From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:37:11 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <EenHBA_00YV_M8K6ly@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
> 
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 2-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
> and Window.. by Bill Coleman@hayes.com 
>> System 7 features: 
>> * Scalable fonts (Windows has, OS/2 not)
> OS/2 comes with ATM built in, NOT Truetype like Windows 3.1 and System 7

mea culpa.

>> * InterApplication communication, with provisions for App to App
>>communications using standard terminology (AppleEvents), on the same
> machine
>>or over a network. (Windows not, OS/2 not)
> 
> I guess not, what are the benefits? (Not a flame, I really want to know)

Well, since all applications don't yet support AppleEvents, the benefits
are limited.

The potential benefits are profound. Imagine being able to control other
applications on other machines. For example, you can run your compiles
on a fast machine on the network, rather than bogging down your own machine
with these tasks. (You can do this today with ToolServer and MPW)

Further, you don't have to construct links to particular applications. If
the applications you are using conform to the AppleEvent application
Suites, then you can send commands to day, a word processor without having
to code specifically for every single word processor on the market.

>> * 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.

The Edition Manager on the Mac does all this, today, and they are the same
thing. The Edition manager doesn't distinguish where the joined applications
are running, or when. The only requirement is the applications have joint
mass storage for the edition information.

>> * Built-in support for standard 24-bit color, with automatic interpolation
>>   to differing bit depths. The ability to support multiple monitors with
>>   differing depths, and to change the depth on the fly. (Not, Not)

Hey, can't touch this, eh?

>> * 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. 

Perhaps I should have added something in here about GOOD standards and
guidelines. (only 1/2 <grin>) 

>> * Built-in support for an SQL dialect (Not, Yes?)
> 
> Not sure, I'm not a big database person, we do have Extended Services
> which comes with a Database server, I'm not sure about the standard
> package.

So, change the "Yes" to sometimes.

> 
>> * 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.

All of them? Even for Japanese and Arabic? 

>> * Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
>>   static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 
>>   (Although Windows will eventually get QuickTime when Apple ports it over)
> 
> OS/2 may be getting the Intel thing for multimedia.  (Not sure, is the
> Intel standard for hardware only? or is it for software too?)  OS/2
> already has MMPM  Multimedia for Presentation Manager.

I don't believe it has the depth and breadth of QuickTime.

> (This is only my opinion:  QuickTime isn't all that great.  I've seen
> stuff on IIci's with 8 megs of ram, etc. (ie, a higher end setup)  and a
> quicktime movie was demoed for me.  First, it was a small window, only
> like 160x160(?), and what really got me was how jumpy it was.  That was
> weird because there was _nothing_ else in memory.  That was the only
> app.  Tell me if this is just really bad performance.)

Two things. The machine-based playback is supposedly substantially improved
in QuickTime 1.5. And the standard size for 10 fps movies has been increase
from 160 by 120. (Oh, and these size movies look best in 16-bit, not 8-bit
video)

Second, the playback is only one part of QuickTime. The Component Manager
allows you to add special multimedia hardware to your machine, and QuickTime
will automatically take advantage of it. Got a hardware video capture
card? QuickTime will use it. Got special video effects or playback hardware?
QuickTime will use it. Same for sound. Got a special hardware compression /
expansion card -- QuickTime will use it. 

The last part is Standards. QuickTime defines several data formats that
permit the interchange of temporal data between systems that may have
completely unlike hardware configurations, but should be able to play
each others movies. If you have the hardware, you can do full-screen, 30fps
24-bit color video in a QuickTime movie. Subsequently, a QuickTime based
application could edit everything from the wallet-sized, playable-from-any-
Mac movies to great big huge 30 fps stuff, without change.

Of course, to do the really fancy stuff, you gotta have special hardware.
That's life.

>> * 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.

Not a control panel. A standard user interface for selecting colors. 

>> * Support for timing to the millisecond level (Time Manager) (Not, Perhaps)
> 
> Not sure.

Nope.

>> * Aliases. (Not, Perhaps under HPFS?)
> 
> Yep, they're called shadows though.
> 
>> * 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.  

IMHO, that is one fundamental failing of the PC world.

> BTW, tell me if I'm wrong, not all Macs come with NuBUS right?

That's true. Some models don't even have a slot.

> 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).

Obviously, you haven't lived. <grin> Or actually, you've chosen your 
devices well.

Try adding a second color video adapter. OOps. I forgot. You can't do
that on a PC.

>> * Power management for battery-powered machines. (Not, Not)
> 
> Win 3.1 has that.  I think it's called APM or something.  Not sure about OS/2.

I've seen computer-specific power management for some portables, but it
certainly isn't built-in to the OS. (ie it isn't standard)

>> 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.

Although the majority of people speak English over any other language, there
are a number of languages in the world. Most of them use a Roman script:
German, French, Spanish, Italian, even Greek or Russian. But there are
many languages that don't fall into that category: Arabic, Chinese, Korean,
Japanese, Thai, etc. A computer is useful to these people as well, and the
computer system that can support these languages is more marketable 
worldwide.

Now, if you want to write Arabic documents, you shouldn't have to buy an
Arabic word processor and go to Saudi to buy an Arabic OS, so we have 
point two:

>> * Support for multiple scripts (writing systems) within the same edit field.
> 
> ? Don't know.  Please explain.  Again, I really want to know what this is.

This allows you to intermix any of the above scripting systems together.
Cool, eh?

> Now let me start. . .
> 
> Pre-emptive multitasking.  

This has been beat to death. It has negligible benefit to the user over
non-preemptive tasking. This is a non-issue.

> 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.  

If I have an application that does this, I'll throw it away and buy a
different one that behaves better. We've been over this.


> There are other things, but in a world where networking and communications 
> are becoming the norm, preemptive multitasking could be needed more.

Preemptive multitasking isn't needed for networking and communications.
System 7 does networking and communications better than either Windows or
OS/2. System 7 does not have preemptive multitasking. QED.

> Multithreaded operation.  This too has probably been on the net before,
> but it's important too.  

Have you actually WRITTEN a multi-threaded application? I have. Smartcom III.
It has its own multitasking kernal built in. Multithreading is a nightmare
of debugging. Make a mistake in one tiny little thread and the entire
application can crash to a halt. Terrible.

And what is the benefit to the user? The user cannot distinguish the
technology built into an application. It doesn't matter if the application
is built with or without threads as long as it performs the same operations
in the same way.

> 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.  

Provided you have to copy the entire document somewhere (since you don't
want part of your subsequent changes to be printed), there's no reason
you couldn't do this with a non-threaded application.

> Last one, NO COMMAND LINE!!!

If you really think you need one, get MPW or run A/UX.

> 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.

No you don't. You can a) create an alias of your application and put it
on the desktop, b) put your application (or an alias) in the Apple Menu
items folder and select it from the Apple menu, c) use File / Find to search
for your application if you are not sure where it is or (drum roll)

d) CLICK ON A DOCUMENT AND LET THE FINDER FIND THE RIGHT APPLICATION FOR YOU!

(Note: I have most of my applications in a folder called Tools. I rarely
 open this folder. I do have aliases to some of them in the Apple menu, and
 some in another folder called Tools under the Apple menu. I rarely start
 an application from its icon, most of the time I click on a document)

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Yet. OCE hasn't been released yet.

> I agree that the User Interface is MUCH more than just file management. 
> I truly think that if the number of WPS-native apps was on the same
> magnitude of Mac apps, then WPS would be much better and even more
> integrated than the Mac setup.  

What evidence do you have to support this (dubious) conclusion?

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy