > Publish&Subscribe and a bunch of additional APIs (for apple events and
> |> > better data transfer services)
> |> 
> |> That's something I'm very jealous of.  I'm getting some of it now, but
> |> peer networking in System 7 is so much easier than OS/2.
>  
> 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.
In the OS/2 world, the current preferred way of peer networking is
TCP/IP, but Lan Manager 3.0 will have peer-networking available.  
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)


> |> > |> Last one, (Just to get your blood temp up to about 10000000000
degrees
> !)
> |> > |> NO COMMAND LINE!!!
> |> >  
> |> > <sizzle> ow. Now cut that out!
> |> >  
> |> > |> Why do I want one?  How do you set a path for running programs in a
> |> > |> folder 5 or 6 deep?  You have to dbl-click, dbl-click, etc. . .  Just
> |> > |> set a path and type in the command, and you're running it.
> |> >  
> |> > Don't remember it. Set up aliases. Or dont set up aliases, and just
> |> > double click documents (and stationary) instead. The macintosh
> |> > knows where your apps are, let it find it.
> |> 
> |> In a previous post I say: OS/2 has its equivalent of aliases:shadows. 
> |> Same thing, but I don't want a 100 or so aliases/shadows in some folder.
>  
> (gad, this arguement gets repeated a lot)
>  
> Now then, you dont need 100 aliases at all. Put alises up there for
> your commonly used drag&drop utilites. Maybe leave less common ones
> in a folder which has an apple menu alias. Make a fodler with stationary,
> or aliases, to create new documents. (put common stationary, or aliases
> to it, on teh desltop or in teh apple menu); you dont need the apps
> themselves out because you can just double click the document and let
> the Finder do it. Im pretty sure the Workplace shell can do ALL of what
> I just descibed. (I think, Stationary=Templates, no?)

Stationary?  I never heard of this in a Mac.  I'm sorry, please
enlighten me. I'm not a power user on a Mac, but I used them all of last
year and previous to that too.  I know them well enough that I probably
could never again take a course which required Macs. (A IIsi crashed
five times on my four hour final exam, thus giving me a C in the course.)
  
> Of course, a lot of your utilities can/should become extensions, which
> modify other system behavior. Example: Adding a menu to chagne
> screen depth to the menu bar. This is really common on the Macintosh.
>  
> |> > This is supposedly coming. I dont think having a printer object is
> |> > that important, but getting rid of the #$@$ chooser is.
> |> 
> |> Okay, chooser is nice.  We do need something like that.  We're close,
> |> but it's not quite there yet.
>  
> >GAK< You ->like<- the CHOOSER? WHY? What's that misbegotton son of a command
> line ever done for you? Does it have some dirt on you or something?

What's wrong with Chooser?

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