HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Amiga doesn't pre-emptive multitask? (Was 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:36:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <bmccnnll.718761911@unix1.tcd.ie> bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:

>>Oh for heaven's sake. Your Mac's successful operation depends on all your
>>software being written correctly. What's your point? Do you think people set
>>out to write unfriendly programs?

>Okay, for anyone who missed it.

>******** MY POINT ********

>Both the Macintosh and the Amiga use cooperative multitasking schemes.
>The programmer must cooperate by doing, no doing, or undoing certain
>things at certain points in the program to make the system work correctly.
>Without this capability, it is impossible to write programs that guarantee
>timely and effective interaction with the user. 

>***************************

???? I am totally confused by your conclusion.  Would you please elaborate on
your definition of pre-emptive scheduling then?? would any Amiga or Mac
programmers comment on this definition, please?

FYI, most Amiga programmers wont need to use Forbid() at all.  Forbid()
and Permit() are there for people who feel the urgent need to use
them... sort of like the pin-hole on Mac floppy drive.  Would you say
that (because of the existence of the pin-hole) Mac drives don't auto-
eject?? I wouldn't think so... it auto-ejects.  The pin-hole is there
in case of extreme emergency.

>Try *using* a preemptive system.  X-Windows running on UNIX, for example.
>See how slow it really is.

FYI, X-windows is slow, period.  It has nothing to do with pre-emptive
scheduling.  BTW, you don't need to run X-windows on UNIX, and still pre-
emptive multitask your processes.

(cross post to comp.sys.amiga.programmer)

Yours Sincerely,
Kelvin

                                            ____________________________
 __________________________________________/ Undergraduate, Class of 94 \___ 
/____________________________________________________________\_____/________\
|  Kelvin    /   Internet: Kelvin.Leung@Dartmouth.edu       ({o   o})       |
|   Leung   /       or     abs0@Coos.Dartmouth.edu        <  #  ^  #  >     | 
|__________/_______________________________________________(vvvvvvvvv)______|
| "Unless someone like you cares a whole |  Do you see a doll? a beast?     |
|  awful lot, nothing is going to get    |                                  |
|  better.  It's not."                   |  There are always more than one  |
|      -- Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)          |  side to any story...            |
 \______________________________________/ \________________________________/ 
                         I want THE AGA chipset!!! :(                               
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: System 7's memory protection, or lack therof
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:47:39 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <81201@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

>  I have heard a rumor that Apple is going to provide a system
>extension similar to Tune Up that will provide preemtivitive
>(yes, I can't spell today) multitasking.

>  System 7 is the only OS other than a DOS/Win 3.1 combo that
>does not have some form of memory protection.  

Preemptive multitasking is not the same thing as memory
protection.  Although most of the systems that have one
also have the other, they are two completely separate
features.

>  In OS/2, Control-Esc will save you, the NeXT can click
>out of the offending program, NT (who cares), and UNIX,
>control-C or Control-Z, or logging on another terminal
>will take care of the problem.  

Well, with the Macintosh, going to another machine will
usually take care of the problem also. :-)

>System 7 TRIES, by
>the command-option-esc combo, but on my machine,
>I end up into macsbug or if MB is not installed,
>I end up with a frozen keyboard.

Um, that doesn't sound likely.  Do you have a machine
that uses a software key for the interrupt switch?  It
sounds like you're hitting that by mistake.  In which
case, dumping you into Macsbug is what it's supposed
to do.
From: johnsd2@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:08:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.183159.5678@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
|> In article <jb2z4q#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct14.185818.3475@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:

[deletia- yep]
|> >|> Please drop all the arguments about which is easier to learn, because
|> >|> they are irrelevant.
|> >
|> >Nope. Quite relevant. Everyone can can walk; not everyone can bike.
|> >Wonder why. :) However, this is not hte point you seem to be
|> >arguing, so lets move on.
|> 
|> Exactly.  I admitted right from the start that the mouse is easier to
|> learn.  It's even better for highly experienced users for many things.
|> I wouldn't give it up if I had the choice, but I'd give it up before I'd
|> give up my keyboard.

Ok. You mean its irrelevent to how spiffy it is to use? I'll buy that.

|> 
|> >|>  Surely you agree that they
|> >|> keyboard is best for communicating written language (i.e. you don't use
|> >|> the mouse and Keycaps to type letters).
|> >
|> >No. I think the keyboard is better than the mouse for giving
|> >free form words (and such) to the computer. Id rather dictate
|> >tho. :)
|> 
|> I should have said "better of the two" rather than best.  Personally,
|> I'll take thought over dictation, but let's be realistic.  The keyboard
|> is still the best way to unambiguously communicate language (when I say
|> language here I mean spoken/written language) given current technology.

:)

Ill take thot transmittion too. Shoulda thought of that. :)

I also agree that for transmitting spoken or written language to a
computer, the best practical way currently availiable is the
keyboard.

If that's all we're arguing about, its a pretty dull arguement, isn't it?
-- 
			- 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: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 719253095@convex.convex.com, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>If you use a Windows system that is crashing that frequently, then there is
>>some problem that someone needs to fix. 
>
>Yes, indeed there is.  But I see no sign that Microsoft will ever
>fix it.
>
>However, your implication that this is an unusual situation is
>just plain wrong.  Every PC user around here has agreed that this
>is "par for the course."  The Tech Support people at Ventura,
>Microsoft, etc. say there is no way to fix the problems with
>the current software, although they have offered some "work
>arounds" to make the problems easier to live with.  Moreover,
>the general attitude seems to be that this is sufficient.  As
>long as you can continue to work -- at whatever efficiency --
>the problem is "solved."
>
>>The Windows system I use hardly ever crashes (same as the Macs here). 
>
>That's the same line I've heard from every PC salesman -- before the sale.
>
>
>>I haven't noticed that Windows programs are any more bug prone then 
>>Mac programs. 
>
>Take off the sunglasses.

Well, you must be right. All those people using Windows without problems are
just fooling themselves. Everyone who disagrees with you is blind or a 
"PC salesman".

How can anyone argue with such reasoning ?

And why would anyone bother ?
From: jazz@netcom.com (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 10 Oct 92 09:33:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <6154.2ad47f65@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>Interesting. I agree wholeheartedly that memory protection is a Good Thing.

>Technically, cooperative multitasking and preemptive multitasking need not
>be distinguishable, if all elements of the system cooperate correctly. 

Technically, the only difference between memory protection and no memory
protection is "all elements of the system cooperate correctly."

>Unfortunately, some items do not. (eg floppy disk formatting) Therefore 
>preemptive tasking is looked at as a Good Thing. In actuality, what is
>really needed is Good Multitasking -- regardless of the technology.

What is needed is a realization that, the more tools the programmer has, the
more chance he/she has a chance to get done what he/she has in mind.
The same thing goes for the user, SOME of the time.

What Apple has done with the Macintosh, historically, has been picking a few
tools and implementing them -very- -well-.  System 7.x was a radical
departure from this.  For some, the additional functionality was just too
much to handle, for others, the additional functionality was a subset of
the sum-total of the possibilities.  Hey, can't please everyone all the
time.

I happen to think that programmers who are not competent enough to handle
the choice of a more divergent set of tools shouldn't be programming in the
first place.  Or need to go back for more training.

>Remember, it is possible to build a poor preemptive multitasking system.

Yes, and the Amiga has a "poor" implementation of memory protection.
Don't believe me?  Try running enforcer and then writing to low-memory.

Bill, you appear to be using "creative" rhetoric to avoid the issue.  I
say this because your arguments against preemptive multitasking are just
as valid against memory protection.  Yet you wish for the latter and not
the former.  Could this mean it has more to do with programmer's preference
rather than any ultimate reality of "good" or "bad"?

>Finally, multithreading is overblown. I for one don't want to have to
>deal with threaded applications. I've written one, and it was a bear to
>test and debug.

I've written an entire system that was chock full of multi-threading.  This
was a system of, oh, say, about 12 programs.  I had no trouble at all
debugging it.  It all rather depends on the tools one has, doesn't it?

>No thank you. I'd just as soon keep my applications as single threaded as
>possible. 

Which is one of the things that makes working on a Mac (for me!) a completely
boring and unintuitive thing.

-- 
David Navas                                   	jazz@netcom.com
Co-author of: Web Data Acq. and Anal.		dnavas@oracle.com
Upcoming products: Shadow V, Jazzbench 2.0.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:36:19 GMT

In <ewright.719083616@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1992Oct13.040531.20757@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:

>>ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>``Pre-emptive multitasking'' usually means the operating system decides
>>which waiting process gets to use the processor.  The process priority
>>can be used to determine how many time units or how long the process
>>uses the processor.

>Okay, this is about the third definition of preemptive multitasking
>we've heard.  By this one, the Macintosh is preemptive multitasking
>also.  The OS decides which waiting process gets to use the processor
>whenever a call to GetNextEvent or WaitNextEvent occurs.

Please, why don't you just get some arbitrary introductory textbook
on operating systems?

Did you read and understand the second sentence of the paragraph
you quoted above?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 2ad98b8e@hayes.com, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <strobl.718751467@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>> 
>> Well, the Dynamic Data Exchange protocal (DDE) was a feature
>> of MS-Windows 1.0 (released 1985). How old is Publish and Subscribe?
>
>What does it matter. DDE and P & S aren't the same thing. They don't do the
>same thing. P & S is a higher-level feature than DDE. P & S works over a 
>network, P & S communicates between applications even when both applications
>aren't open at the same time, or are open on different machines.
>
>It makes no difference when DDE came out. It can't do what P & S and 
>AppleEvents do. Why bother comparing dates when the features don't compare?
>
But you removed the context !  Wolfgang's statement was in response to someone
who implied that DDE was a copy of P&S, so he was showing that it couldn't be
a copy, since DDE existed before P&S...
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:48:50 GMT
 <1992Oct10.100046.17536@netcom.com> <ewright.719081702@convex.convex.com>
 <x_2zcrp@rpi.edu> <ewright.719104145@convex.convex.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <ewright.719104145@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
Wright) says:
>One call.  One line of code.  That's what it takes to make a
>typical Macintosh application multitask.  Actually, not even
>that, since that same call is necessary anyway to do other
>things.
>
So is that new with System 7 or does it work under 6 with Multifinder too?
I'm really curious since I can't run System 7 'cause my most important (and
expensive) app crashes the whole system under 7.0

Or to put it in this form: is there a difference in multitasking between
Multifinder and System 7 ?

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 07:05:48 GMT

Jess M Holle writes
>>2-bit greyscale gives you 8 shades of gray ...  
> 
>By what sort of math do you derive this????
>   1 bit -> 2   shades
>   2 bit -> 4   shades
>   3 bit -> 8   shades
>   n bit -> 2^n shades (then subtract bits used for alpha channels)

OK, if you want to be technical, yes there are 4 shades, but  
dithering adds in intermediate shades by mixing grids of the  
adjoining shades.  I guess that adds up to 7 shades.  Given the very  
high resolution of the NeXT monitor, you have to really stick your  
eye up against the screen to notice that some of these shades are  
actually dithered.  So for all practical purposes, its 7 shades.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:04:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.719255058
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <va3zf_n@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>Ok, I mean a user interface for the MULTITASKING. The thermometer-
>the watch cursor.. you know... that stuff...

No, I don't know.  I really don't think you know, either.  The
watch cursor on the Mac simply means that the foreground application
is "busy."  It has nothing to do with multitasking.  Neither does
the "thermometer," which is a device to show how some task is progressing.
This can be shown by the foreground application, background application,
or only application.  It has nothing to do with multitasking.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Notification Manager, which gets
the user's attention by putting a flashing icon into the upper left
corner of the menu bar?
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:48:40 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <runeh.67.718925253@dhhalden.no>, runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE
HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) wrote:
> 
> In article <mike_steiner-061092134343@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> >From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
> >Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
> >Date: 6 Oct 92 20:48:27 GMT
> >In article <TOMSTER.92Sep30202903@banzai.WPI.EDU>, tomster@banzai.WPI.EDU
> >(Thomas Richard Dibble) wrote:
> >> 
> >> In article <1a8i5gINNfvm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd248@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Sherman) writes:
> >
> >>    I have another question for you:
> >> 
> >>    Can your IBM 3.5 drives tell the difference between 720K and 1.4 meg disks and
> >>    format them accordingly?
> >> 
> >>     NO.  They can't.  If you stick a 720K disk into an HD drive,  the drive will
> >>    try to format it as a 1.4 meg disk.  YOU have to tell the computer to format it
> >>    as 720K.
> >> 
> >>    A Macintosh can tell what kind of disk you have in it, and what file system
> >>    it's from. You don't have to tell it anything.
> >> 
> ....
> >I don't know.  However, with a Mac, when you put in a formatted disk, the
> >computer knows the capacity of the disk and whether it is Mac MFS, Mac HFS,
> >ProDOS, or MS/PC DOS.  Admittedly, if you don't have PC Exchange, DOS
> >Mounter, or AccessPC, you have to do this under Apple File Exchange--but
> >you don't need any extra hardware.
> >
> 
> If MAC's are so damned clever, how come that our Mac's try to boot from
> the scanner? Actually, we have to make sure the scanner is off whenever 
> we have to restart the Mac (which happen quite often), or else the Mac 
> reports a disk error!

What does that have to do with reading floppy disks?  BTW, it might help
you if you configured your scanner properly.  I've not seen any scanner
that causes that problem.

> Besides, why can't that shitty System 7 catch Divide By Zero errors?
> Mac's the only machines I know of which totally crashes when an application 
> divides by zero.

I've never seen a Mac running system-7 totally crash when a program
generates a divide by zero error; all that happens is that the program
quits.  I've seen only one program that generates a divide by zero error,
BTW; it is a football similation that sometimes gives a divide by zero
error when it is fourth down and the ball is on the goal line.  What
software do you have that causes a divide by zero error?

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: winer@husc10.harvard.edu (Adam Winer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:41:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.winer.718670508

kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:


>Those who argue that memory protection is not worthwhile are IMHO
>crazy.  The Mac is great.  I love it.  I hope to use one for years.
>However, Apple should make the Mac preemptive and protect memory.
>Granted that most users could care less, but the long term future
>requires these basic os techniques.  Apple should bit the bullet and
>just do it.

Actually, they already have...

look for the PowerPC with preemptive multitasking, multiple threading,
and protected memory (along with a RISC CPU: power of a Quadra, price of
an LC).  Unfortunately, the release date (I think) is '94.
-- 
Adam Winer		| The number you have reached is imaginary.
WINER@HARVARD.EDU	| Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and
                        | try again.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:36:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <TOMSTER.92Oct7113657@wpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:

>the subset of commands you use -- if you use a subset of commands the GUI
>programmer anticipated you would use, therefore putting them in the top
>slots of all his programs, you will mouse very quickly and efficiently.
>But if you have to search for these commands -- say they are at the bottom of
>the menu list, or at the bottom of a heirarchial menu system -- you will
>not mouse very efficiently at all.  

Any halfway-competent software designer, though, will put the most
frequently used commands near the top of the menu and minimize the
use of hierarchical menus.  The ones at the bottom are infrequently
used items, which would send you scurrying to the bookshelf to look
them up in a CLI-based system.

>Alt-<FX> is just as easy to type as Alt-<FN>.  

I don't consider either of those easy to type.  Neither, I'm sure,
do most touch typists.

>the 'New file' option on the File menu is much easier to hit
>than the Exit menu item, 

Especially since there isn't an "Exit" item in the file menu. :-)
Haven't used a Mac much, have you?

>In the MacOS?  Of course mousing is faster.

Bingo.  We have a winner.

Yes, the Macintosh was specifically designed to be faster than
a keyboard-based system.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy