HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrew@cubetech.com
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:14:20 GMT

In article <kcn21p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 16157@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>The kernel is as single object.  Following me so far?  You request
>>services by sending messages containing other objects (mainly mach
>>ports and threads).  When you request something from mach, say create
>>a new thread, you aren't just invoking a function call.  You are
>>creating a mach message and sending it to the kernel along with your
>>task object and the thread object you want to represent the new
>>thread.  The kernel creates the new thread and puts it into the thread
>>object.
>
>This doesn't look like it is object oriented, it looks like you
>are sticking objecty names on it. But see below...
>
>>This isn't like objects in the AppKit.  Objective-C objects are very
>>different from mach objects, and Objective-C messages are very
>>different from mach messages.
>
>How bout this: Mac applications are object oriented. They sit there
>and respond to messages sent to them from teh OS (or other apps);
>such as "mouse down" or "update window".
>
>Is that a valid characterization? If not, why not?
>
>>Additionally, you can augment the kernel with "loadable kernel
>>servers" that provide additional kernel services.  Again, you access
>>the services by sending messages to the kernel object.
>
>Hmmm.. how is this substatially different from saying that the MacOS
>recieves messages (in the form of trap calls); you can load packages
>which will do the same thing with added functionality.

Yes, you could say that a Mac application is a single object to the
kernel.  I guess we could call parts of the Mac OS "object oriented."
The point I am trying to make is not "Mach is OO and thus is so much
better because Macintosh is not."  The point I'm trying to make is
that for the kernel it doesn't matter.  For things that you aren't
going to put into your app, it doesn't really matter.

*******I have never, ever, heard a single argument as to why a
*kernel* that Larry Rosenstein would call "Object-Oriented" (i.e.
written in smalltalk or obj-c or whatever) is better, either in
functionality or usuability, to the user or the vast majority
application developers, than a modern kernel like Mach.*******

If anyone here has valid arguments against this, please send me
E-MAIL.  I am going out of town tomorrow and I definitely don't want
to miss it.

Before you do this, note that for writing device-drivers and other
very low level things, NeXT has "DriverKit," which is an OO device
driver building kit.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      | "I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, but THIS
Andrew Loewenstern       |  kind of smoke I can handle!"
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |  John Draper, aka Captain Crunch Dec 18, 1992
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
From: bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 12:47:47 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line20.uoregon.edu

In article <1992Dec21.220204.9088@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes:
> Sean Luke writes

[ stuff deleted ]

> > FTP works in the default configuration.
> 
> But anonymous ftp isn't enabled.  If I wanted to enable it I would have to  
> pull out the man pages and fire up some ancient tools; on the Mac I could  
> point and click.
> 
I'm sure that your Network Services staff would just be thrilled that users  
that didn't have any knowledge at all when it comes to security was setting up  
anonymous ftp.


> > Every configuration file that is not needed explicitly in single user
> > mode (swaptab, fstab, disktab, and a couple others) has been replaced
> > by NetInfo.  The NetInfo database can be modified with NetInfoManager
> > along with a bunch of other special purpose utilities.
> 
> But NetInfo doesn't work in a multi-vendor environment.  I have to export  
> to text files, edit, and re-import; it would be easier if NetInfo didn't  
> exist.
> 
So how would I edit the configuration of a Macintosh on another system -- is it  
at all possible? (or would I have to export to text files, edit, and  
re-import?)


> > In any event, naive users dont need to and shouldn't change these
> > types of things, even with easy to use utilities, with the exception
> > of printer stuff, as they comprehend neither the concepts nor the
> > effects of their actions.  That is the sysadmin's job, and these
> > utilites make it easy for the sysadmin to do his job.
> 
> My point exactly -- the Mac lets users do things that on a NeXT require a  
> sysadmin.
> 
The NeXT is running UNIX -- and you can do sooo much more under UNIX than you  
could ever dream of doing with a Macintosh (when it comes to networking,  
multitasking, paged memory, networked file systems etc. etc)


> Jim Matthews
> Dartmouth Software Development

Bjorn
From: gordie@kaleida.com (Gordie Freedman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: gordie@kaleida.com
Organization: Kaleida Labs, Inc.

In article @rpi.edu, johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>In article 12678@athena.mit.edu, zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:

>>  WIth NeXT, the color panel is an object INSIDE of the
>>existing program.
>
>It IS? Its ->not<- provided by this OS? So how can an OS update
>affect it at all?
>

Because the object is loaded dynamically, and if a new version of the
Color Panel comes out, the next time you start any app that uses it it
will get the new Color Picker.

Although the Color Panel is INSIDE of the program when being used, it is 
gotten from OUTSIDE of it. (Unless you do something fancy to specialize your
own version via subclassing).

Something nice along these lines on the NeXT is that things like the
print panel can be extended by your app - you get the dynamically
loaded system's print panel, but can extend it with UI objects from
inside your program. A new print panel comes out and you get the new
version with your extensions still in it. Inspectors and other objects
also support customization, and you can easily create an object that
does this too. Can't remember if the Color Picker behaves like this.


>>  This is better than the Mac setup, because with NeXT, a
>>programmer can write extensions to the NeXT color panel to modify it in
>>any way they choose.
>
>Yes, but it sounds like that's on an app-by-app bases; there's no
>general color picker to that you could change to modify ALL programs.
>

No, change *the* Color Panel on the NeXT and it's changed in all of the 
apps which dynamically load it (like the app I wrote which gets the color panel
for free by dragging the "Color..." menu item onto my main app's menu bar 
from inside the Interface Builder).

If you inherit and specialize the Color Panel in one app, that will not
be dynamically loaded into all apps that use the Color Panel. If you change
the system color panel though, all apps using the standard one will get the
new one.

---
Gordie Freedman: gordie@kaleida.com Sigs are for kids
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,Newton
Distribution: world
From: asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel)
Organization: Odyssey Ultraware, Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:47:22 CDT
Subject: Apple's annual report

Just received my copy of Apple's annual report. Two factoids.
Apple will introduce more computer products the coming year then in 92 & 93
combined.
Apple formed an alliance with Toshiba last June (guess I missed this) for the
purpose of making a CD-ROM PDA. The pictured Newton is without the black lid
I'd seen before. I kinda liked the lid.

asjk@oui.com

																								Just another pathetic 
																															sheep
																												following the 

															Y <-me 	    HERD
From: ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: illegal mac emulation
Date: 25 Dec 92 05:55:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.ibhan.725262909

kaya@trystro.uucp (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:

>You can run Mac apps. on a NeXT with Executor - and you don't need
>anything.  Maybe it's time for NS Amiga?

Yeah, but there are other issues here.  FIrst of all, I don't believe
Executor can run all Mac programs, and I don't think it can run color ones
either.  That's a big disadvantage.  Also, you can get really cheap
Amiga's.  The A4000 is cheaper than a Quadra and certainly cheaper than a
NeXTStation Color.  Then again, not that many people in this country have
Amigas, color Mac ROMs, and the $$$ to spend on an Emplant.
-- 
               -  Ishir Bhan -  ibhan@husc.harvard.edu  - 
                                     - - - 
           "The sky and the impossible explode..." -The Cure
From: bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 12:16:24 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line20.uoregon.edu

In article <xbs28rl@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman  
Johnson) writes:
..
> Oh, I see. It IS a OS provided service. But you can customize it. If you
> do that, btw, do you still get the updatability?
> 
..
Of course :)

Bjorn
From: terjer@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Apple, facts & figures
Date: 30 Dec 92 09:51:45 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: IfI, UNIT-AVH



Just a few figures I found on AppleLink:

Apple Computer, Inc.
Facts & Figures at a Glance
 
 
%   Apple Passes IBM to Become #1 Worldwide PC Unit Market Share Leader
 
IDC's Quarterly PC Industry Outlook bulletin reveals that as of the third
calendar quarter, Apple( year-to-date has passed IBM to become the PC
industry's unit shipment leader worldwide.  The year-to-date PC scoreboard
stands at #1 Apple: 2,035,000 and #2 IBM: 1,854,000.
 
IDC estimates that IBM's unit shipments were down 10% and 11%,
respectively, in
Q2 and Q3, while Apple's shipments grew by 14% and 29%.
With new PowerBooks*, Duo* systems, and mass merchant Performa*
offerings, Apple should easily hold the #1 position for 1992.
 
Source:  IDC, October 22, 1992

%   Total Macintosh unit growth was up more than 35% for the fourth quarter
of
FY92, and exceeded 20% for the full fiscal year 1992, as compared to the
same
periods in the prior year.
 
%   Macintosh unit sales today are stronger than ever.  Macintosh computers
enjoyed a 45% growth increase in installed base worldwide between 1990 and
1991, compared to 24% for Intel standard microcomputers, according to
InfoCorp.
 
%   The Macintosh share of personal computers sold to business was 12.2% in
1991, up 21% from the previous year and 51% since 1987, according to
InfoCorp.
 
%   Apple Macintosh computers receive the highest marks in overall computer
satisfaction by business users, according to J.D. Powers & Associates
surveys.
The PC and laser printer surveys, released in October 1992, show that Apple
Computer, Inc. leads the satisfaction indices with an average rating of 125
compared to the industry average of 100.
 
%   In their first year of introduction, more than 400,000 PowerBook
computers
were sold, contributing more than $1 billion in revenues.
 
%   According to InfoCorp, of the Macintosh computers sold worldwide in
1991 to
businesses, 81% are networked.  About one-third of them were networked with
Intel-standard PCs.
 
%   In a networked, enterprise environment, PCs have costs of support,
administration, and end-user operations that can add up to 82% of the total
five-year, life-cycle cost of the machine.  In effect, the initial cost of
the
machine can be as little as 18% of that life-cycle cost.  But the Macintosh
has
the lowest, estimated life-cycle costs of all popular operating systems.
 
Five-year, life-cycle cost per system, in thousands of dollars:
MS-DOS $37.0
OS/2   $33.2
Windows$29.5
Macintosh  $23.3
 
Source:  The Gartner Group
 
 


Terje Rydland
Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
Internet : terjer@ifi.unit.no
AppleLink: NOR0103
Tlf : +47-7-591845
Fax : +47-7-591733
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:16:43 GMT

In article 75851@apple.apple.COM, gordie@kaleida.com (Gordie Freedman) writes:
>In article @rpi.edu, johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>In article 12678@athena.mit.edu, zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>
>>>  WIth NeXT, the color panel is an object INSIDE of the
>>>existing program.
>>
>>It IS? Its ->not<- provided by this OS? So how can an OS update
>>affect it at all?
>>
>
>Because the object is loaded dynamically, and if a new version of the
>Color Panel comes out, the next time you start any app that uses it it
>will get the new Color Picker.
>
>Although the Color Panel is INSIDE of the program when being used, it is 
>gotten from OUTSIDE of it. (Unless you do something fancy to specialize your
>own version via subclassing).

Oh, I see. It IS a OS provided service. But you can customize it. If you
do that, btw, do you still get the updatability?

>Something nice along these lines on the NeXT is that things like the
>print panel can be extended by your app - you get the dynamically
>loaded system's print panel, but can extend it with UI objects from
>inside your program. A new print panel comes out and you get the new
>version with your extensions still in it. Inspectors and other objects
>also support customization, and you can easily create an object that
>does this too. Can't remember if the Color Picker behaves like this.

I dont think the Mac Color Picker does; but it's Standard File dialgos
do.

[deletia- same thing again.]

---
			- 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.
From: paul@jimbob.gac.edu (Paul Estenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Mac on Campus
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:44:32 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: jimbob.gac.edu

I am working on some economics tutorial software and would like to know if  
anyone possesses data (not impressions) on the existence and promulgation  
of macs on college campuses. 

Many thanks in advance,

Paul
From: bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 06:07:23 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line100.uoregon.edu

In article <3ct2mxb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth11.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman  
Johnson) writes:
> In article 1h70apINNqal@pith.uoregon.edu, bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S.  
Fjeld Pettersen) writes:
> [deletia- yup, here we go again]
> >> Moral: blame Microsoft, not Apple.
> >> 
> >
> >Although I would agree to blame Microsoft for a lot, this is not one of  
them.  
> >The term multitasking means that the operating system takes care of running  
> >several processes/programs etc. at the same time -- making sure that  
everyone  
> >gets a fair amount of time and that no _one_ program/process can crash the  
> >entire machine.
> 
> All I can say is that you seem to have a slightly odd definition of
> multitasking. Why tack on all the extra stuff?
> 
> ---
> 			- Dan Johnson

1)	Running several programs/processes at the same time: well this is what  
multitasking is all about isn't it -- having more than one thing going on at a  
time?

2)	Everyone getting a fair amount of time: What is fair is up to the  
individual implementor of an operating system -- but if you want to call it  
multitasking you should be able to expect all processes/programs to get some  
processor time whether they are running in the foreground or in the background.  
If not I would hardly call it multitasking, but just an ability to have several  
programs on the screen at the same time.

3)	No _one_ program/process should be able to crash the entire machine: I  
think most people would agree that multitasking would be less than useful if  
some program you (or someone else if you have multiuser) crashed the whole  
system, causing you to lose the last chapter of the book you were working on,  
the presentation for your boss you worked on for the last two hours etc.

I don't think my definition is so odd -- if you don't take all of these point  
into account however, then you'd get an odd definition.

Bjorn
From: bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:21:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: pith.1i7sd8INNife
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line65.uoregon.edu

[deletia of stuff we agree upon...]

> > -- making sure that everyone  
> > gets a fair amount of time and that no _one_ program/process can crash the  
> > entire machine.
> 
> This latter qualification only shows your personal bias on the nature of
> multitasking systems.
> 
> System 7 will give everyone a "fair" amount of time as long as all  
applications
> follow the guidelines.

	But this is almost my point. What is "fair" is up to the designers of  
the operating system (several different schemes exist and are used...).  But  
the OS is supposed to be the back-bone of your machine. If you can't trust the  
OS to take care of the multi-tasking, who can you trust -- the application  
developers?  In many application developers eyes, guidelines are there to be  
broken.  And I don't really think you can blaim them if the operating system  
just says "go ahead!"  If you think about it, multi-tasking/task-switching is  
an OS _responsibility_! It should not be given up freely to the application  
programmer.

> 
> As for a single program / process crashing not bringing down the whole  
system,
> even systems with fully memory protection are not entirely impervious to this
> action -- but the nature of memory protection is wholly and entirely 
> independant from multitasking.

	No, no, no! Memory protection is an integral part of multi-tasking if  
you want it to have any functionality at all. Right now I have 17 different  
applications running (which is pretty normal on my system, and doesn't degrade  
the throughput in any noticable way) and I would be more than a little upset if  
one of the applications crashed and in the process screwed up my programming  
project, or deleted my six page letter to my mom.  Sure you can crash any  
system if you want to, but in the year and a half I have owned my NeXT I have  
crashed it twice (!) (I would assume other machines with true multi-tasking OSs  
would have similar benchmarks... e.g. OS/2, UNIX, MACH, whatever the AMIGA OS  
is called etc.). I used to crash my clone at least once a day, and when I tried  
the Quadra (opening Exel and selecting a cell) it froze up in less than five  
seconds (we had to reboot!)  What I am trying to say is that if multi-tasking  
means I have to give up application integrity I would rather not have it  
because it would be worse than useless.

> 
> -- 
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen
bjorn@doek.uoregon.edu                       NextMail Welcomed
#include <std-disclaimer.h>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:57:13 GMT
Reply-To: rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Dec15.020214.5256@athena.mit.edu> zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric  
M Hermanson) writes:
>>In article <TOMSTER.92Dec14172253@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU  
(Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>>
>>>Now, two questions:
>>>
>>>	1)	Can the NeXT use *any* postscript-compatible printer,
>>>or just a few?  I would hope the former.
>>
>>NeXT can print to *any* postcript printer, automatically.  Postscript is
>>a standard that NeXT adheres to.  Mac does not adhere to this standard.
>>
>>>
>>>	2)	Can the NeXT use any other printer *besides* a
>>>postscript laser?  Like, just dump the image to the other printer as a
>>>bitmap instead of a postscript data file.
>>
>>There are drivers written for some of the most popular non-postcript printers
>>so that NeXT may print to them.
>>
>>
>>Eric
>>

Yep.  I print color postscript to my HP DeskJet500C every day :-)
And it looks killer!

--
Ronald Pomeroy		[Objective-Cruntime: [Smalltalk runtime]];
Advanced Micro Devices	[self dream-on];
CAM Applications Group
rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com (NeXTmail preferred)
From: jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: StyleWriter II
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:42:49 GMT
Organization: The Draco Unix System [BBS]

Anybody heard of a rumored StyleWriter II printer due out soon?  I've 
heard rumors, but I haven't heard specs or anything that would make me 
wait and by it instead of buying the SW now.  Any help would be 
appreciated..  Thanks


---
jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
The Draco Unix System [BBS]

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: csmith@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Christian Smith)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.195557.25818@athena.mit.edu>, zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
> 
> If you
> choose to use this type of reasoning, then NeXTstep 486 will be supported
> by millions more systems than MacOS will.  The installed base of Intel is
> much larger than that of Macintosh.  NeXT will gain market share in that
> area beginning in Q2 93, when NeXTstep486 ships.
>
I beg to differ, considering that 
a) NeXT Step 486 will ONLY run on 486 systems and above, and there is   
absolutely NO guarantee that it will run on EVERY 486 (and above) system
out there. 
b) The system requirments for NeXT Step 486 are rather stringent i.e. 16 megs
of memory for colour, 400 meg harddrive (reasonable working size, not minimum)
etc. etc.
c) The Mac operating system works on every mac out there, and Sys7 works on 
every system shipping.
d) There is NO guarantee that programs written for or compiled on a NeXT will
work under NeXT Step 486.  New software perhaps, but not the stuff already out
there.

Sure, NeXT Step 486 should run on the 66Mhz 486 Eisa machine in my office  
(I sure hope it does), but there is no ground to give over the entire Intel
market share to NeXT.

Christian Smith
Instructional Development Office
George Mason University