Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!george
From: george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544)
Subject: Re: New replacement for INITs
Message-ID: <1991May12.193300.11349@swbatl.sbc.com>
Keywords: INIT extensions System 7
Organization: Southwestern Bell Advanced Technology Laboratory
References: <2729@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1991May12.032859.8612@swbatl.sbc.com> <2733@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 19:33:00 GMT

In article <2733@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) writes:
>SuperClock would be a system level function, I agree, but Bad Disk?  That's
>really a program all to itself that would call upon the FinderEvent of a
>failed disk operation (there IS one of those, isn't there???).

Bad Disk as an application?  Seems strange to me.  I wouldn't want to run it
myself.  I'd prefer it remain hidden in the system.

>And with System 6, you had to know to put the INITs in the System Folder.
>In any case, you only need to drag it into the folder and restart.  One 

Yes, but with startup items in 7 you have to put the item in the startup folder
of the system folder...an added step when compared to a system extension or
control panel item.

>Ahh, but there IS no control panel per se anymore.  It's an...APPLICATION!
>OTOH, if it were its own self-contained program, it would have its own
>pulldown menus, and so would actually be EASIER to modify.

In 7 the control panel is actually a folder, not an application.  The control
panel has come to be the place you go to change items concerning your system
environment...that makes a lot of sense.  I see no real advantage to putting
it elsewhere.  Sure, you could use aliases, but why complicate the installation?

>I think we're gonna see those programs disappear VERY soon, since a big part
>of the IAC in System 7 is gonna need "sharing" programs.

Those old apps aren't going to go away on May 13...they'll be hanging around
just waiting to mess up your world.  It only takes one bad app to spoil your
whole plan.

>Why?  I've got two reasons.  First, while the extension conflicts are not all
>THAT common, I've run across several (I have tried nearly every PD/Shareware
>INIT in existance), and this would cut down severely the number of such 
>conflicts.  In my eye, even ONE is too many, and there should be no reason
>for ANY application conflicts, as they won't step on each other's toes.  My
>second reason is that it makes it much easier to have the feature only when
>you want it.  Say, for example, that the only place you ever use QuicKeys is
>in MSWord (bad example, but it's 1am...what do you expect?).  Before going
>into MSWord, you could start up QuicKeys, and then after leaving MSWord (to
>free up memory), you quit QuicKeys.  You couldn't do something like that in
>System 6 without restarting the machine.  As another example, if you know
>that one of these little programs actually DOES conflict with an application,
>you could quickly and easily turn it off before starting the program, and then
>restarting it after leaving the offended application.  Furthermore, an
>extension could be written to automatically startup one of these little
>programs when you start a particular application, and quit it when you quit
>the application.  Or, the reverse could be done.  I see much more flexibility,
>if nothing else.
 
Hmmm...you're right....you gave a bad example.  What makes you think
applications won't step on each other's toes?  Remember, we don't have
protected memory.
 
Yes, there would be more flexibility with your scheme, but is it really worth
the trade-off in extra effort for installation and maintenance for the majority?
Things work pretty well right now, so why start botching things up for
everybody?  You could do this on your own, of course.  I wouldn't expect a
great many people wanting to do things that way unless they really needed to.

>Well, you see the above scenarios.  What do YOU think?  WOULD it benefit the
>average user?  Maybe not, but then again most users are not INIT fanatics,

No, I don't think it would benefit the average user.  Yes, most average users
aren't INIT fanatics, but most use INITS with few problems today...why
start messing with something that works?

In short, things are working rather well the way they are.  If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.
 
You're more than welcome to pursue such a scheme on your system, but don't be
supprised if others don't see the benefit in what you are doing.

-- 
   /   George David Nincehelser        \  george@swbatl.sbc.com     \
  / /   Southwestern Bell Telephone     \  Phone: (314) 235-6544     \
 / / /   Advanced Technology Laboratory  \  Fax:  (314) 235-5797      \
/ / / /\  1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101  \  de asini umbra disceptare \
