From: jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 24 Nov 92 04:23:54 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov23.091206.10513@cs.uow.edu.au> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

>jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins) writes:

>>u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

>>actually there are two, the alt/option key and the command key (clover key)?
>>That and the fact that there are also 15 function keys in front of me.  
>>Hum that seems to be more than one.

>This Mac is running a term emulator, the option key is reserved for control.
>This keyboard has no function keys, no keypad, no escape, no control key.
>Since the only free meta key is command, many menu options have no keyboard
>shortcuts.

The original ibm keyboard only had 84 keys.  The majority of macintosh's
nowadays have extended keyboards.

>>>> The Mac doesn't have preemptive multitasking unless you are running A/UX.
>>>> Are you running A/UX? No? Well run it and your problem will go away.

>>>A/UX is expensive, huge, memory hungry, CPU intensive, and requires a Sun
>>>workstation, which is not a cheap piece of hardware.  And it still does not
>>>make the Mac pre-emptively multitask, because Macs cannot pre-emptively
>>>multitask.  Think A/UX will make the problem go away?  Sounds like a source
>>>of endless new problems to me.

>>Requires a SUN Workstation.  What?  First off A/UX runs on any mac with a
>>MMU on it (68030's and up, and 68020's with PMMU's)

>Yes, my mistake.  The Mac user I asked told me it was basically an interface
>to a host machine running UNIX.
>But then, some Mac users on here have claimed that the A4000 and Emplant
>don't exist, so I ain't the first...

Well first off I am not one of those users and second of all you were still
wrong.

>>Secondly any machine
>>can pre-emptively multitask.  A 6502 can do it and so can 68030 and a 486 and
>>any chip.  It is the operating system decides this, not the processor.

>It's also a matter of the available hardware.  No chip can multitask without
>the hardware support.  To multitask effectively you need DMA controllers,
>good interrupt hardware, and preferably a dual-mode processor.  The Mac's DMA
>isn't sufficient to handle decent multitasking.  I don't know about its
>interrupt hardware.  No amount of clever coding will make the Mac multitask
>as well as the Amiga.

Gee I did not know you had to add extra hardward to run A/UX which if I seem
to remember correctly does do pre-emptive multitasking, wait there is also
something called MachTen which also does pre-emptive multitasking.  Also
before you start saying anything about Mac hardware I would ask that you
actually do some research, which if your previous posts suggest you do not
do research besides just saying a bunch of useless things that are often
not correct.

>>As for being expensive, huge, memory hungry, CPU intensive, so is any unix
>>system, just A/UX is worse.  Before you start saying things, please get your
>>facts straight.

>This Mac Plus has a 68000, 1 Mb of RAM, and two low-density floppy drives.
>There is NO WAY this machine can pre-emptively multitask.  Hell, it can't
>multitask at all.  A/UX costs several thousand dollars, on top of all the
>extra hardware needed to beef up the computer to support it?  No thanks,
>keep it... if I want to multitask I'll use my cheapo Amiga...  I imagine it
>will do a better job than A/UX anyway.

Actually a plus can be upgraded to 4 megs, and you can put anysize hard
drive off of the built in scsi port.  Also this machine can do pre-emptive
multi-tasking using MachTen.  Secondly A/UX does not cost thousands of
dollars, try several hundred which while I admit rather expensive it is
cheaper than say solaris.

Also I ask that maybe just maybe you start using something more than a
mac plus for all of your comparison's.  That is like me using an 8086
or even a 286 for window/mac comparisons.

>Does A/UX allow you to multitask two Mac programs, or only UNIX-specific
>programs?  If I can't run two Mac apps simultaneously, what is the point?

It does allow you to run more than on Mac app simultaneously.

>>>Many of the Mac advocacy articles here, arguing about graphics quality,
>>>sound, multitasking, you name it, seem to consist solely of several
>>>instances of the phrase "This is not an issue in System 7".  How many Mac
>>>users have System 7?  None that I know.  I certainly can't run it on this
>>>machine.

>>Actually any macintosh plus and above can run system 7.

>Given 4 Mb RAM minimum, a hard drive, and an accelerator card if you want to
>get anything done in a reasonable time.  I don't have that kind of money,
>I'm afraid.

considering most macintosh's out there or a LC or above with 4 megs and a
40 meg or more hard drive this does not seem to much of a problem.  As for
money, I think you should look at Apple's current price list before you
say this.

>>  And to answer your
>>other question about how many mac users have system 7.  I would have to say
>>close to half.  All new machines are sold with it.  I also work at the
>>computing center and have had the opportunity to see that most areas of the
>>university have upgraded their macintoshes to system 7.

>Gee, some people get it lucky.  We have one multitasking machine (an A1000)
>available for student use at our university of 8000 students... *sigh*

Sucks to be you.

>>>Yes folks, it's the familiar usenet "get a life" catch-phrase; grossly
>>>overused and devoid of meaning.  Think about it - did using this really add
>>>anything to your arguments?

>>No, but it can be said that you should pay attention to what you say from
>>now on, since a large portion of your reply was filled with inaccuracies.

>One (1) section of my reply contained one (1) inaccuracy.

Gee he can't count either.

>________________________________
>Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
>#include <standard_disclaimer.h>

-justin m. collins <jstc_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy