From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <Eep=77u00WB8Mikopz@andrew.cmu.edu>, Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> Okay, it's not a reply to my post, but my post hasn't yet arrived. . .
|> 
[deletia- network problems.]
|> > >>> HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.
|> > >>A) is it any good? and B) is anything written to support it)
|> > >Good?  That's a very subjective term, each person has his/her own tastes
|> > >and opinions, I personally think it's quite intuitive, your milage may
|> > >vary.  
|> >  
|> > Yeah, well, you see, that's the problem.  Everyone in the PC world
|> > thinks that human factors issues are entirely subjective, each
|> > person has his/her own tastes and opinions, it's simply a matter
|> > of aesthetics, etc., etc., etc. 
|> 
|> Oh, and there are absolutely _no_ desenters in the Mac world?  Why then
|> does MPW exist?  Why do hacks exist which let you change the way windows
|> look?  If the Mac interface was perfect, and everyone liked it, then
|> there would be no need to change it.  Thus, there are people who don't
|> like the Mac interface as it comes out of the box.  

No, no! We all love the Macintosh User Interface! We are ->united<-
in our Eternal Love of the One True Interface! There are no
disenters! We babble TOGETHER! (and we're coming for you...)
[insert Jaws music here]

|> > >Specific hardware?  Not necessarily, you can run multimedia apps with
|> > >existing hardware, even digitized sound from the internal speaker/
|> > >beeper.  
|> >  
|> > You can play digitized sound using hardware that can't synthesize
|> > waveforms and can only play a single note of fixed duration?  You
|> > really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here,
|> > have you?  This is just as silly as the time you told me that two
|> > PC sound boards produced files that were 100% compatible, despite
|> > the fact that one was an 8-bit digitizer and the other 16-bit. 
|> 
|> Yes actually, you can!  It sounds okay, not spectacular, but YES IT DOES
|> WORK!!!  Before you flame somebody for something, find out the facts.  I
|> reiterate: Yes the internal speaker can play digitized sound.  The
|> driver came out a few days after Win 3.1 was released.
|> I can't comment on the second part because I didn't know the circumstances.

Then you dont (strictly speaking) need an extra sound board to
use the multimedia stuff for Windows, no?

[deletia- 32 bit QuickDraw]
|>   
|> > >>doesn't, although it fully supports additional hardware. 
|> > >And so does Windows and MMPM (Multimedia PM), why is it considered an
|> > >avdvantage of QuickTime when it supports additional hardware and a
|> > >disadvantage of Windows and OS/2 when they can do the same?
|> >  
|> > Please pay attention, Nan.  He said that Quicktime *supports* additional
|> > hardware, but Windows Multimedia *requires* additional hardware.  It's
|> > the difference between a car that allows you to buy a new engine and
|> > a car that requires you to buy a new engine.
|> 
|> Yes, MPC does require more hardware.  That's only because the standard
|> PC is cheap and doesn't come with it.  Of course, you can buy a Mac that
|> has all the hardware to run, but that's because you're also paying more
|> for it!

It requires more hardware the Quicktime does. If what I guesss above
is right, it requires a 386 PC w/ a CD-ROM. You also need a special
driver, or a sound board. (if above guess is wrong, you also need
a sound board). Are there any special video requirements?

QuickTime requires an 020 Mac. Dat's it.

You could run it on a floppy drive, if you hapen to be a glutton
for punishment. No CD-ROM required. You can use second-banana CPUs
(tho I must admit :) that an 020 goes a lot father than a 286).

|> > >>Important hardware issue. Hardware is part of the system.
|> >  
|> > >But that's not what we're talking about here, we're supposed to talk
|> > >about features of System 7 and OS/2.
|> >  
|> > An OS generally requires hardware to run on.  You can always
|> > claim that your OS would do wonderful things -- if only it
|> > ran on different hardware.
|>   
|> Fine, keep System 7.0 only for Macintoshes, while the rest of the world
|> is trying to get operating systems which are _platform_independent.

Some parts of the industry are doing so. I'll buy into that based
on how good their products are, not how platform independant they are.
 
|> Look at Unix and NT.

Do I have to?

|>  Both run on different platforms.  NT will be
|> released on other platforms eventually.

NT is vapor. Unix is a horrible mess. (Im using it right now, yuck)

|>  Currently, OS/2 has been shown
|> running on an RS/6000 in addition to the PC's.

This is not being sold. Wonder why...

|>  OS/2 has already been
|> shown to run on the Mach kernel,

Neither this...

|> so evidence is showing that it too will
|> be designed to run on multiple platforms.

System 7 has been run on PS/2. Guess apple is planning
a port. (not) :)

|>  NeXTStep is being ported to
|> 486's and will be released 1Q93.  It's also being ported to NCR systems.
|> But sure, if Apple wants to keep System 7.0 for only their hardware, go ahead.

Apple does. It does make some sence; if MacOS sold on cheap PCs, why
should people by Macintoshes?

[deletia- pre-emptive multitasking]

|> > >when I was running Windows I was very conscious about how many apps 
|> > >I have running (I usually keep the number below 10, around 5), with 
|> > >OS/2, I don't even think twice about starting another process, since 
|> > >I know I can switch between them instantaneously and no one program 
|> > >can bog the whole system down.
|> >  
|> > Ten programs under Windows?  Hah!  Maybe if you're talking little
|> > toy applications.  I've seldom managed to get five programs to run 
|> > without crashing the system.  And if I start Ventura Publisher, I
|> > can't start any more programs until I quit that.
|> 
|> Too bad.  You really must have a bad PC!  Under Windows, when I did
|> newsletters and stuff, I'd have Pagemaker, Excel, Word for Windows,
|> Paintbrush, and all the little applets I used all running at once.  I
|> don't see what your problem was.

He probably had bad applications. The same thing can kill a Macintosh.
This does not say much about either platform.

|> > On the Macintosh, however, I can open as many programs as I have
|> > memory for.
|> 
|> Well, this is an advocacy group, so I'll say that I can't, and it'll be
|> my word against yours.  How about that!

Can too! :)

[deletia- stuff saying pre-emptive is no good, is too, etc]

|> Macintosh more or less uses TASK SWITCHING!  Sure you can have as many
|> programs as memory can have.  Whenever I want to do something different
|> though, I have to stop what I'm doing in the app I'm in and then switch
|> apps.

You are mistaken. It has co-operative multitaksing. This means that
apps CAN run in teh background (while you do other things) but
must be coded especially to do so. I dont think its as good as
pre-emptive multitasking can be, but it certainly isn't
Task Switching.

|> > Oh, you say I can increase the priority of the foreground process?
|> > Okay, I do that.  Now, my brush paints evenly because the foreground
|> > process gets plenty of CPU cycles, while the background processes are
|> > bogged down -- not just while I'm actively painting, but all the time.
|>   

I'll just toss out that there's no reason an app cant change
its own priority on the fly.

[deletia- memory protection]
|> > Even with perfect memory protection, Windows would not be any
|> > better than the Mac with no memory protection at all.  Why?
|> > Because the Windows applications I use crash at least 10 times 
|> > as often as my Mac applications do.  So if one crash on the
|> > Mac brings down 10 applications, I'm no worse off than having
|> > 10 crashes under Windows, each of which affects only a single
|> > application.  However, most programs that crash on the Macintosh
|> > do not bring down the entire house.  I can almost always Force
|> > Quit the offending application and continue with the rest of my
|> > work.
|> > The real solution to program crashes is not memory protection.
|> > It's for programmers to write applications that don't crash.
|> >  
|> Well tell that to the people who wrote Genie Pascal (here at CMU)
|> because that'll crash on anything.

:)

|> "It's for programmers to write applications that don't crash."  I think
|> that's just a good excuse for those people who don't have memory
|> protection, and still want to justify their OS.

Pardon me? I think you overrate the importance of memory protection.
Its also worth remembing that if an app crashes, it doesn't take
the systme down, but it DOES die itself, along with whatever
work was in it. Memory protection isn't magic. Programs
must still be stable, or its just no good.

|>  Sure, it's good for
|> programmers to write apps that don't crash.  That goes for any system
|> with or without memory protection.  No matter how many times you tell
|> that to people though, there will be at least one person who writes a
|> down and dirty shareware app that just may bring down the whole system.

You know, yesterday there was a "computer fair"  here, and
I noticed the guy demoing OS/2 managed to freeze it solid
trying to run 16 bit OS/2, which did nothing more than draw a picture
of the earth in a window. Hmmmmmmmm....
 
|> What do you tell the user who lost 10 megs on their hard drive then? 

Yow! rest asured that that HFS isn't THAT unstable. At least not to
me. :)

|> Well, I told the programmers to write better code, but it's not my fault
|> they didn't.

O' course.

|>  No matter how you look at it, memory protection is just
|> something that will help the user.

I agree.

|>  He may never know it's working, or
|> what it is.

Ideally, it would never be an issue for him, but..

|>  As long as he doesn't have to reboot his computer and see
|> what's waiting for him at the other end, he'll be happy.

No. He'll be happy if his apps work. If htey crash, he'll be pissed
whether or not he has to reboot. He'll be MORE pissed if he has to
reboot.

|>  Memory
|> protection doesn't take anything away from an OS;  it'll add to its
|> stability, so don't say "we don't need it"

I didn't.

|> because for everyone few of
|> those, you'll have people who say "I'm going to X because System 7.0
|> doesn't have memory protection."

I have never run into one of these. There are people who go to system X
because their apps keep crashing, but this would happen w/ Memory
proection either. They still wouldn't get any work done; they just
would not get work done faster. :)
 
|> BTW, isn't Apple adding that at the same time they're adding preemptive?

Yeah, and multithreading and a microkernal. Real Soon Now. :)

-- 
			- 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.