From: johnsd2@vccsouth10.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:31:06 GMT

In article <801@starnine.UUCP>, mikeh@starnine.UUCP (Mike Haas) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr08.171609.10698@crash.cts.com| dvan@pnet01.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
|> |
|> |First, *I* am writing the shell, not Apple.
|> 
|> Encouraging...may have less bugs in it.

<grin>

|> |Second, almost EVERY platform I
|> |can think of offhand has a user interface replacement (shell) available.
|> |Including the lowly c64. (GEM!)
|> 
|> Except for the lowly mac.  You may change that if your's actually comes
|> out.

This is not correct. Aside from A/UX (which everyone seems to hate:),
there are finder replacements availiable. I remeber a review of one
which listed files in long vertical boxes... don't rember the name :(

Of course these are really "user interface" replacements, they are
Finder (=Shell) replacements; The user interface can't be replaced.
This is a feature (the Standardized User Interface); if you don't like
it, you would not like the Mac. This little thing isn't going anywhere.

|> |Third, script and batch control of programs, including interprocess control
|> |similar to AREXX is one of the things taking me so damn long.  
|> 
|> The other thing taking you so damn long is you are programming on the mac.
|> And when you're done, it won't multitask for shit.

Of course, of course... it is after all not an Amiga, is it?

|> |But I'll tell
|> |you this, it sure is easier to write a control script for a program that has
|> |standardized menu resources 
|> 
|> Why?

Not sure what Mr. Vendeven meant, but I can think of one:
you could look inside the program and see what the menus
are.

|> |(and therin is one of the MAJOR weaknesses of
|> |Amiga OS.  RESOURCES! Anyone that has ever programmed on the Macintosh knows
|> |how qabsolutely lovely ResEdit is!) 
|> 
|> I've programmed the mac for 6 years and I don't agree.  ResEdit is the
|> most buggy piece of mucus I've ever come across.  Always crashes
|> when you really can't afford it to.  Just try copying CODE resources larger
|> that 10-15K between two applications.

What version were you using? 2.1bsomething? The beta release perhaps?
I could understand it, the beta was better than 1.2 (was that it?),
which came before. But buggy.

But the final release is out now (2.1.1, I think); its rather less
buggy.

|> Another glorious CODE-resource benefit... 32k limitations on size (even
|> the lowly 68000 can directly address 16 Meg!!!).

No, this limit comes from the way 16 bit relative addressing works. You
can't JUMP further than 32k that way. Also, the 64k roms (really old now)
had a 32k per resource limit. That is long gone of course.

Indeed, THINK C contains an option that uses a less efficent addressing
method, so you CAN have bigger CODE resources if you like.

|> |is sure a lot easier than having to read a
|> |damn manual.
|> 
|> Yup, lots of things are easier than learning to read.

Heh. But who likes having Inside Macintosh v6 in his lap! <oof>

|> IAnd oh, 100% compatibility?  Stick that in AREXX.
|> 
|> Stick it in the Quadra.  Or any apple product.  I use AREXX 1.6 (old)
|> on my A1000 inder 1.3 and the latest & greatest on my A3000 under 2.0.
|> I've written interactive compilers and text editors, all have AREXX ports.
|> I have YET to find a difference between the old & the new.

Is AREXX compatible with all Amiga apps? Nice thing about apple
events is that MacOS fudges them into older forms of
commincation if it needs to and can (this is kludgy and limited,
however)

At least you can say "open", "print" and "quit" to all MacOS
apps that use the usual user interface.
 
|> Now... pay attention to your next statements (you're learnin')...
|> 

I'm breathless w/ anticipation... :)

|> |Golly!  Anyway, Apple had a design philosophy that might now be obselete,
|> |people WANT more power over the OS.

WOW! What a concept! heh...

|> |But the ease with which a programmer can
|> |implement a shell to deliver that power is testament to the well-designed
|> |modularity of the Macintosh OS.  
|> 
[deletia- how to open a text stream window, apparently]

Cool, but that's just the i/o. How about the rest? What's it
like to write an AREXX like IAC setup?

What if you don't LIKE the way the Amiga shell-input-thingy works?
How do you change it? Like, adding Menus somewhere, or hilightng
keywords in boldface or somesuch?

|> Now, bacvk to your resources...here's a testimony to the "well-designed
|> modularity" of the Mac.  Did you know the result code from GetNewDialog()
|> is undefined?  YOU CAN'T TELL IF IT FAILS!!!

So nice to know that AmigaDOS does not have any minor flaws.
And this is a really minor one (See below); you really can
find worse if you try, I'm sure.

|>  Tech note #4 even
|> tries to justify why this OK!!!   Believe me...you can breathe a sigh
|> of relief with every dialog your mac puts up without crashing!

You should have read Tech Note #4, and you'd know why you don't
have to breath sighs of relief. GetNewDialog is used to read a dialog
in from your apps resource fork. If somebody was mean enough to
butcher your apps resource fork, its not going to work anyway. Your
code is there, you see. [if somebody was deliberately
removing just that resource, then they got what they wanted]

If you are doing something unusal, you can always check for it
with GetResource. It in no way hurts to do this, but its almost
always unnecessary.

|> (Apple could have fixed this anytime...could only have improved the
|> situation!).

This is true. It really ought to be fixed.

|> 
|> |And another thing, anyone that has done serious programming on both
|> | platforms
|> |knows that there is a startling similarity between the way both systems are
|> |designed.  Form follows function!
|> 
|> The mac and the amiga are as different inside as night & day.

Lets see...

|> GIMMEZEROZERO, SUPERBITMAP, or SIMPLEREFRESH windows.

what are these?

|>  Custom Screens.

what is this?

|> IDCMP ports.

What is this? I'd LOVE to know what this lovely initial is!

|>  True pre-emption.

This is nice. BTW, the Mac does not really use pre-emption much at all,
you have an advantage here even if it was fake. :)

|>  Mountable devices.

What does this mean?

|>  Device-independant I/O.

Sort of like, oh, QuickDraw say? :) No? Perhaps you could go into
more detail.

|>  Fast, transparent DMA.

Although no doubt this speeds things up, I refuse to believe
that the Mac is slow because it lacks this. My problem
here is that I am attached to the testimony of my eyes.. :)

Perhaps its just because I don't use my floppy drive enough.

|>  Video-coprocessors (standard).

The blitter right? That's a pretty limited coprocessor, but
better than nothing I guess. Pity the graphics themselves aren't
so good. :) [ooh, I am going to get SOOOO flamed for that one.]

|>  Stereo sound (standard).

Sorta like a Mac II, eh?

|>  Genlock-capable (standard).

Sorta like an APPLE II, eh? (Im not kidding, either... that's
the scary part...)

|>  Color (standard).

A lotta Macs have this you know... I suppose it seems
like a big deal to you that some [most, if you prefer] do not...

Wheeeeee!

But hey, that's annother reason to like Mac IIs. :P

|> etc. etc. etc.

Well, go on. I'd love to hear it.

|> 
|> Well, they both use Motorola family CPU's, anyway.

Really? Aren't Amigas too advanced for that? :) I'd
have thot they'd be into RISC chips by now! :)

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.