From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:22:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.oeo9LTi00WB8J2R14q
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 5-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by Daniel N. Johnson@vccsou 
> |> I really don't know, not many apps out yet.  Notebooks will probably be
> |> used for things like the autosave parameters, page formatting, margins,
> |> etc.  If you look in the standard options pull-down menu, a notebook
> |> will probably be a unified way to change all the options.
> |> The right button will be something used only for objects.  It'll bring
> |> up properties that can be changed.
>  
> Sounds a LOT like dialog boxes.

Yeah, basically they are.  Just another analog.  They probably put it in
to standardize a dialog box with many options.  Right now, for options,
most apps use a bunch of different dialog boxes.  They just wanted to
put them all in one.  Of course, you can't have a dialog box that's
bigger than the app, so break it down into several pages, each page is a
different item.
  
> Whereas with stationary you define your own. I dont see
> why you need this special template thing tho- u couild just
> double click the app. Poof, new document. No need for extra
> objects.

You can define your own, but the standard template is always there for a
user who doesn't want to make it.
About the your confusion about the need for templates.  Remeber that the
final implementation will isolate the user from apps.  In that
situation, there will be no apps to double click on.  Right now, you can
double click the app, and templates are just another way of creating a
new doc.  There has to be a transition point: 
old way            transition point           new way
dbl-click apps     dbl-click and templates    templates only
  
> |> > |>  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 soudns like installing an OS/2 app spews objects all over the place.
> |> 
> |> Not really, it only creates a standard template which goes into the
> |> templates folder.
>  
> Well, if thats all its not so bad. Sounds like that fodler
> could get cluttered.

OS/2 has several ways of organizing folders.  First, there's the way
used in Mac and Windows: Just organize them so there's no overlapping
icons or whatever.  OS/2 can also let you "flow": which means to let the
icons flow down vertically down the folder, so you get a long folder
which has a vertical scroll bar, and you just scroll up or down.  It's
alphabetical so you can find it easier.  
  
> |> Yeah, that's why if you right-click on a folder or something, it'll have
> |> an option, create.  That's a cascaded menu (brings up another menu) and
> |> you can choose folder, and you get another folder.  
>  
> That doesn't sound a convinient as a new folder command EITHER. :)

I think it's more intuitive though.  If for example, you want to create
a new folder on the desktop, you right click on the desktop (to bring up
the properties menu) and choose create:folder.  You don't have to click,
go up to the menu, and then choose new folder.
It's not much slower.

> |> > |>  Also, if you want to create a new color pallette, you
> |> > |> drag one of the color pallette template.
> |> >  
> |> > What is a "color palette" in this context?
> |> 
> |> With a Mac, to change system colors, you select what you want to change,
> |> and then change the color right?
>  
> No. You bring up the colors control panel. There are pop-up menus
> there for each thing that can be changed. you can change things
> individually tho; if you change window color, its for EVERYTHING.
>  
> Changing fonts and so on works the same way, but a different control
> panel.

Sorry, I forgot to put control panel in there.  That is what I meant though.
  
> Ok, I get it. CAn these palettes be used on things IN a document?

I don't see why not.  There are limits to what you can do in a 1.0
release though, so I don't see many apps doing that.  For the most part,
apps have their own things for changing fonts/colors etc.  It would be
nice though, and yet another thing to unify the system.

> Ok, just 2 points- I hear the slowdown aint so minor, and the MAcitnosh
> caches icons and such so that if you do close a folder for real, it
> still opens quicker. Can't OS/2 do this?

Slowdown: it all depends on the system running OS2.  If you're on a
386SX with 4 or 5 megs, then forget it.  The system will be a dog no
matter what you do to it.  That's the absolute minimum, and that's just
to get it installed and see the OS/2 opening screens, not much else.  My
system however is about mid-range in OS/2 computers and the slowdown is
there, and noticeable, but not enough to stop me from using the system. 
Probably the slowest part is reading all the icons in, so it may be a
file system thing.
Caching: yeah it can be done.  The standard OS/2 cache is about 128k. 
Attributes like icons, title, background color, foreground color, fonts
etc, are stored as part of the file and called Extended Attributes, or
EA's.  EA's are about 4000 bytes depending on folder.  This can add up
and of course, there are other things in the cache, so the attributes
will probably be out of the cache in a few minutes anyway.
BTW, IBM is promising improved performance in the CSD (Corrective
Service Diskettes, or an upgrade) for 4 meg systems.  They've admitted
that while OS/2 will run in 4 megs, it really needs 8 megs.  So, they're
now saying that the performance at 4 megs will be enough to use the
system.  So, it follows that 8 meg performance will also increase.
  
> Incidentally, the Macintosh desktop is also a folder. (but internally
> the arrangement is odd)

Really? Never knew that.

Carl Jabido