Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!unx2.ucc.okstate.edu!minich
From: minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich)
Subject: Re: All about sys 7.0 <long>
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.225800.16664@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center
References: <91085.161852EHYOUNK@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 22:58:00 GMT

by EHYOUNK@MTUS5.BITNET:
| I completly [sic] agree with the statement that Mac OS should have
| prementive [sic] multitasking.. Multifinder is a joke, they is no
| way to download from a modem while running another app. Here are some
| other problems.

I download things in the background all the time. It works very nicely, thank
you. Downloads, however, aren't very cpu intensive, so this is one of the
easiest things to do in the background. What software are you using???
Multifinder isn't perfect. Far from it. For instance, why can't applications
be switched out during IO? I have some documentation to Switcher where many of
the same limitations exist, but at least they had the purpose of keeping
separate apps that never expected to run with less than the entire machine under
its control.
 
| 1. There is no way to set a task's inportance [sic], each other the
| background app's get equal time, except for the foreground app, witch can
                                                                  ^^^^^
| steel all of the cpu time if it wants too.

Cute. And somewhat true. Any app that gets CPU time can steel it, though.
Think about it: who's going to stop you besides irate users?
 
| 2. What about all those nice coprossers [sic] the fx has. When will we
| see a system that truly supports them!

I believe that would be A/UX. It is a cruel joke, indeed, to even mention
the IOPs as a sign of Apple prowess when you can't use them without a big,
expensive OS upgrade. It reminds me of arguments in IBM PC land about all
that power available... for DOS... <chuckle-snort>
 
| 3. When will we see the new print architecture, line-layout manager, and
| apple scripting.

The first two were what made Sys 7 sound great to me. Finally laying the
old printing method, designed for a machine that was pushed very hard just
to get something on an ImageWriter (RAM constraints), seemed like a logical
idea. Unfortunately printing will apparently continue to be a weaker spot of
the Mac than it should. System wide scripting should probably wait until
apps get a hold of IAC and stability sets in. How about Sys 7.3? Or will
we see 7.0.7 followed by 8.0.0? Thought for the day: release System 6.1.0
with some of Sys 7's functionality but not all the extra weight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      I used to think the apple was a little behind in hardware, and ahead
| of the game in system software.  Now I think the opposite might be true.
| I sure hope that apple gets these into system 8, and I hope system 8
| doesn't take 2 years to get here.  My next computer purchase may depend
| on apple coming out with system 8 on time.
|
| Ed Younk
| Michigan Tech University

The Mac's system software is still very good. We may complain about cooperative
multitasking and unprotected memory, but those are not items that are easily
plopped on top of a lot of history and fiendishly wonderful hacks to keep older
software going. (Witness the MultiFinder special case for putting MickeySoft
Excel in the first meg of memory.) Protected and virtual memory don't work with
the 68000 machines (I still think a 68010 would be a wonderful compromise.) Ed
didn't specify exactly "game" Apple was ahead of, so I can only say that I don't
of any platform that is ahead in everything. UNIX is both ahead of and behind
Apple. Windows is sort of around the neighborhood. UNIX workstations are way
ahead in low level OS design. Big IBM iron is just plain confusing -- a mix of
ancient history with new hacks.
  Part of what gets me is that Apple can release basically the same machine as
the True (tm) classic Mac (the 128K) and call it something wonderfully new. I
sort of wish Apple would take the NeXT style and sell Macs at prices that makes
people ask why they'd pay _more_ for "equivalent" PC hardware. A lot more market
share with a better class of machines than the Classic would cause a lot less
pain than ramming your head against hardware limitations in the future. I
imagine software developers wouldn't mind a bit, either.
-- 
|_    /| | Robert Minich            |
|\'o.O'  | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using
|=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu  |  their power of the pen, but mine will
|   U    | - "Ackphtth"             |  continue to do the crossword."  M. Ho
