From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:33:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Eep8o6G00YUoEciK0u
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Ok buddy, let's do some battle.  I _discussed_ this topic before with
Dan Johnson and we got to know some things about each other's system.  
But you. . . 

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 8-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by Edward V. Wright@convex. 
> I think he said "OS/2," not "ATM."  Why don't you "play with fonts 
> too much?" That statement suggests that it's not easy to do.
 
No it doesn't.  Maybe he does real work instead of setting his system up
every hour of every day of every week.  I've noticed that most Mac
people like to waste time by seeing what startup sound they'll have,
what ending sound they have, what sound is played when a disk is put in,
what color their background is, what font is used or whatever.
No, changing fonts in OS/2 is easier than in Macintoy land.  You just
drag the font on to whatever you want to change . . .
  
> >More precisely, OS/2 does not have the exact same form of IPC as
> >AppleEvents, but it does have pipes, named pipes, semaphores, and
> >Windows DDE and OLE based IPC.
>  
> AppleEvents are *not* a form of IPC.  They are a standard language
> that programs can use in talking to one another.  You may have some
> form of interprogram communications in OS2, but lacking a standard 
> language it's not very useful.  Your program won't be able to talk
> to JoePaint unless you've worked with Joe Programmer to make them
> talk together.  And Chris Developer is likely doing something different,
> which means that getting your program to talk to ChrisPaint will require
> a major rewrite.  With AppleEvents, you can write one piece of code that
> sends events that AE-event compatible application understands.
  
Yeah, but OLE and DDE are standardized, so Joe Programmer can write a
word processor, and Chris Developer can write a Paint program.  As long
as they both use OLE, they can talk.  Even if Joe's from Microsoft, and
Chris is from IBM.
  
> >>* Built-in support for standard 24-bit color, with automatic interpolation
>  
> >Device Independent Graphics means any video device could be supported,
> >be it 1-bit or 24-bit, with the necessary device driver.
>  
> Yes, but the PC doesn't have device-independent graphics. Instead,
> you change a video card and find your networking software will no
> longer run.  (Happened to me.)
  
You've got to be an idiot then.  I've never seen that problem and I've
gone through three video setup's.  My networking has never been
affected.  
PC's do have device-independent graphics.  OS/2 will run if you have
XGA, Trident Svga, Tseng labs SVGA, VGA, IBM VGA, 8514, ATI 8514.

> >Multiple monitors is theoretically possible if hardware exists.
>  
> I've seen people kludge "multiple monitors" onto a PC.  But when
> you look at the monitors, you see the same image on both monitors
> (perhaps at a different size and bit depth).  The multiple monitors
> do not give you any additional space to work with.

Ah, but then you haven't seen one video card which does let you use 4
VGA monitors at once, each with a different display.  The display is
just like having one big monitor: basically 1280x960!
    
> >HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.
>  
> So?  In CUA 92, have they finally figured out whether the menu
> item that closes an application should be called "exit," "quit,"
> or "close" (all of which are used by various Windows apps)?  

Yes.  When you double click on a document, all you are doing is really
just opening another view of it.  So, what does logic tell you to do
with that view?  Exit? NO.  Quit? NO.  Close, ah yes, you close that
view of the document.  Well, is that simple enough?

> CUA 92, evidentally doesn't specify menu fonts that look
> like they were designed by professionals.  At least, if it
> does, OS2 doesn't use them.  CUA92 didn't prevent OS2 from
> having buttons, controls, and dialog boxes that look like
> they designed by art school dropouts, either.  It doesn't
> even require OS2 and Windows to have short, mnemonic command-
> keys instead of the long, hard-to-remember, nonmnemonic key
> sequences.
  
HAHAHA!!  Chicago font is a piece of SHIT!  That is the single ugliest
font in the entire world, no, universe!!!  Buttons and controls on a
Mac?  I haven't seen buttons, Mac's got the simple color-fill when
pressed thingie, which Windows had in 2.0!  Scroll bars are
proportional, Mac can't touch that without some hacked up program that I
saw, but it also crashed my friend's system.

  
> >>* Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
> >>  static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 
> >Different standards, MPC and Ultimedia.
>  
> Note the word *standard*.  Is there a standard format for sound
> files that you can play back on *any* PC (not just the ones you
> bought a special board for)? 
  
Yes, the .wav format used by both MPC and Ultimedia.
  
> >Of course, OS/2 has quite a bit of features that MacOS doesn't have:
> >pre-emptive MT, memory protection, multithreading, OO GUI, REXX, etc.
>  
> Ooh.  So, I guess that "threads package" thingie on my Developer's
> CD was just a dream, right?  Just like MacApp, TCL, and all the
> other object-oriented development tools that existed for the Mac
> before the IBM PC world could even say "OOPS."

Couldn't touch memory protection could you?

Threads?  Maybe you have it, but no one else uses it.  Remember what was
told to us about standards?  THE APPS HAVE TO USE IT TOO!!!!!!!!

Yeah, but Finder isn't OOPS is it?  It's just a wanna be.  

Ha, lying in wait for a response. . .
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy