From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:38:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UenWvoy00WBNM2TW5B
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

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.

> |> > * 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.
  

>>> * Support for the localization of Sorting order, Data and Time formats,
>>>   currency, measurement, calenders and numbers (Not, Not)

>> Umm, what's this?  A control panel?  We have them.  They're all in
>>Settings
>
> No. Its a facility for make the macintosh use different conventions of
> time and date, numbering, etc. It doesn't have a control panel.
>  
We do have that too.

> |> > * 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.

> There IS some system-level thing for control the palette, called
> the Palette MAnager. Its imho very good at giving apps the colors
> they want, even if they need more than one or more of the attached
> monitors can support. They share the palette if there's room,
> and alternate it (or part of it) if there isn't. Its really neat,
> and I have no idea if OS/2 has an equivalent sort of thing. I suspect
> there's a facility to allcoate a color, but I dunno if the palette
> sharing and device-independant abilities of the Palette Manager
> are matched. Anyone care to tell me?

I don't know, but OS/2 does have it's own Palette Manager.


> |> > * Automatic slot conflict resolution (NuBus and Slot Manager) (Not, Not)
> |> >   ( MCA helps, but it isn't automatic )
> |> 
> |> In the PC world, hardware and operating systems are basically
> |> independent of each other.  By this I mean that in the PC world, if you
> |> make an OS with hardware dependence, then you risk not supporting the
> |> thousands Taiwanese clones.  
>  
> the Macintosh doens't have this problem. <grin> <gloat> <other
> obnoxious things>

Okay, Mac hardware is for the most part well designed.  (at a cost)

> |> BTW, tell me if I'm wrong, not all Macs come with NuBUS right?
>  
> Right. Those that dont only have 1 slot, so conflicts are hard to come
> by. They all have the slot manager software that takes care of this
> stuff tho.
> |> Another point, I haven't really ever seen serious hardware conflicts.
> |> That's with an Ethernet card, and a Soundblaster, and all the extra
> |> stuff that should be on the motherboard but isn't (drive controller,
> |> video, actually, if you want to be technical, Ethernet too).
>  
> Well, they can happen anyway. Its nice that you haven't been
> bitten.

> |> > 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.

> |> > * Support for multiple scripts (writing systems) within the same
edit fie
> ld.
> |> 
> |> ? Don't know.  Please explain.  Again, I really want to know what this is.
>  
> this basically means that you can do things like write in Arabic,
> but stick something in English in teh middle. (arabic is a
> right-to-left writing system)
>  
> I think System 7.0 does this too, actually, but not as well.
  

> |> 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. . .
  
> 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.

  
> 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.
  
> |> Multithreaded operation.  This too has probably been on the net before,
> |> but it's important too.  Example:  while in a word processor, I can
> |> select print, and before the word processor is done sending the file to
> |> the spooler, I'm back at my cursor and I can edit it or whatever.  There
> |> are more examples of where threading is useful, but I'm tired because
> |> it's now 1:30. . .
>  
> 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.
  
> |> 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.

> |> 
> |> Well, that should be enough.  Just a little bit more...
> |> One, I won't even bother defending DOS/Win or even NT.  Their interface
> |> blows chunks.
> |> Two, I do like Finder.  There are just a few things I don't like about
> |> it.  However, I do like the way its desktop is setup (Except the menu
> |> bar)  The standard OS/2 desktop is sooooo disorganized.  Macs have the
> |> drives in the top right corner, trash in the bottom right corner. 
> |> That's what I've got in my setup.  Except I also have a printer object
> |> which you Mac people don't.
>  
> 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.

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu