From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:44:41 GMT

In article <Eep8o6G00YUoEciK0u@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
|> 
|> 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. . . 

<bow>

|> 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.

You are certainly not going to discuss much rationally with anyone
here talking like that. Particularly the "Macintoy" crack. Gets
old fast, ya know?

|> No, changing fonts in OS/2 is easier than in Macintoy land.  You just
|> drag the font on to whatever you want to change . . .

How do you set ALL the fonts in the WPS like that? Ya know, set it
so that all yer menus show with font xyz, or all windwos have thus-and-such
a background color. Etc.

|> > >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.

Apple Events are also standardized. It would be better if they were SUPPORTED
too. But Apple Events do (officially) provide a standard way to manipulate
somebody elses data (which I dont understand, its very obscure :( )

|> > >>* 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.

You really gotta watch that. Do you really want this
to deteriorate to namecalling? (is it too late already?)

|>  I've never seen that problem and I've
|> gone through three video setup's.  My networking has never been
|> affected.  

I dont doubt you, but it is certainly possible. Perhaps the
networking board (whatever it was) and the video board were tyring to
use the same memory for something.

|> PC's do have device-independent graphics.

Tho not particularly good device independant graphics. Although
I have still yet to get any hard answers about OS/2.

Rather than rehash what I dont like about it, tho, Ill just
point out that there are too many DIFFERENT approaches,
which makes it difficult for video manufactures
to provide drivers for them all.

|>  OS/2 will run if you have
|> XGA, Trident Svga, Tseng labs SVGA, VGA, IBM VGA, 8514, ATI 8514.

Of course, on a Macintosh we can ignore this stuff since the video
must either follow Apple's instructions for video cards (in which
case the OS knows what to do with it, you need no driver regardless
of tis size, depth, etc); Or it must provide a driver (that wya
you can use accelerated graphics boards, and wierd thigns like
the pivot display)

|> > >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!

Except that you have parts of the monitor bezel in the middle of it. :(
That happens ont eh Mac too, of course. :) But at least the apps
are (or at least should be. I dunno 'bout microsoft apps :) ) know
about this stuff (its standard stuff, ya know) and acts accordingly
(for instance not zooming out to cover all teh screens, but isntead
covering one). Also, that particular 4-monitor setup requires
all 4 monitors. So you need the whole setup, all at once. Wouldn't
a big monitor be easier, and cheaper? Also, its only 4 bits deep. :(
It leaves something to be desired, imho.

|> > >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?

I should take that to mean that they DID fix this problem. I do like
OS/2s basic approach to this stuff. Its spiffy. System 7 is close,
but not as good as this imho. You still have to quit apps.

|> > 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.

Before you flame me to death, I dont think OS/2 looks so bad,
cosmetically, but...

|> HAHAHA!!  Chicago font is a piece of SHIT!

Well, I like it fine, but then I have to taste. :)
To each his own. Im surprised you find this so improtant. I thot
Mac users were the people with font fixations. :)

|>  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!

How do you know this, if you haven't seen them? (you are correct, incidentally,
although you dont mention that the scrollbars (and some others) are now
3-dish); Don't bother me (or I'd fix it), but then I dont mind Chicago either.

|>  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.

This is true. Apple decided not to use these things cuz' it confused
new users. (according to _Tog_on_Interface_) Id rather have proprotionals,
but its no big deal. It SHOULD tell you something that you CAN get
them. Something about how flexible the Macintosh is.

Extensions are fun. Does OS/2 have such a facility?

[deletia- .wav format]
|>   
|> > >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?

<poke> Sure I could! [sorry...]

Actually, he probably could if he used A/UX but this is as bad
a processor and memory hog as OS/2, and expensive to boot. So its
not widely used.

However, I at least never said OS/2 didn't have something going
for it (several somethings in fact)

|> 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!!!!!!!!

I agree. So where are the OS/2 2.0, WPS apps, eh?

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

I presume you mean "Object Oriented Psomething Ssomething", right?

The finder isn't internally object oriented. It does behave
object oriented anyway, but it doens't manage printers (still
got that ikky chooser), and apps still split off into layers.

Does pretty good other than that. Of course its still not officially
"object oriented", but it doesn't seem to me that the internals matter
so much. (or did you mean something else? It might help if you 
defined your acronym. Perhaps my responce  was totally irrelevant)

|> Ha, lying in wait for a response. . .

Uh oh...

-- 
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy