From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:25:11 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul27.181030.18358@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@ept.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.165815.12223@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu
>(David Charlap) writes:
>>There you go.  If you were to place OS/2 and WPS in a single-tasking
>>environment (I don't know if this can be done...), you'd probably see
>>similar sppedups.  Note the following things about the Mac finder:
>>
>>1) It doesn't support virtual memory - your RAM is it.  Until you get
>>   to System 7, and then you still need a PMMU to me installed (an
>>   option for 68020 machines, bult in to the 68030)
>>2) It doesn't multitask at all.  MultiFinder does, but it still has no
>>   virtual memory (static allocation of resources at program start-up).  
>>   It also provides little memory protection.  Many apps (especially
>>   those that violate Apple's guidelines) can bring down your entire
>>   system running MultiFinder.  In my opinion, this places MultiFinder
>>   on the level of Windows 2.03.
>
>What the hell sort of junk is this? Until you get to System7? Huh- it's
>been out for 14 months. You can ftp it from ftp.apple.com, or get it for
>free from your local Mac dealer. What's to stop you using it? And lets look
>at Apple's product line
>1) Mac Classic. Bare bones 68K machine. Users aren't interested in VM.
>2) Powerbook 100. Mac Classic in a portable version.
>3) Everything else- 68030 or 68040 based.
>Wow- so much for the need a PMMU argument.

I never said that it wasn't available.  I said that you need it
installed.  And like you said, the older machines (there are plenty of
512's, SE's and classics still in use, you know) can't handle VM.
Don't tell me that thse users aren't interested - many just can't
afford Apple's new hardware.

>And what does "It doesn't multitask at all mean? It doesn't provide memory
>protection. True. It doesn't provide for multiple apps running at once?
>False. 

Why don't you read what I write before you flame it.  I said that the
FINDER doesn't multitask.  I also stated that MultiFinder does.

>You would have rather more credibility if you got your facts right.
>I often have three different compression programs running in background,
>along with a mod player playing contiuous music, while I type or manipulate
>graphics in foreground. Would pre-emptive multi-tasking be nice? Yes- but
>is it more important than things like QuickTime. I, and most Mac users,
>think not.

SO what?  Without memory protection, one app can bring down your house
of cards.  And I've seen it happen.  And don't you just love that
descriptive "Sorry, a system error occurred"?

Anyhow, the "is pre-emptive multitasking worth it" thread has been
beaten to death months ago, so let's not re hash it, OK?

>>Note also that System 7 is noticably slower than System 6.x.  I don't
>>know what kind of memory protection and virtual resources are provided
>>for it, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get into high-swapping
>>situations when running large apps on a Mac with only 4MB (the minimum
>>for System 7, supposedly).
>
>There have been many benchmarks of this. The conclusion is that the System
>7 finder is somewhat slower than the previous finders for some operations,
>but that no other app runs any slower. Since the system 7 finder does a
>whole bunch more than previous finders, this is not too surprising. Also
>most of the most obvious slowdowns were fixed with the release of TuneUp.

I didn't say it was identical.  I said it was slower.  If I say that a
Mack truck can't cruise at 120 miles per hour, are you going to
respond with "yea, but look at all the weight it can tow"?  Your
comment is irrelevant.

>And what does this "high-swapping situations when running large apps on a
>Mac with only 4MB" mean? You run an app with a large working set on a small
>amount of RAM and you swap. This is an OS fault? You're going to tell me
>that OS2 or Win3, through a feature called MagicRAM don't do this?

No, but swapping is a feature of all OS's.  It was't a problem under
6.x, because there wasn't any virtual memory.  But when you introduce
VM, you get all the problems that go along with it - like swapping.
Until System 7, a 2MB Mac worked fine and 4MB was a lot.  After System
7, 4MB is a minimum, and you should have more.  Users of older
machines are left in the cold (remember that older machines only go up
to 4MB on the motherboard).  The Mac system joins OS/2 and NT when it
comes to system requirements.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy