From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:56:44 GMT

In article <UenWvoy00WBNM2TW5B@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 3-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
|> and Window.. by Daniel N. Johnson@vccnw0 
|> > > * Support for "live copy and paste" between applications that aren't
|> running
|> > |> >   concurrently, or are running on different machines on a
|> network. (Not, 
|> > Not)
|> > |> 
|> > |> The first thing sounds alot like DDE and OLE, which both have.  The
|> > |> second one, you're right.
|> >  
|> > I have heard it said that OLE does not work when one of the programs
|> > involved is not open, which P&S does. I am certain  DDE does not.
|> 
|> OLE does work when one app is closed.  I haven't really used it much though.

Ok, now I know.

|> > |> > * 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.  Check
|> > |> 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.

[deletia- International Punctionation]
|> > |> > * 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]

[deletia- palette manager]
|> 
|> I don't know, but OS/2 does have it's own Palette Manager.

Pity. That's annother detail about OS/2 I have never been able
to discover.

[deletia- Gloating]
|> 
|> > |> > System 7.1:
|> > |> > * Features to support virtually all known forms of written human
|> > |> communication
|> > |> >   using WorldScript. (Not, Not)
|> > |> 
|> > |> Well, I guess I shouldn't say this, but I will.  What's the real
|> > |> importance of this?  Go ahead flame away.
|> >  
|> > So you can sell Macs to non-English speaking types.
|> 
|> In a previous post I say: score one for macs, but not for most users in
|> US.  I also said that most users will say, oh, that's a neat feature,
|> and then spend the rest of their lives writing in English and never in
|> another language anyway. 
|> IE, this isn't pressing issue.

Its not pressing for me, but it IS pressing for Apple, Microsoft,
IBM. These people are trying to sell worldwide. Judging by
the markups in the foriegn marketplace, you can really make
a killing.

[deletia- script details]
|> 
|> > |> Now let me start. . .
|> > |> 
|> > |> Pre-emptive multitasking.  Yeah, I know it's been on the net before, but
|> > |> 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 (enough
|> > |> so that System 7 includes basic networking, NT will be released with it,
|> > |> WPS IS network aware (just doesn't include the apps), Windows for
|> > |> Workgroups, and of course UNIX), preemptive multitasking could be needed
|> > |> 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)

|>   
|> > 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?

[deletia- Multithreading is good]
|> >  
|> > I agree, but this can be added. There's source code to do this
|> > availiable on several of the big FTP sites. Its quite clever,
|> > really. I just wish more apps used it. It would be better if it was
|> > a standard system service.
|> 
|> Yes, if it were part of the operating system.

That's what I meant, but its worse than it sounds. the way this
library does a context switch is to store the registers then COPY the
stack out, and COPY annother threads stack in, restore that threads
registers and go. Now, if you had this implemented by the system,
you could simply change the stack pointer (register a7) to the
right place. Right now, doing so would cause a stack/heap collision.

So basically with this library you better make sure that why you yield
time, the stack is small.

|> > |> 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?)

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.

[deletia- Printer Icon on Desktop]
|> >  
|> > 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?

-- 
			- 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.