AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (03/16/89)
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 00:17:33 GMT >From: Kareth <mentor.cc.purdue.edu!asd@PURDUE.EDU> >Subject: IIgs and flakey-ware > >2) Why in the world did you guys at Apple dump the Desktop (found on >the earlier system.disks)? I still have this in a ROMdrive that I >use when I want semi-ProSel speed with a Desktop interface. [...] Ick! That thing runs under ProDOS 8, meaning (among other things) that actual disk access is much slower than under GS/OS, that it is forever limited to ProDOS disks, and that New Desk Accessories cannot be used with it. As I recall, it didn't remember where you had put icons within your windows, either, and you already mentioned the lack of color. Its Get Info boxes were extremely boring, and they were modal. I never used the thing enough to know the rest of its limitations. If it still works for you, nobody's stopping you from using it. It's not the way of the future, though. I expect that the real Finder's speed and functionality will continue to improve in the future. >3) To Keith or any Apple-dude or dudette: If or rather When, Apple >comes out with a true GS/OS, will the current Apple SCSI card handle >it? For example, I am currently on my way to purchasing a VERY large >200-300+Meg drive [...] Anyways, I'll be over the 7-32Meg partitions >for one SCSI card, and would like to know, if a real GS/OS fst will >work correctly with Apple's SCSI card. I would presume so, but ya >never know. EH? GS/OS is perfectly "true" right now. Partitions are not limited to 32 Megs except under ProDOS. If and when FSTs are available for non-ProDOS file systems (other than High Sierra, which intended for compact disks and is read-only), there is no reason to doubt that the current SCSI card will be able to handle them. It requires a loaded driver (SCSI.DRIVER) anyway, so I don't forsee any problems. By the way, the ProDOS FST (PRO.FST) _is_ a "real GS/OS FST." All FSTs impose file-system-specific limitations on things like volume size, file size, valid characters in filenames, maximum length of filenames, etc. >kareth. --David A. Lyons bitnet: awcttypa@uiamvs DAL Systems CompuServe: 72177,3233 P.O. Box 287 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2 North Liberty, IA 52317 AppleLinkPE: Dave Lyons
asd@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (03/17/89)
In article <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 00:17:33 GMT >>From: Kareth <mentor.cc.purdue.edu!asd@PURDUE.EDU> >>Subject: IIgs and flakey-ware >> >Ick! That thing runs under ProDOS 8, meaning (among other things) >that actual disk access is much slower than under GS/OS, that it is >forever limited to ProDOS disks, and that New Desk Accessories cannot >be used with it. As I recall, it didn't remember where you had put >icons within your windows, either, and you already mentioned the >lack of color. Its Get Info boxes were extremely boring, and they >were modal. I never used the thing enough to know the rest of its >limitations. True, but the amount of information it can display and the speed of opening windows, etc. is much better than Finder. I'm interested in why Apple chose to make something new that offers less in window opening speed, size of information, etc. when they could have taken work previously done and bring it to GS/OS. >If it still works for you, nobody's stopping you from using it. It's >not the way of the future, though. I expect that the real Finder's >speed and functionality will continue to improve in the future. I would expect so too. Without the large screens like a Mac can have, the current incarnation of the Finder leaves alot to be desired in how much it can show of disk space. I hate having to scroll all over the place just to find a file. Something like the auto-sizing of windows found in Desktop would be greatly appreciated here. Don't get me wrong, I ain't against the Finder (some of the ways it does things sure) but was curious about why Apple went this direction. >EH? GS/OS is perfectly "true" right now. Partitions are not limited I shudda had a fst after GS/OS. Further explanation at bottom. >to 32 Megs except under ProDOS. If and when FSTs are available for Which is all we have cept for a High Sierra. >non-ProDOS file systems (other than High Sierra, which intended for >compact disks and is read-only), there is no reason to doubt that >the current SCSI card will be able to handle them. It requires a >loaded driver (SCSI.DRIVER) anyway, so I don't forsee any problems. Okay, sounds good. >By the way, the ProDOS FST (PRO.FST) _is_ a "real GS/OS FST." All >FSTs impose file-system-specific limitations on things like volume >size, file size, valid characters in filenames, maximum length of >filenames, etc. Okay, picky, picky :-) I didn't mean PRO.FST wasn't a real GS/OS fst. I meant it doesn't support everything GS/OS can. In a sense, PRO.FST might be considered to be a foreign translator, that unfortunately, we have to use until we get our native translator, GSOS.FST. I understand the other stuff, guess I just didn't make myself clear. kareth.
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/17/89)
In article <1814@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >In article <8903160906.aa04223@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >>> >>> [ comments from Kareth about Desktop & Finder deleted ] >>> >>Ick! That thing runs under ProDOS 8, meaning (among other things) >>that actual disk access is much slower than under GS/OS, that it is >>forever limited to ProDOS disks, and that New Desk Accessories cannot >>be used with it. As I recall, it didn't remember where you had put >>icons within your windows, either, and you already mentioned the >>lack of color. Its Get Info boxes were extremely boring, and they >>were modal. I never used the thing enough to know the rest of its >>limitations. >True, but the amount of information it can display and the speed of opening >windows, etc. is much better than Finder. I'm interested in why Apple >chose to make something new that offers less in window opening speed, size >of information, etc. when they could have taken work previously done and >bring it to GS/OS. David hit some of the high points in his '>>' comments above. Here are some more: 1) I don't have Desktop handy, but I seem to recall that it was big; it had to implement all of its own graphics, windows, menus, scrolling, etc. By writing a Finder that used the built-in ToolBox, we could make it smaller. Also, it would take advantage of any improvements made to the Toolbox. 2) I, for one, HATED the way Desktop redrew ALL of its windows when an update occured (when windows were closed or re-ordered, for example). Desktop did not have region maintenance like QuickDraw, and couldn't keep track of just the windows and parts of windows that needed to be updated. 3) Desktop was not written by Apple. It took quite a bit of effort to get the original developer to get it to the state you currently see it in. By having a Finder that we owned completely, we would be able to make changes ourselves without having to take any lip from someone outside the company. 4) One of the things that made the Mac so successful, and that we're trying to bring to the Apple IIGS, is consistancy of user interface. Not only does this mean consistancy with the Mac, but also consistancy with other Apple IIGS applications. The old Desktop program looked and acted quite differently from the way we encourage 3rd party developers to make their programs look and act. What kind of example would we be setting? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
nicholaA@moravian.EDU (03/17/89)
Dave Lyons = >> Kareth = > >>EH? GS/OS is perfectly "true" right now. Partitions are not limited >I shudda had a fst after GS/OS. Further explanation at bottom. >>to 32 Megs except under ProDOS. If and when FSTs are available for >Which is all we have cept for a High Sierra. >>non-ProDOS file systems (other than High Sierra, which intended for >>compact disks and is read-only), there is no reason to doubt that >>the current SCSI card will be able to handle them. It requires a >>loaded driver (SCSI.DRIVER) anyway, so I don't forsee any problems. >Okay, sounds good. >>By the way, the ProDOS FST (PRO.FST) _is_ a "real GS/OS FST." All >>FSTs impose file-system-specific limitations on things like volume >>size, file size, valid characters in filenames, maximum length of >>filenames, etc. >Okay, picky, picky :-) I didn't mean PRO.FST wasn't a real GS/OS fst. >I meant it doesn't support everything GS/OS can. In a sense, PRO.FST might >be considered to be a foreign translator, that unfortunately, we have >to use until we get our native translator, GSOS.FST. I understand the >other stuff, guess I just didn't make myself clear. Um, no... the ProDOS File System Translator (FST) provided with GS/OS 2.0 on System Disk 4.0 *IS* a native translator. It's as native as we'll have for a while because ProDOS has been the native filing system for the Apple II for 5 years now. The FST itself is written (from what I understand at the briefing given at AppleFest to the public by Rob Turner, the guy who wrote it) in all 65816 code, unlike the previous ProDOS/16, which had a core of ProDOS/8 through which it passed calls. I don't think we're looking for a "GSOS.FST" -- what we're looking for is the Hierarchical Filing System FST (HFS FST) and AppleShare FST. Even without those 2 FST's, I don't think that GS/OS can be faulted for not having a "native" FST. It does. It's ProDOS. As far as an FST which could provide everything that GS/OS allows for -- I don't think the filing system yet exists that can press GS/OS to it's absolute limits. Perhaps I am wrong, but the HFS FST will probably come closest if anything can. After all, the maximum size for a volume under HFS is 4 Gigabytes, right? I believe that "System 7.0" on the Mac is supposed to finally catch up to where we are with GS/OS with File System Translators built into the OS, correct? >kareth. andy ---- Andy Nicholas CsNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College InterNET: shrinkit%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net Bethlehem, PA 18018 liberty!batman!shrinkit@sun.com ---- UUCP: rutgers!lafcol!lehi3b15!mc70!shrinkit I have a CD player, send CD's. rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit I have a IIgs, send a GS+. ALink PE: shrinkit