alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/04/90)
In article <111@lad.scs.com> lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >I'd say the best 'improvement' to a PC (Clone) is (was) Unix. DOS is(was) >the OS of the 70's. Unix is the OS of the 80's. The Finder is the OS of >the future, here today. I've tried to stay out of this flame-war, but this is just too much. The Finder is the OS of the future? As an OS, the Finder is about as crude and backwards as you can find these days. No pre-emptive multi-tasking. No multi-threading. No dynamic link libraries. Granted, it is better than DOS, but it is only on the level of MS Windows (and please, no endless flames about which of them is marginally better ...) and certainly way behind OS/2 or UNIX. (By the way, I am giving you the benefit of assuming that you are talking about the multi-finder ...) Furthermore, Apple won't be able to upgrade the Finder to something more reasonable without obsoleting all those 68000 based Mac SEs and Mac Pluses. All the rumors I hear say that Apple is planning to drop the Finder as an OS and replace it with some flavor of Unix. The Finder was NEVER a revolutionary OS. The finder WAS was a revolutionary graphical shell. Furthermore, Apple's insistence on a common graphical interface for applications made the software easy to use. These days, with Windows, PM, OSF/Motif, Next-Step, Open Look, etc, the rest of the world is catching up, and in many ways has passed the Finder. To a couple of your other points, CP-M was the OS of the 70's. DOS didn't hit the scene till the 80's (which it clearly dominated). Unfortunately, Unix was never enough to convince people to upgrade to machines capable of running it, or even to use it when they finally did. It did good on minis, but I would hardly call it the OS of the 80's ... -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien