papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/11/89)
This is quoted from the May 10th, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Apple yesterday unveiled an ambitious plan to improve the operationg system of its popular Macintosh personal computer. ... Apple didn't give any target dates for shipping of the new software, called System 7.0 ... Apple promised to ship software-development versions of the new operating system later this year, but stopped short of setting a date when shipment to customers will begin. ... The only hitch is that owners of older machines [mac+] will have to double the standard memory to two megabytes, a modification that currently would cost $400. ... System 7.0 will allow computer users to easily plug Macintosh computers into printers and plotters made by other companies [besides Apple]. ... Many of the features of System 7.0 are direct response to widely publicized features of OS/2 and Unix. For example, OS/2 .. allows different programs, such as a spreadsheet, database and communication program, to update one another with fresh information automatically [a very "interesting" way of defining multitasking]. System 7.0 will also allow that". Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since 1985. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gaynor@clover.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) (05/11/89)
In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >This is quoted from the May 10th, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal: > [information about Macintosh System 7.0 coming "real soon now"] > >Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since >1985. > >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' The feature you think you're talking about is what Apple is calling "Live Cut/Paste" (as opposed to the original "Clipboard Cut/Paste"). This allows a user to take something like a chart, graphic, spreadsheet, or word processing document, paste it into another document (even another document in another application) and have an subsequent changes in the original automatically show up in the copy that is in the other document. I think this is a far cry from what the Amiga is doing right now. Hell, it STILL doesn't have a standardized clipboard for cut/past, something Apple had from day one. Correction: Amiga has a clipboard, it's just that there exist few applications that implement it. Same difference, I can't cut/paste easily from one doc to another. There's a bunch of other nice features in Mac System 7.0 - if anyone really wants to hear 'em, I'll send you (or post) the file I got from comp.sys.mac. For those of us who keep up with both worlds... -=- | Jim Gaynor..."The Vampire Lestat" UseNet: gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu | | The Ohio State University - Dept. of Philosophy, Dept. of Computer Science | >> "There's a shortage of perfect breasts in the world. It'd be a pity << >> to damage yours." -The Dread Pirate Roberts, "The Princess Bride" <<
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/11/89)
In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >update one another with fresh information automatically [a very "interesting" >way of defining multitasking]. System 7.0 will also allow that". > >Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since >1985. In having the ability to do things, are you refering to the MultiTasking or the Dynamic Links of System 7.0. I always knew the Amiga was MultiTasking but I was unaware of any protocol for "live" links between different Application Data. No if there was only more software in 1989 for the Amiga than there was in 1985 you'd have a decent computer :-) -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
res12@snoopy.UMD.EDU (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/11/89)
Why were followups directed to comp.sys.amiga? In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >This is quoted from the May 10th, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal: > > [stuff about System 7.0 multitasking] > >Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since >1985. > >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu > "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Interesting. I have been using such a system since 1984-- A Lisa 2/10 running Lisa Office System. -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto res12@snoopy.umd.edu (this semester only)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/11/89)
In article <47846@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Vampire <gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: | The feature you think you're talking about is what Apple is calling |"Live Cut/Paste" (as opposed to the original "Clipboard Cut/Paste"). This |allows a user to take something like a chart, graphic, spreadsheet, or |word processing document, paste it into another document (even another |document in another application) and have an subsequent changes in the |original automatically show up in the copy that is in the other document. Got it. As far as I know, the ONLY system that allows the above TODAY is the CMU Andrew System. As a Mac user you'll have to wait until 1990-1991 to get it. | I think this is a far cry from what the Amiga is doing right now. |Hell, it STILL doesn't have a standardized clipboard for cut/past, something |Apple had from day one. Correction: Amiga has a clipboard, it's just that |there exist few applications that implement it. Same difference, I can't |cut/paste easily from one doc to another. Interesting. My spreadsheet, database and comm program support both clipboard and AREXX. I can fire up my comm program from the database phonebook, include downloaded data in the spreadsheet or database, while I am editing something else at the same time. | | There's a bunch of other nice features in Mac System 7.0 - if anyone ^^^^^^^^ |really wants to hear 'em, I'll send you (or post) the file I got from |comp.sys.mac. For those of us who keep up with both worlds... You mean THERE WILL BE, right? Shipping to developers in late 1989, means shipping to users in 1990 or 1991. Happy waiting :-) -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/11/89)
In article <11262@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > In having the ability to do things, are you refering to the MultiTasking >or the Dynamic Links of System 7.0. I always knew the Amiga was >MultiTasking but I was unaware of any protocol for "live" links between >different Application Data. True, I was referring to the multitasking. As far as "dynamic links" are concerned, only the CMU Andrew System supports them today. As a Mac user you'll have to wait until 1990-1991 for BOTH multi-tasking and dynamic links. > No if there was only more software in 1989 for the Amiga than there was >in 1985 you'd have a decent computer :-) Well, with more than 1200 software titles I am pretty happy at the moment. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gaynor@armadillo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) (05/11/89)
In article <17152@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Got it. As far as I know, the ONLY system that allows the above TODAY is >the CMU Andrew System. As a Mac user you'll have to wait until 1990-1991 >to get it. And as an Amiga user, you won't. At least not in a standardized way. Maybe some ingenious hacks by the wonderful Amiga programmers (no sarcasm), but these things aren't made standard, just used alot. Point in case... >Interesting. My spreadsheet, database and comm program support both clipboard >and AREXX. I can fire up my comm program from the database phonebook, >include downloaded data in the spreadsheet or database, while I am editing >something else at the same time. But that's not standard. That's a wonderful feature added on by a few software producers. It isn't done by everyone. If I happen to like the interface of a certain program, and it doesn't support those wonderful features - tough. >| There's a bunch of other nice features in Mac System 7.0 - if anyone >|really wants to hear 'em, I'll send you (or post) the file I got from >|comp.sys.mac. For those of us who keep up with both worlds... >You mean THERE WILL BE, right? Shipping to developers in late 1989, means >shipping to users in 1990 or 1991. Happy waiting :-) > >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' Gee, Marco, how long did C-A promise 1.3 to Amiga Users? How long have they been promising 1.4? (Hell, I remember hearing promises of 1.4 in Jan 89 last fall). At least Apple doesn't claim dates then back 'em up. Finally, this is my last note on the subject. I have no desire for a "computer war", which this would degenerate into. So the soap-box is yours, Marco. Have fun. -=- | Jim Gaynor..."The Vampire Lestat" UseNet: gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu | | The Ohio State University - Dept. of Philosophy, Dept. of Computer Science | >> "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism << >> while wolves remain of a different opinion." - William Ralph Inge <<
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/11/89)
In article <17152@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Interesting. My spreadsheet, database and comm program support both clipboard >and AREXX. I can fire up my comm program from the database phonebook, >include downloaded data in the spreadsheet or database, while I am editing >something else at the same time. But it's their own clipboard protocol, not a standard OS protocol. Speaking as someone who worked for a company that tried to port a popular Mac product to the Amiga this lack of a standard posed a real problem. BTW: I can do all of the above under Multifinder, so it's really no big deal. You can launch Excel, SmartCom, MPW, and MacWrite and have a download going on in Smartcom while doing something in excel. >You mean THERE WILL BE, right? Shipping to developers in late 1989, means >shipping to users in 1990 or 1991. Happy waiting :-) So what *will* there be on the Amiga in 1990 or 1991, still going to be stuck with WordPerfect?? At least it's planned, announced and supported. Apple's moving forward with the OS addressing problems and limitations while trying to maintain compatibility with over 5000 S/W packages. I used to own an Amiga, got sick of playing catch-up with the MacWorld software wise, and no labs at school, and no Amiga's at work :-( -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) (05/11/89)
In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >This is quoted from the May 10th, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal: [stuff about Mac multitasking] >Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since >1985. > >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, built-in e-mail features, virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, an optional UNIX-like operating system and a large educational pricing campaign? Just wondering, --- Alex UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauac INTERNET: lauac%qal.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks) (05/11/89)
Some things to ponder: 1. No, there isn't any thing like the Dynamic Links that will be available in 7.0 for the Amiga. If Arexx was to be made standard equipment (On my wish list for 1.4), then it could be done. Clipboard support would have to be much better also. 2. Outline fonts: This is a big step forward for apple. Fonts on the Mac have always been handled in a manner that is non-intuitive (Huh? I've got to have a 36 point to get a letter quality 18 point?). I would really, really like to see this same capability on the Amiga. Font.lib? 3. When Apple says something is going to be available, it will be. Sometimes a little belatedly (AppleFax), but it will be there. I have heard from several sources that the Finder and other signifigant chunks are being rewritten in C, and that the finder is much faster and smaller. 4. I certainly hope that any there aren't still mac users out there who think that the multifinder is multitasking. I thought this case was closed a while back. If you, the reader, think it is, try formatting two disks simultaneously on your Mac. 5. The Amiga is the best mass market personal computer for doing amimation, and probably will be for some time to come. It's all the standard equipment it has. Something about the "lowest common denominator", as Steve Jobs put it. I'm speaking as an former mac "evangelist", who still thinks the Mac is great for Desktop Publishing. It's just that I wanted pretty colors, animation, multitasking, a flexible, configurable OS's ... well, you get the picture. Chill. --hal -- ---------------- hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu "Everything is a reaction" netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet
bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) (05/11/89)
In article <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: > >Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, YES. And it's being supported by more applications. > built-in e-mail >features, Sounds like something you'd find in an fat OS with a large overhead... like Mac 7.0 or OS/2. Something not everyone wants, but everyone pays for. > virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, Next year, probably sooner than 7.0's release for users. > an optional UNIX-like operating system Yes, AMIX is much like A/UX. > and a large educational pricing campaign? AMIGA's are inexpensive to BEGIN WITH. You don't need to be tricked into thinking you're getting some huge discount. Apple's prices are so grossly inflated, it's a rip-off even buying a peripheral from them. This is a straight business FACT, not opinion. >Just wondering, >--- Alex Now you know ! >UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauac >INTERNET: lauac%qal.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu .....Ben "righteous struggle against compu-evil" Discoe
a512@mindlink.UUCP (Ron Tarrant) (05/11/89)
I have a question regarding this "hot links" stuff... Why would anyone want it? I should think that under some conditions it would be nice, but most of the time it would mean having to remember to change the name or protection status of any file that I _didn't) want changed. I'd also have to remember what's being changed every time I did anything that had a hot link to somewhere else. Unless the computer is going to warn me (and thus it wouldn't be "automatic") I wouldn't want the headache of working with a system like that. I use a computer to store things I want to remember in exact detail. If I have to start remembering any more exact details on how to retrieve that stuff, I'll go bananas. -Ron Tarrant Vancouver, BC Canada
srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) (05/11/89)
in article <47912@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@armadillo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) says: > Gee, Marco, how long did C-A promise 1.3 to Amiga Users? How long have they > been promising 1.4? (Hell, I remember hearing promises of 1.4 in Jan 89 last > fall). At least Apple doesn't claim dates then back 'em up. You've been listening to rumors from users and rumor columns in magazines, not official statements from CBM. Pay attention. -- Stephen R. Pietrowicz UUCP: ...!uunet!modcomp!srp CIS: 73047,2313
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (05/11/89)
In article <47912@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Vampire <gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >Gee, Marco, how long did C-A promise 1.3 to Amiga Users? How long have they >been promising 1.4? (Hell, I remember hearing promises of 1.4 in Jan 89 last >fall). At least Apple doesn't claim dates then back 'em up. You are confused. We claimed no dates for 1.3 (outside the company) and failed to meet them. We've claimed no dates for 1.4 (outside the company). Letting developers know what we are doing is not the same as "promising 1.3 to Amiga Users". Or perhaps you equate us saying "We're working on 1.4 now" as the same as "We'll put 1.4 in your little hands tommorow." Well, its not. Welcome to reality, kid. Even with reactions like yours, I still prefer letting the development community know about the directions the system software is taking. Once again, we've made no promises on ship date for 1.4. If you think differently, you are confused. -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "There is no programming problem that cannot be solved by proper "application of the Delete command." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/12/89)
in article <47912@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@armadillo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) says: >>Interesting. My spreadsheet, database and comm program support both clipboard >>and AREXX. I can fire up my comm program from the database phonebook, >>include downloaded data in the spreadsheet or database, while I am editing >>something else at the same time. > But that's not standard. Why not? Just because Commodore didn't invent the standard? That doesn't make it a non-standard. I use all kinds of hardware and software standards on my Amiga that weren't invented by Commodore. I use all kinds of standard tools on out UNIX machine here that weren't invented by either AT&T or UCB. > That's a wonderful feature added on by a few software producers. It isn't done > by everyone. If I happen to like the interface of a certain program, and it > doesn't support those wonderful features - tough. But on the Mac, all the interfaces are the same, aren't they. After all, the user interface is a STANDARD. And I suppose that every single program of the same ilk has exactly the same features on the Mac too, right? Of course it doesn't. This is no different; an AREXX interface is an option that any author can provide. There's no way it can be forced on anyone, even if Commodore bought it from Bill Hawes. If Apple ever gets a similar standard, there'll be no way to force everyone to use include such capabilities, except via the free market. There seems to be very little new productivity software, except for some of the video or desktop publishing stuff, that's being released now without AREXX support. The market speaks.... > How long have they been promising 1.4? They have yet to announce the release date of any operating system followup to 1.3. > (Hell, I remember hearing promises of 1.4 in Jan 89 last fall). I'm sure I can puruse the Apple rumor mill and find someone who'll swear Apple's promised System 7.0 by some magic data. I'm equally sure Apple hasn't set such a magic date themselves. In all things, consider the source. > | Jim Gaynor..."The Vampire Lestat" UseNet: gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu | -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/12/89)
in article <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) says: > Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, Of course, every real multitasking operating system has some kind of IPC. The whole Amiga system, from the low levels on up, is designed around things like messages. For instance, how do you get a block of data off a disk? You prepare a message, and send that message to the task that governs access to that disk. You wait, consuming 0 cpu time, until the job has been performed, at which point your task is signaled to wake up, and the message is returned with the data you requested. Of course, it's not necessary for your task to go to sleep while waiting for data from some I/O device, if you've got other work to do in the meantime. >built-in e-mail features, No more built-in than UNIX. I know several folks who are using UUCP mail quite happily, TODAY. > virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, While no one's actually written a virtual driver for the Amiga yet, we do have systems with MMUs out, and the OS supports 4 meg addressing, TODAY. >an optional UNIX-like operating system It's called AMIX. AT&T's UNIX System V, Release 3.1 is another name for it. That's not UNIX-like, that's UNIX. So is AU/X, I hear. > and a large educational pricing campaign? Apple probably has the best educational marketing, if not marketing in general, of any company. Even IBM found they had to actually build high-performance hardware instead of just resting on their name. > Just wondering, Glad to be of some help. > --- Alex > UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauac > INTERNET: lauac%qal.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (05/12/89)
In article <47912@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Vampire <gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >Gee, Marco, how long did C-A promise 1.3 to Amiga Users? How long have they >been promising 1.4? (Hell, I remember hearing promises of 1.4 in Jan 89 last >fall). At least Apple doesn't claim dates then back 'em up. We have not been promising 1.4. As far as I (personally) know, we have never made any public statement as to when it would be available. #include <stddisclaimer.h> -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/12/89)
In article <6828@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >Even with reactions like yours, I still prefer letting the development >community know about the directions the system software is taking. > >Once again, we've made no promises on ship date for 1.4. If you think >differently, you are confused. What's the difference between this and what Apple, IBM, or any other company has done in the past. Apple gets flamed for pre-annoucing system software, and then the same people turn around and justify the same action for their own machine. Oh well. I've yet to see a perfect computer, and doubt I will in my life time. 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/12/89)
In article <6834@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >While no one's actually written a virtual driver for the Amiga yet, we do have >systems with MMUs out, and the OS supports 4 meg addressing, TODAY. Who doesn't besides MS-Dos. I've had 4 megs on my system since early 87, and with a Mac II, Mac IIx, Mac IIcx, or SE/30 you can have up to 8 megs of RAM. The rest of your article was very informative and helpful, thankyou for posting. But an OS that supports 4 megs is no big deal, unless of course you're micro-soft, then you think it's a big deal. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) (05/12/89)
In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >programs, such as a spreadsheet, database and communication program, to >update one another with fresh information automatically [a very "interesting" >way of defining multitasking]. System 7.0 will also allow that". Actually, it's an "interesting" way to describe inter-process communication. >Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since >1985. So, could someone who knows mail me a description of how the Amiga does IPC (not multitasking)? Especially the "automatic" inter-process updating that Apple describes. I don't have an Amiga (yet), but I AM interested. The Amiga's multitasking doesn't seem like anything special (at least as unstable as multifinder, same memory frag problems, no MMU, etc.) but THIS would be useful. Robert (Please MAIL, I don't read comp.sys.amiga) -- Robert K. Shull sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (05/12/89)
[...viciously edited to keep inews happy. I hate padding...] In article <47846@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Vampire <gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > The feature you think you're talking about is what Apple is calling >"Live Cut/Paste" (as opposed to the original "Clipboard Cut/Paste"). >[...] subsequent changes in the >original automatically show up in the copy that is in the other document. Just to muddy the waters some more...doesn't HP's New Wave does this? You know, the thingy Apple is suing HP and MicroSoft over? -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell U. p.s. followups are directed back to comp.sys.mac, since this has nothing to do with the amiga.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/12/89)
in article <11290@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) says: > In article <6834@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >>While no one's actually written a virtual driver for the Amiga yet, we do have >>systems with MMUs out, and the OS supports 4 meg addressing, TODAY. > Who doesn't besides MS-Dos. I've had 4 megs on my system since early 87, > and with a Mac II, Mac IIx, Mac IIcx, or SE/30 you can have up to 8 megs of > RAM. Whoops, my mistake. I meant to say "the OS supports 4 GIG addressing, TODAY". As in, full 32 bit addressing, not just the 24 bit addressing that the current Mac system has now. A 4 meg limit doesn't make any sense; I've had 7 megs on both my systems for a few years, and have set up systems here with over 20 megs of RAM, though of course 68000 based Amigas are limited to about 9 megs just due to the limits of the 68000 itself. Sorry this sounded stupid; I really did have a valid point in my brain, my fingers just had other ideas... > The rest of your article was very informative and helpful, thankyou for > posting. But an OS that supports 4 megs is no big deal, unless of course > you're micro-soft, then you think it's a big deal. We're in perfect agreement on that one. > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// > David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu > | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | > |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (05/12/89)
In article <6834@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >in article lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) says: says: > >> Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, > >Of course, every real multitasking operating system has some kind of IPC. The >whole Amiga system, from the low levels on up, is designed around things like >messages. This is a simple message passing mechanism that is completely inadequate for any ipc between machines. For this a bidirectional byte stream is needed that does not rely ptrs to buffers. The data itself must be passed. So if you are interested in networks with this amiga ipc you need to forget amiga Messages. Stay tuned for new developments in this area though. This ipc stuff can be corrected in a newer release of the OS. > >>built-in e-mail features, > >No more built-in than UNIX. I know several folks who are using UUCP mail quite >happily, TODAY. This is not true, electronic mail comes standard on nearly every unix distribution tape that I know of. It does not come on the WB1.3 set of disks the last I checked. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/12/89)
Uh-oh. Atarians can't hold a candle to the insecurity of Mac owners.
Look, Marco blew it by bragging before he knew what was going on.
You rankled Mac owners who feel the need defend yourself , please
do so by flaming in private. And don't start something you can't
finish. I'm sure Apple's OS for the 68000 based Macintoshs will
support multitasking just as soon as Jean Louis-Gasse invents it.
In the meantime, do whatever you need to do to make sure other
systems that have advanced the state of personal computers don't
enter your peripheral vision. You'll be a lot happier, we'll be a
lot happier.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"simon@cs.columbia.edu (Thor Simon) (05/12/89)
What I thought was one of the *FUNNIEST* things in the Wall Street Journal article was the bit about "and it will even run on a $1500 mac plus" or some such. Big deal. I can so _Almost_(There so you macoylites don't jump down my back) all that stuff on my $800 A500 system...! And could have since 1.2... Thor Simon ...!rutgers!columbia!cs!simon simon@cs.columbia.edu
ecphssrw@io.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) (05/12/89)
After reading all of this, I have one public comment: I'm gonna put the word "Apple" back in my KILL file...(and if you are a USENET novice and don't know what I mean, send e-mail and I'd be *happy* to explain). -- Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge RCKG01M@CALSTATE.BITNET ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu swalton@solar.stanford.edu ...!csun!afws.csun.edu!ecphssrw
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/12/89)
In article <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: >Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, built-in e-mail >features, virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, an optional UNIX-like >operating system and a large educational pricing campaign? The Amiga has various types of inter-process communications TODAY (AREXX and clipboard) and none of the others. The Mac TODAY has the last two. Apple is telling you that you'll have to wait two more years to get the rest (and still won'r get multi-tasking). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/12/89)
I got the following message from Tom Dowdy of Apple. Since it gives information quite different from what the original WSJ article seemed to imply, I'm posting it for general comments. My own comments are enclosed in [..]. Enjoy. -- Marco --------------------- From: dowdy@apple.com (Tom Dowdy) To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) Cc: dowdy@apple.com Subject: Re: Apple System 7.0 Date: Thu, 11 May 1989 15:17:53 PDT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article <17148@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > Apple]. ... Many of the features of System 7.0 are direct response to widely > publicized features of OS/2 and Unix. For example, OS/2 .. allows different > programs, such as a spreadsheet, database and communication program, to > update one another with fresh information automatically [a very "interesting" > way of defining multitasking]. System 7.0 will also allow that". > No, System 7.0 doesn't add anything else in the way of MultiTasking. The main features are Virtual Memory, 32 bit (ie 4 gig) address space, and IAC (Inter Application Communications). This is *not* hot links, is NOT just IPC. It defines standard ways to handle auto updates, including network transparency, and the ability of applications to CONTROL in a standard way other applications. I think that you will find it much different from arexx (did I remember that right?) It is *very* powerful and *very* flexible. [SO we now know that System 7.0 does NOT provide multi-tasking. Can we get Virtual memory on the Amiga sooner than 2 years from now? I recall Dave Haynie expected that to happen within 1989. Is this realistic?] Another hot feature that you failed to mention is outline fonts, hinted WITHOUT bitmaps down to 9 point at 72 dpi. No other hinting does such a job, in fact most fail below 24 point at 72 dpi. In addition it is just as fast as BitMap fonts, and the hints work across arbitrary text rotation. Seems to me the Amiga doesn't have any kind of outline font abilities. Oh yes, the format is *open* and can be used without license from Apple. [My only source was the WSJ article. In this instance, I have seen several packages on the Amiga that use "outline" fonts (Aegis' programs come to mind), but I have seen no standard in this respect. X11 does not support "outline" fonts either. I'd have no problem at considering the Apple method, if I don't need to license it]. There are many other features, perhaps you should read the Apple press release. In addition, please read with an open mind, I think you will find many of the ideas very inovative. > Interesting. I have been using a system with such features, an Amiga, since > 1985. I very much doubt that the original Amiga, or the one now, has a feature set that comes even close in functionality to the end user as System 7.0. I like the Amiga, don't get me wrong, it does some very nice things and produces some wonderful graphics animations. But for the average end user, the things that the Amiga does well aren't as useful as those that the Mac and System 7.0 do well. (Of course, this is one person's ^^^^^^^ opinion, mine) ["do" == "WILL do MAYBE in 2 years", IF it is delivered by then. That's a BIG difference. I recall the time when IBM announced OS/2 and the Extended Edition. I don't want to rehash what happened to those pious expectations. Apple seems to have finally become the corporate type company which, like IBM, tries to confuse the market by announcing things it has no idea when will be able to deliver.] Tom Dowdy Internet: dowdy@apple.COM Apple Computer MS:27AJ AppleLink:DOWDY1 20525 Mariani Ave UUCP: {sun,voder,amdahl,decwrl}!apple!dowdy Cupertino, CA 95014 "The 'Ooh-Ah' Bird is so called because it lays square eggs." ------ Enjoy. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (05/12/89)
Re: the Version 7.0 of the Macintosh System Software article in WSJ ...
Another perspective appeared on page D-1 of the San-Jose Mercury-News,
Wednesday, May 10, 1989, reprinted here in its entirety without permission and
WITH all the typos, misspellings and misteaks (sic :-) of the original article.
Of note is the 36-point headline and the word "peak" (instead of "peek").
The following article copyright 1989 by the San-Jose Mercury News; my comments
follow the article.
APPLE OFFERS PEAK (sic) AT LATEST SOFTWARE
By Rory J. O'Oconnor
Mercury News Computing Editor
Apple Computer Inc., aiming to keep pace in the desk-top computer market,
disclosed Tuesday details of a new version of the principal software for its
Macintosh computer line.
The software will give the company's computers some of the advanced capabilities
of rival operating systems offered by International Business Machines Corp. and
many work-station vendors.
Version 7.0 of the Macintosh System Software will improve the computer's ability
to run several programs at once, a process known as multi-tasking. It will also
add a capability called inter-process communication that will allow programs to
easily exchange data on the fly.
For example, a portion of a spreadsheet budget could be incorporated in a word
processing document. If the spreadsheet were changed, it would automatically
update the relevant parts of the document.
The new program also adds built-in communications features, better screen
display, beefed-up printing and a modified user interface, Apple said.
Apple revealed its plans simultaneously to reporters and to 1,500 software
developers gathered in San Jose for the company's annual software development
conference. The Cupertino-based company emphasized that the new software is a
"work in progress" and that test versions won't be delivered to developers
until the fall. Company representatives declined to say when users could buy
the software.
The software will operate on all Macintosh models, from the entry-level
Macintosh Plus to the most expensive Macintosh IIx computer. The machines will
require at least two megabytes of memory to use the software, a boost from the
single megabyte that is now standard for the Macintosh.
Apple said the software would help it compete against rivals which are adding
Macintosh-like user interfaces to their operating systems. While competitive
machines using the OS/2 and Unix operating systems both "superficially emulate"
the Macintosh, "they attempt to do in four to eight megabytes what we do in
one or two megabytes," said Randall S. Battat, vice-president of product
marketing.
Despite hurling barbs at Unix, which is used in many desk-top work stations,
Battat insisted that Apple wasn't competing in the work-station market. But one
analyst called Apple's attempts to distinguish between high-end personal
computers and work stations "absolute rhetoric."
"They have no choice but to compete in the work-station market," said Ashok
Jain, publisher of the Macintosh Market Report in Irvine.
---------- end of article ----------
I was contemplating making some sarcastic remarks. So I will! :-)
From 1984 on, AT&T (more or less) marketed their UNIXPC (aka 3B1 aka PC7300)
(mfd. by Convergent Technologies, of San Jose, CA). This is a 10MHz 68010 box,
multi-user, virtual memory demand paged, with from 512K (yes, 512K) RAM to 4MB
RAM, and from 10MB to 67MB HD. Runs SysVR2 with CT enhancements and XT layers,
etc. See June 1986 BYTE for a 12-page product review (of the stripped-down,
entry-level system). Comes with two traditional shells (sh and ksh) and the
"User Agent" (now called "Faces" on AT&T's latest 386 Unix color systems)
windowing environment ... windows have drag bars, sizing gadgets,
front-to-back, scroll bars, and even help gadgets. 3-button mouse, hi-res
screen, built-in modem, 3 phone ports, serial and parallel ports, 3 expansion
slots, a PC-BridgeCard (8MHz 8086 card) which runs DOS in a window under UNIX.
Etc etc etc. Has IPC, UUCP, Ethernet, etc. Also has VoicePower, a computer
speech system which is still included in AT&T's latest office switchboards
(controlled by the 3B1). In any event, I have four (4) of these, configured:
1) 3.5MB RAM, 85MB HD, 5 serial ports, 3 phone ports, one tape, one parallel
2) 4 MB RAM, 85MB HD, 3 serial ports, 3 phone ports, one parallel port
3) 1.5MB RAM, 85MB HD, 1 serial port, 3 phone ports, one parallel port.
4) 512K RAM, 20MB HD, 1 serial port, 3 phone port, one parallel port.
Note that full AT&T SysVR2 UNIX runs quite nicely on the 512K machine, and
that's the one I showed at the recent West Coast Computer Faire. It was running
animated ray-traced images, a spreadsheet, a slide-slow, GNU Emacs, GNU cc, and
other stuff all at the same time. In 512K RAM. Let that sink in for a moment.
In fact, I believe this is the exact same UNIX that will initially be sold by
CBM for the Amiga, even to the Phone Manager include files (commented out).
And from 1985 on, the Amiga computer has been marketed, first with 256K RAM,
then 512K RAM, then 1MB. The operating system supports multi-tasking VERY
nicely, has IPC, uses any of 68000/68010/68020/68030 (and 68040, per the
latest Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual), and is backed by 3 custom RISC
chips for graphics, sounds, DMA, etc. The standard system has a UNIX-like
command interface AND a windowing environment (which is about the fastest
windowing system I've seen on any computer); people are welcome to visit and
see my systems at the office, lab or home; everyone who has has been astonished
at what the system is capable of doing, compared to the Mac II and other
systems which are available for side-by-side comparison. The Mac II's very
slow disk I-O (compared to the Amiga, Sun, etc.) is almost reminiscient of the
C64 in comparison (and that's the Mac II with either Finder or A/UX).
Amiga-UUCP is presently available (in source form, yet!), and GfxBase has
been demonstrating for some time and marketing since May 8, 1988 the X11
system for the Amiga (with performance on the A2500 exceeding even many Sun
systems). Ethernet has been available on the Amiga for quite some time.
'Tis sad when publications such as the WSJ and S-J M-N print "articles" that
have NOT been well researched and are obviously more a "press release" than
a news story. The S-J M-N is notorious for its shoddy reporting during the
past 3 years (and 3 editors of the Computing Section); not a good image for
the "premiere" newspaper of Silicon Valley.
The opinions in this posting are my own, posted from an account on a system
to which I personally subscribe, and do not reflect official policy of any
of my companies.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (05/12/89)
In article <11289@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >In article <6828@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>Even with reactions like yours, I still prefer letting the development >>community know about the directions the system software is taking. >> >>Once again, we've made no promises on ship date for 1.4. If you think >>differently, you are confused. > > What's the difference between this and what Apple, IBM, or any other >company has done in the past. Apple gets flamed for pre-annoucing >system software, and then the same people turn around and justify the >same action for their own machine. You won't catch me flaming Apple for giving us looks into the directions they are heading. I for one, appreciate such glimpses into what the competition is doing. I don't think very many people are flaming Apple for a vapor announcement....(I do read news back to front, so I may not have gotten to those flames yet!) But the messages I've read are they are just flaming Apple for putting Marketing Blinders(tm) on before writing some of the text in the announcement. Granted, you really can't give credit to your competition in such an announcenemt... I keep expecting to see a press release any day now announcing that "So-And-So Corp. invents Multitasking for microcomputers." Then, of course, we'll get the followup articles by respected computer journalists, saying things like "Multitasking is now validated", and "We predict it may catch on", and "Now, the rest of the world is going to have to play catch up." :-) -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "There is no programming problem that cannot be solved by proper "application of the Delete command." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/13/89)
In article <18268@cup.portal.com| thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: |Re: the Version 7.0 of the Macintosh System Software article in WSJ ... |Another perspective appeared on page D-1 of the San-Jose Mercury-News, |Wednesday, May 10, 1989, reprinted here in its entirety without permission and |WITH all the typos, misspellings and misteaks (sic :-) of the original article. [...] | APPLE OFFERS PEAK (sic) AT LATEST SOFTWARE | By Rory J. O'Oconnor | Mercury News Computing Editor |Apple Computer Inc., aiming to keep pace in the desk-top computer market, |disclosed Tuesday details of a new version of the principal software for its |Macintosh computer line. |The software will give the company's computers some of the advanced capabilities |of rival operating systems offered by International Business Machines Corp. and |many work-station vendors. |Version 7.0 of the Macintosh System Software will improve the computer's ability |to run several programs at once, a process known as multi-tasking. [...] |'Tis sad when publications such as the WSJ and S-J M-N print "articles" that |have NOT been well researched and are obviously more a "press release" than |a news story. The S-J M-N is notorious for its shoddy reporting during the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |past 3 years (and 3 editors of the Computing Section); not a good image for |the "premiere" newspaper of Silicon Valley. Has it has been explained in comp.sys.mac by Apple personnel, System 7.0 does NOT provide any changes that allow true multi-tasking: System 7.0 will still rely on MultiFinder. Apple can try to fool end-users into thinking that MultiFinder provides multitasking, but I don't think anybody on Usenet will ever believe that. If you do, may I suggest you pick up ANY Operating Systems book. It might be very educational. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (05/13/89)
#>In article <18268@cup.portal.com| thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
#>|Re: the Version 7.0 of the Macintosh System Software article in WSJ ...
#>|Another perspective appeared on page D-1 of the San-Jose Mercury-News,
#>|Wednesday, May 10, 1989, reprinted here in its entirety without permission and
Incidentally, the New York Times, as far as I've seen, hasn't
deigned to write about System 7.0 at all, though it has run
at least three articles about IBM PCs this week. I guess it
didn't print to fit, uh, I mean, wasn't fit to print.
Steve Goldfieldsarrel@wizard.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (05/13/89)
In article <17183@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: In article <18268@cup.portal.com| thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: Has it has been explained in comp.sys.mac by Apple personnel, System 7.0 does NOT provide any changes that allow true multi-tasking: System 7.0 will still rely on MultiFinder. Apple can try to fool end-users into thinking that MultiFinder provides multitasking, but I don't think anybody on Usenet will ever believe that. If you do, may I suggest you pick up ANY Operating Systems book. It might be very educational. Well, the way I understand it, they are _technically_ correct when they say that multifinder is multitasking. This is true in the sense that several things can be going on at once (ie: some stuff in the background). However, they do not have a preemptive scheduling algorithm, which is what most people think of when they think of multitasking. Apple's scheduling algorithm is cooperative (ie: applications have to "know" that they have control of the CPU and that they should be "nice" enough to hand it back to the OS every so often so that some other program can have a turn). This is done in the system task I think, although there may be ways to make your program more MF friendly (I'm not an expert here). So, while I beleive that they are not telling an outright falsehood, I do beleive that their statements are misleading to the unwashed masses. --marc -=- "Master, why is the letter 'i' the symbol for current?" "Because there is no letter 'i' in the word 'current'." "Master, why do we use the letter 'j' for sqrt(-1)?" "Because we use the letter 'i' for current." Whereupon the Master struck the Disciple, and the Disciple became enlightened.
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (05/13/89)
In article <17183@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Has it has been explained in comp.sys.mac by Apple personnel, System 7.0 does >NOT provide any changes that allow true multi-tasking: System 7.0 will still >rely on MultiFinder. Apple can try to fool end-users into thinking that >MultiFinder provides multitasking, but I don't think anybody on Usenet >will ever believe that. If you do, may I suggest you pick up ANY Operating >Systems book. It might be very educational. So what? What advantages does 'true multi-tasking' (by which I assume you mean pre-emptive multi-tasking) have over Apple's co-operative multi-tasking? Co- operative multi-tasking has significant user interface advantges over the pre-emptive kind. I for one would rather not have my application pre-empted by a background process in the middle of say a menu selection. Any one who has used TOPS while a large file transfer is in progress can attest to the fact that having the interface slow down is a real drag. (TOPS for those who may not know, is an AppleTalk fileserver system that runs in the 'background') Anyone who has used Suntools on the Sun's can attest to the horrible things that can happen when your're trying to get a menu up but the processor is too busy servicing some other process. Sure, pre-emptive multi-tasking makes it easier for the programmer who would rather not worry about whether he's in the background or whatever, but it's the user's view that matters most. That's what the Mac's all about. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (05/13/89)
gaynor@clover.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) writes: > The feature you think you're talking about is what Apple is calling > "Live Cut/Paste" (as opposed to the original "Clipboard Cut/Paste"). This > allows a user to take something like a chart, graphic, spreadsheet, or > word processing document, paste it into another document (even another > document in another application) and have an subsequent changes in the > original automatically show up in the copy that is in the other document. > > I think this is a far cry from what the Amiga is doing right now. I take it you haven't heard about ARexx... -- Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University INTERNET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/13/89)
In article <17153@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >Well, with more than 1200 software titles I am pretty happy at the moment. Note that this is around twice as many as are available for the Sun in their Catalyst catalog. And Sun is doing quite well, thank you. (I use Suns at work, and like them.) BTW I never really understood why people make such a big deal about having a million titles for the IBM PC. Remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. And how is anyone going to use all 1200 titles as it is? There are already too many WYSIWYG wp packages for the Amiga for me to know which is best. It seems to me that the important thing is to have *some* competition in each category, to drive prices down and quality up. After that it just (A) gets confusing to the consumer and (B) reduces market share for each s/w house. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary "Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (05/13/89)
Sigh. I shouldn't post messages at 3AM after working 19 hours straight. Two corrections needed in my posting: "slide-slow" should have been "slide-SHOW" and "GfxBase has been marketing X11 for the Amiga since May 8, 1989" (not 1988) As has been stated by others, the Apple announcements are vapor until one can plunk $$$ across the counter and walk out with ROM(s)/disks/whatever however Apple ships software upgrades. With the 6 month to 12 month lead time implied by the article in the S-J M-N regarding the commercial release of the Apple 7.0 software, I'm reminded of the old anecdotes (circa early 1960's) concerning "futures" dealing with IBM mainframes: IBM would announce the latest and greatest system, delivery to be 2 to 3 years hence. People would clamor to be placed on the waiting list. Then the early signers-on would sell their place in line to the latecomers. If it smells like vapor, looks like vapor, and has the "feel and look" of vapor, then it's vapor. Period. It would appear that some of those people who write press releases and news "articles" need a "physic". If you don't know what "physic" means, look up the definition of "high colonic." In other words, such people have their heads so far up their *ssholes they cannot see beyond their own sh*t. gawd I hope Xerox testifies in the Apple/Microsoft/H-P lawsuit ... does anyone ELSE remember the Xerox "Alto", "Daisy" and "Star" computers? Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
amichel@neabbs.UUCP (MICHEL LANGEREIS) (05/13/89)
In message <146719@pollux.usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >This is quoted from the May 10th, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal: > >"Apple yesterday unveiled an ambitious plan to improve the operationg system > [ .... ] Besides all this hype in the WSJ about the updated (...) multifinder, there was a small review in BYTE (May), MAC goes virtual. A software pakage to give them virtual memory for a price of .... +/- $300.- . I guess Dave is working all night to kick his SetCPU 1.5 out to Bob ASAP now aren't you Dave ;-) Right on. UUCP: ...!hp4nl!neabbs!amichel -- Only above opinions are for sale. In my attempt to kill a fly, I drove into a telephone pole.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/89)
In article <21814@srcsip.UUCP>, mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) writes: > Sure, pre-emptive multi-tasking makes it easier for the programmer who would rather > not worry about whether he's in the background or whatever, but it's the user's > view that matters most. That's what the Mac's all about. There are basically two ways to get the fast response time you're talking about. One is to require all the programmers to do all the hard work. The other is to realise that a user-interface is a real-time problem, and use a real-time operating system. The Amiga takes the second path, and gives you the advantages of fast response time with the advantages of a clean, modern, programmer interface. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (05/13/89)
Hmmmm. Amiga running Convergent Technologies' Unix. That is an interesting rumor. It surprises me though, as the hardware environment of the Amiga 2500 is quite a bit different from the Miniframe. There are many differences in the memory management hardware. I thought the Miniframe used a 4K page table that worked in fixed 1K pages yeilding a maximum of 4 megabytes of physical RAM in the Minifram. Seems like a lot of rehacking of the kernel would be required to accomodate the 68851, but it could be done I suppose. I don't know about the screen memory layout, but that seems like another area that would need a lot of work to port. I'd like to see a more modern Sys V r3 unix for the Amiga. The latest rev I have running on my Unix PC is version 3.5.1, which is not to say that it is Sys V, r3. The Unix PC Unix release is a sort of mixed bag looking much like Sys V, r0 and some Berkeley stuuff with some other unique stuff. Eventhough the Unix PC Unix doesn't have binary code compatibility, I've heard reprots that binaries can be run on other 68K boxes as long as the Unix PC shared libraries are not used and stdio is used. I do have a 3b1 Unix PC, and it was definitely many years ahead of its time. The Unix PC can be run with as little as 512K of RAM and a 10 meg disk drive, but it is not at all fun to use with such limited resources. One megabyte and a 40 meg disk is pretty workable. I use 2 megabytes and a 67 meg disk. The swapping on a 512K system with a (slow) 10 meg disk makes for jagged nerves. On my system, about half the memory is free with one user logged into a full screen window; swapping is rare. Not bad. Bill wtm@impulse.UUCP
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (05/14/89)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > True, I was referring to the multitasking. As far as "dynamic links" are > concerned, only the CMU Andrew System supports them today. As a Mac user > you'll have to wait until 1990-1991 for BOTH multi-tasking and dynamic links. Just a small correction: The phrase "dynamic linking" used in Andrew refers to run-time linking of code modules (sort of like amiga .libraries, but more automatic). I think what the apple has in mind is more like inserting hypertext-type references to other files, etc, into documents. Actually, Andrew can do this as well, but I don't know of any term for it. -Miles
jwl@Feanor.Stanford.EDU (John Lockhart) (05/14/89)
In article <21814@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: >So what? What advantages does 'true multi-tasking' (by which I assume you mean >pre-emptive multi-tasking) have over Apple's co-operative multi-tasking? Co- >operative multi-tasking has significant user interface advantges over the >pre-emptive kind. I haven't seen any advantages to Apple's MultiSwitcher. Pre-emptive multi- tasking allows the user to set the priorities, and does not rely as much on the programmer's good graces in writing a cooperative program. Sure, a very badly written application can screw up multitasking, but that can happen on any machine. >I for one would rather not have my application pre-empted by a background process >in the middle of say a menu selection. Any one who has used TOPS while a large It helps having a good multitasking OS on a machine designed for menus, with a few custom chips to help out the overburdened main processor. You really ought to try an Amiga :-) >Sure, pre-emptive multi-tasking makes it easier for the programmer who would rather >not worry about whether he's in the background or whatever, but it's the user's >view that matters most. That's what the Mac's all about. Allowing the user, not the programmers, to set the priorities of tasks is more important. Ever consider that your background task may be more important than your foreground one? No, the Mac is very restrictive, and does not allow for the degree of customization and flexibility which I demand of my system. Call a Mac McDonald's, and an Amiga, Burger King. I'll have it my way, thank you very much. >Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN >mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John Lockhart jwl@feanor.stanford.edu BIX: jlockhart
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (05/14/89)
:I have a question regarding this "hot links" stuff... Why would anyone want it? :I should think that under some conditions it would be nice, but most of the :time it would mean having to remember to change the name or protection status :of any file that I _didn't) want changed. I'd also have to remember what's :being changed every time I did anything that had a hot link to somewhere else. :Unless the computer is going to warn me (and thus it wouldn't be "automatic") I :wouldn't want the headache of working with a system like that. I kind of like the idea, but think it is only viable if one has VM... Otherwise you would need a *huge* amount of memory to deal with any reasonable project. So, lets wait till VM comes to the amiga before we do anything about this relatively minor item. -Matt
amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (05/14/89)
In article <17183@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > ... Apple can try to fool end-users into thinking that > MultiFinder provides multitasking, but I don't think anybody on Usenet > will ever believe that. If you do, may I suggest you pick up ANY Operating > Systems book. It might be very educational. > > -- Marco Papa 'Doc' Oh, come off it. If you actually *read* a good OS textbook, you'll discover that (listen carefully now) multitasking is a general concept, and has nothing to do with either providing separate address spaces for each process, or providing preemptive task switching. Both of these are useful techniques in many contexts, but they are not necessary conditions for multitasking. There are machines that provide one, both, or neither of these services, while still doing multitasking. There are machines that provide preemptive task switching in one big happy address space (some Lisp machines, for example). There are some that provide both heavyweight (protected) and lightweight (non-protected) processes at the same time (can you say "threads"? I knew you could). Memory protection and preemptive task switching would help the Mac in one basic way: they would enhance reliability, since a bug in a program would only kill that particular process. This is not the same issue as whether or not MultiFinder is "real" multitasking. Grumble. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.UUCP>
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (05/14/89)
lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: > Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, yes. since 1985. > built-in e-mail > features, last time I checked, e-mail was an application, not an operating system feature. > virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, Does the Mac? Are you going to upgrade your Mac to 2 MB just so you can run the unreleased operating system that will give you virtual memory to 4 gigabytes? The Amiga will likely have virtual memory about the same time as the Mac, and like the Mac, it will only work with machines lucky enough to have 68851's or 68030's. > an optional UNIX-like > operating system yes. > and a large educational pricing campaign? No, and that truly is a problem, but the street price of Amigas is pretty affordable compared to the street price of Macs. I'm being dragged into a flame war, so I think I'll quit now. Suffice it to say that once upon a time the Mac didn't have color, an expansion bus, multitasking, and a hierarchical filing system. Once upon a time the Amiga didn't have a fast filing system, dependable printers, and a host of other things. It still doesn't have some things, such as noninterlaced video, laser printer support, a system interface as good as the Finder, and virtual memory. But things change. You have to make a buying decision based on what the machines can do today or decide how long you're going to wait for promised new features. It's no use flaming. -- Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University INTERNET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/14/89)
In article <MYP8k1y00Uka0T58sy@andrew.cmu.edu| bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: |papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: || True, I was referring to the multitasking. As far as "dynamic links" are || concerned, only the CMU Andrew System supports them today. As a Mac user || you'll have to wait until 1990-1991 for BOTH multi-tasking and dynamic links. |Just a small correction: |the( phrase "dynamic linking" used in Andrew refers to run-time linking of |code modules (sort of like amiga .libraries .. |I think what the apple has in mind is more like inserting hypertext-type |references to other files, etc, into documents. Actually, Andrew can do this |as well, but I don't know of any term for it. While I used the name used by Apple, I actually meant the "hypertext" meaning you are referring to. For example, in Andrew one could include a set of "spreadsheet" cells into a text document. When this is done, the cells "keep" their spreadsheet "behavior": if you change a value, the other ones will be recomputed accordingly. To my knowledge, no other toolkit for X11 allows such "linking". -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/14/89)
In <21814@srcsip.UUCP>, mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) writes: >So what? What advantages does 'true multi-tasking' (by which I assume you mean >pre-emptive multi-tasking) have over Apple's co-operative multi-tasking? Co- >operative multi-tasking has significant user interface advantges over the >pre-emptive kind. Well, for starters, it means that a program need not be especially written to make use of the feature. Multifinder is nothing more than Finder with the mouse clicks built into any application program that wants to cooperate. There is a world of difference from the programmer's point of view between having to allow multitasking and having to go out of one's way to prevent multitasking. There is also a world of difference from the user's point of view. I don't have to ask if a program will multitask. If it doesn't, it's because the programmer saw a need to inhibit that feature. >I for one would rather not have my application pre-empted by a background process >in the middle of say a menu selection. Any one who has used TOPS while a large >file transfer is in progress can attest to the fact that having the interface >slow down is a real drag. (TOPS for those who may not know, is an AppleTalk >fileserver system that runs in the 'background') When I feel that way, I decrease the priority of the program I don't want preempting another one. Don't worry, when and if Apple finally figure it all out, you'll be singing their praises, and we won't have to listen to the voices of ignorance straining at gnats. You remind me of every other opponent of any advance throughout history. "We don't do it that way, so let's try to come up with reasons why we don't." -larry -- - Don't tell me what kind of a day to have! - +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/15/89)
In article <AYPC3By00UkKIsbIMW@andrew.cmu.edu> mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >> virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, > >Does the Mac? Are you going to upgrade your Mac to 2 MB just so you >can run the unreleased operating system that will give you virtual >memory to 4 gigabytes? The Amiga will likely have virtual memory >about the same time as the Mac, and like the Mac, it will only work >with machines lucky enough to have 68851's or 68030's. Tha mac already has it. A company called Connectix makes an "init" which give any mac, 68020 w/ PMMU, or 030 8 megs of vitual memory. Sorry you lose on that one. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
harrye@pnet02.cts.com (Harry Evangelou) (05/15/89)
In article <27045@pnet02.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >In article <6834@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >>While no one's actually written a virtual driver for the Amiga yet, we do have >>systems with MMUs out, and the OS supports 4 meg addressing, TODAY. > Who doesn't besides MS-Dos. I've had 4 megs on my system since early 87, >and with a Mac II, Mac IIx, Mac IIcx, or SE/30 you can have up to 8 megs of >RAM. > The rest of your article was very informative and helpful, thankyou for >posting. But an OS that supports 4 megs is no big deal, unless of course >you're micro-soft, then you think it's a big deal. David made a mistake. The Amiga supports 4GIGs of addressing (32bits), and has been supporting it since its birth. Unlike the Amiga however, the Mac no matter what Apple wants you to think, is a 24bit machine. I am still laughing at the System 6.0 software and how many companies had to tell their customers not to use it due to its bugs and incompatibilities. And 6.0 didn't even have any of the big software coding features that Apple is proposing now. Look what Apple did to its 030 machines. Throttle down to 24bits. On the other hand; this is from the new release of AutoCAD for the MAC. Autodesk says that AutoCad for the Mac, requires 4MEGS and they recommend 8Megabytes. And that's just ONE!! application. Have you ever wondered why so many people do NOT use Multi-finder (and by the way Multi-finder is not multi-tasking). Cause of its memory requirements. Have you seen how many programs broke with the release of 6.0. I predict even a worst case scenario with 7.0 (the bug free one, probably 3 years from now). When your Mac blinders come off, maybe then you'll see what listening to the users rather than dictating to the users really means. I'll give one thing to Apple however. They do have great PR and marketing people to launch their misinformation and "we invented it when the rest of the world already had it" campaign. But as you can see from the DRAM mistake and the increase and then decrease prices, even they can make mistakes. >\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|/////////////////////////////////////// >David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.e >| It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | >|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A used to be Mac-now-Amiga user. UUCP: {ames!elroy, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!harrye INET: harrye@pnet02.cts.com
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (05/15/89)
In article <21814@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: >So what? What advantages does 'true multi-tasking' (by which I assume you mean >pre-emptive multi-tasking) have over Apple's co-operative multi-tasking? Co- >operative multi-tasking has significant user interface advantges over the >pre-emptive kind. For starters, there are the thousands of programs written before multi-finder that don't know how to multitask. This problem will decrease with time, because programs will be updated, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the software will not be. >I for one would rather not have my application pre-empted by a background process >in the middle of say a menu selection. Any one who has used TOPS while a large >file transfer is in progress can attest to the fact that having the interface >slow down is a real drag. (TOPS for those who may not know, is an AppleTalk >fileserver system that runs in the 'background') Well, if that happens, then something wasn't written very well, now was it? Certainly my menus don't slow down because of a background process. Even if my application is pre-empted by a background process in the middle of a menu selection, my menu selection proceeds normally, since the menus are handled by another task, one at a high priority. That's another advantage of 'true multi-tasking'. >Sure, pre-emptive multi-tasking makes it easier for the programmer who would rather >not worry about whether he's in the background or whatever, but it's the user's >view that matters most. That's what the Mac's all about. Done right, you can make life easier for both. main(){printf("hello world\n");} is a multitasking program on a proper OS. Neither the programmer nor the user has to make any special considerations for multitasking. -- Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (05/15/89)
Re: Bill Mayhew's doubts concerning my statement that the Amiga UNIX is the same as AT&T's UNIXPC (aka AT&T 3B1 aka Convergent Tech Safari 4 and Miniframe, and the same as Motorola's model 6300 (also mfr by Convergent)), I present for your perusal two postings to Usenet by a CBM employee who DID the port of UNIX to the Amiga. The first message pertains to curses, and the second to the actual source code and the SysV release version and compatibility. The two machines (Amiga and UNIXPC) are quite complementary, which is which I have purchased a number of both of them. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] Re-posted messages follow: ------------------------------ first message Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site portal.UUcp Path: portal!uunet!cbmvax!ditto From: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general Subject: Re: Key bindings for UNIX System V curses (long) Message-ID: <5166@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 2 Nov 88 01:19:29 GMT Date-Received: 2 Nov 88 08:09:09 GMT References: <101@bsadrc.UUCP> <305@oink.UUCP> <571@wp3b01.UUCP> <1824@cbnews.ATT.COM> Reply-To: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) Distribution: usa Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 62 Keywords: UNIX SYS5 CURSES FUNCTION KEYS unixpc tam Summary: So where does tam fit into all this, anyway Xref: portal comp.sys.att:5320 unix-pc.general:1983 Portal-Origin: Usenet Portal-Type: text Portal-Location: 1074.3.1941.5 In article <1824@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >The author seems to be under the impression that System V curses does >not support arrow keys, function keys, and other special purpose keys >such as the ones that overwhelm the edges of the UNIX PC keyboard. >This assumption is presumably based on the version of curses that >comes with the UNIX PC. Mr. Horton's article, while very informative (and certainly authorative), leaves me confused in a few ways... (but thanks for the posting, Mark, it's good to hear this sort of thing "from the horse's mouth"). >There are several versions of libraries called "curses" in the world. [ ... ] >The UNIX System software on the UNIX PC started with System V release 1. >Since SVr1 did not have curses, and Convergent thought curses was a good >idea, they grabbed a public domain curses, namely the Berkeley version, >and included it. Upgrades to 3.0, 3.5, 3.51, etc were all basically >patches, and used the same version of curses. I have used curses on the Unix PC, and been able to use keymap(), etc. to read such codes as KEY_LEFT, KEY_EXIT, etc. Did something change in later Unix PC releases (I have 3.51) that you forgot about? It seems to be the "SVr2 curses" (it has the #ifndef NONSTANDARD); it also contains "@(#)curses:screen/curses.form 1.4.1.4". Mark, could you be describing TAM, the termcap-based pseudo-curses? I have always wondered exactly where that idea came from, whether it was ever considered for inclusion as a SysV standard, etc. I heard a rumor that the 6300- family includes the TAM library for compatibility with Unix-PC programs. Another minor inconsistency between your description and Real Life (at least as I experience it) is that Amiga Unix, which is currently SysVr3.1, has a curses.h which is byte-for-byte-identical with that of the Unix PC (3.51). So perhaps what you describe as "SVr3 curses" really became standard at SysVr3.2? I suppose I'll know when we get SysVr3.2 here. > My UNIX PC (3.5) does seem to have >/usr/lib/terminfo on it, but none of the software I have seems to use it. >(Presumably vi and more are both termcap versions on the UNIX PC.) This is true on mine as well, but since I compile all curses-using programs with -lcurses, they use terminfo, meaning that vi and more are the only programs on my system which reference /etc/termcap (well, there's captoinfo as well). [ ... ] > 4.0, which would have been >a full port of SVr3, including the good curses, was dropped after the >hardware was likewise given the boot. Ah... it's nice to dream about such things, though... Hey, do you suppose someone with a SVr3 source license could get AT&T to "lend out" whatever they have left over from the "4.0" project? :-) -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com ------------------------------ second message Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site portal.UUcp Path: portal!uunet!cbmvax!ditto From: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general Subject: Amiga Unix (Re: Any UNIX PC'ers going to Fall COMDEX in Vega$?) Message-ID: <5285@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 88 19:22:44 GMT Date-Received: 26 Nov 88 07:00:48 GMT References: <541@icus.islp.ny.us> <5224@cbmvax.UUCP> <427@amanue.UUCP> Reply-To: ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga Distribution: unix-pc Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 25 Keywords: Las Vegas, COMDEX, unixpc, Amiga Summary: 68020/851/881 Portal-Origin: Usenet Portal-Type: text Portal-Location: 5262.3.774.5 >In article <5224@cbmvax.UUCP> ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (that's me) wrote: >(and see Unix running on the Amiga!). In article <427@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >How are you managing this -- I thought there was no MMU on the Amiga. [ ... ] (Followups to comp.sys.amiga.) The new A2500 includes a 68020 with '881 and '851 MMU, and 32-bit RAM. It's just an A2000 with the '020 board plugged into the CPU expansion slot. The A2500 machine is supposedly available now (I don't remember the price) but no availability date or price has been announded for Unix. It's System V Release 3, and uses the same SGS (C compiler, assembler, etc.) as the Unix PC. In fact it even has the Unix PC's SIGWIND and SIGPHONE in <sys/signal.h>, but they are commented out. It's weird how much Unix PC stuff got into 68K SysVr3. -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/15/89)
In article <11403@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >In article <AYPC3By00UkKIsbIMW@andrew.cmu.edu> mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >>> virtual memory up to 4 gigabytes, >> >>Does the Mac? Are you going to upgrade your Mac to 2 MB just so you > > Tha mac already has it. A company called Connectix makes an "init" which >give any mac, 68020 w/ PMMU, or 030 8 megs of vitual memory. Sorry you >lose on that one. Yea, sure. The Connectix stuff is just a hack incompatible with a lot of software. This one is from comp.sys.mac: From: phil@vaxphw.dec.com (Wherever you go, there you are!) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Virtual 1.03 and 32-bit QD Date: 14 May 89 17:30:27 GMT Sender: guest@shlump.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation HI: I just got back from the Apple developers conf in San Jose and put the new 32-bit Quickdraw semi-INIT in my system folder. It is great and has a FULL-COLOR Multi-color ICON!!! But anyway, it is NOT compatible with the Memeory management init from Connectix called VIRTUAL. The system hangs when Virtual turns on.... --------- Enjoy your Virtual Memory hang ups :-) -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (05/16/89)
In article <18037@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > For starters, there are the thousands of programs written before > multi-finder that don't know how to multitask. This problem will The number of such programs is very small, since any reasonable program will automatically make the right calls to yield the CPU. Larry
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/16/89)
in article <751@boing.UUCP>, dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) says: > In article <6834@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >>in article lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) says: >>> Does an Amiga have inter-process communications, >>Of course, every real multitasking operating system has some kind of IPC. The >>whole Amiga system, from the low levels on up, is designed around things like >>messages. > This is a simple message passing mechanism that is completely > inadequate for any ipc between machines. True, it only works for interprocess communications on the same machine. Though most of the filesystem based IPCs used in systems like UNIX are completely inadequate for real-time systems. Depends on what you're building the machine to do. Which is perhaps why most operating systems are adding, if they haven't already, multiple forms of IPC. >>>built-in e-mail features, >>No more built-in than UNIX. I know several folks who are using UUCP mail quite >>happily, TODAY. > This is not true, electronic mail comes standard on nearly every unix > distribution tape that I know of. It does not come on the WB1.3 set of > disks the last I checked. True, UNIX does come with electronic mail programs. My point was that there's nothing truely magical about E-Mail, it doesn't have to have any magic hooks in the operating system in order to work; it's just an application program like any other. Virtually every UNIX distribution tape I've heard of also comes with a C compiler, and WB1.3 doesn't have that program either. Which has nothing at all to do with how well the OS will support a C compiler. At this point, I think it would be a real mistake to use any "new and improved" form of E-mail; the UUCP stuff links us world-wide on any kind of machine, which seems to me the main point of E-mail. Incidently, just about no one I know of uses the AT&T System V mail programs under System V, they all use Berkeley mail. > Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. > {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (05/16/89)
From article <17183@usc.edu>, by papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa): > Apple can try to fool end-users into thinking that > MultiFinder provides multitasking, but I don't think anybody on Usenet > will ever believe that. If you do, may I suggest you pick up ANY Operating > Systems book. It might be very educational. May I be so bold as to suggest Harvey Deitel's "An Introduction to Operating Systems" Revised First Edition for a discussion of preemptive vs. nonpreemptive scheduling. This is a very popular operating systems text used to teach thousands of computer scientists every year. If Dr. Deitel has no problem with this issue, I see no reason why I should. BTW, I plead with all intelligent computerists to cease to use the term "TRUE MULTITASKING". If by "true multitasking" you mean multitasking with preemptive job scheduling (or preemptive multitasking) by all means say this. I'm convinced that the phrase "true multitasking" was invented by a computer-illiterate computer-journalist who didn't know how to effectively contrast preemptive and nonpreemptive scheduling. A system is either multitasking or it is not, there is no reason to qualify it with extra adjectives. Geesh... next thing you know we'll have "kinda sorta multitasking", "really true multitasking", "truly true multitasking", ad. nausea. (Next week, I'll tell you why I find the phrase "look and feel" equally repulsive :-) (BTW, if "true multitasking" is an illusion of multiprocessing, is "false multitasking" an illusion of "true multitasking" an illusion of multiprocessing?) > -- Marco Papa 'Doc' > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu > "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences UUCP: {cbosgd, rutgers} 219 Mathematical Sciences Building !okstate!norman Stillwater, OK 74078-0599
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (05/16/89)
In article <15786@gryphon.COM>, harrye@pnet02.cts.com (Harry Evangelou) writes: > In article <27045@pnet02.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) > many programs broke with the release of 6.0. I predict even a worst case > scenario with 7.0 (the bug free one, probably 3 years from now). Apple is is wisely hedging its bets by keeping A/UX in the vnaguard. If the system 7.0 turns out to be a dud, A/UX with the x.11 interface, or open look will be standing by. That would also, of course, be dependent on the rest of the world starting up a romance with Unix. For the moment, the most optimistic market forecast (Bernstein & Co.) gives Unix a ~39% market share by 1992. Dataquest is much more pesimistic, predicting slightly less than 5% of the market for Unix, with about 42% going to os/2. Reference: pg 23, PC Week, May 15, 1989, vol 6, no 19. Bill wtm@impulse.UUCP
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (05/17/89)
In article <1637@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: >In article <15786@gryphon.COM>, harrye@pnet02.cts.com (Harry Evangelou) writes: >> In article <27045@pnet02.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) >> many programs broke with the release of 6.0. I predict even a worst case >> scenario with 7.0 (the bug free one, probably 3 years from now). I did not write the above statement as it might appear that I did. Please be more careful when editing a posting. I got a lot of mail once when someone mis-edited a posting in a similar fashion. Otherwise I'd let it go. Thankyou -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be? | |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
hue@netcom.UUCP (Jonathan Hue) (05/17/89)
In article <751@boing.UUCP>, dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes: > > This is a simple message passing mechanism that is completely > inadequate for any ipc between machines. For this a bidirectional byte > stream is needed that does not rely ptrs to buffers. The data itself must > be passed. So if you are interested in networks with this amiga ipc you need > to forget amiga Messages. Mach allows you to pass messages over a network. If you don't specify inline data in the message header, the receiver gets a pointer to it rather than the data. Until the message is actually touched by the recipient (which will generate a page fault), the data is not copied from the sending machine. This fits in with Mach's philosophy of supporting large, sparse address spaces. Mach message passing is not a bidirectional byte stream, though with inline data you can make it behave like one. IMHO, Mach message passing is superior to BSD sockets. If you haven't looked at Mach, it might be worthwhile to see an alternative to the BSD kernel. -Jonathan
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (05/17/89)
In article <1861@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <18037@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >> For starters, there are the thousands of programs written before >> multi-finder that don't know how to multitask. This problem will > >The number of such programs is very small, since any reasonable program >will automatically make the right calls to yield the CPU. > >Larry A very early version of exec had a Yield() call. This would give up the cpu to whatever task was next in the Ready Q. I used it for cpu bound demos that I did not want to be cpu bound if there was other things going on. I think an additional style of sheduling is needed on the Amiga. Right now every process that hogs the cpu gets about 4 time slices or roughly 60msec before giving up the cpu to the next process. Just like we can adjust the process priority of a task, I would like to adjust the amount of time a cpu bound taskj gets before forcing it to yield to the next Ready Task. So not only would I lower the priority of background tasks but I would also set their max time slice to something like 1 so that anything else running at the same priority but having a larger time slice allocated to it would get more time. This is true for even foreground tasks, which all seem to run a priority 0. Being able to adjust the amount of time spent on "equal priority" tasks would improve the responsiveness of the Amiga. Possible even add a dynamic unix like schedular that would adjust the time slice of a task based on the amount of time it has already used up. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (05/18/89)
In article <4679@okstate.UUCP> norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: > BTW, I plead with all intelligent computerists to cease to use the term > "TRUE MULTITASKING". If by "true multitasking" you mean multitasking > with preemptive job scheduling (or preemptive multitasking) by all means > say this. I'm convinced that the phrase "true multitasking" was invented > by a computer-illiterate computer-journalist who didn't know how > to effectively contrast preemptive and nonpreemptive scheduling. Amen! I think that by "true multitasking" most people mean "like the mainframe system I used in college," or "like my thesis advisor said it ought to be." From the dim past, I seem to remember similar rhetoric about "real timesharing." David Casseres Exclaimer: Wow!
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (05/18/89)
In article <4679@okstate.UUCP> norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: >say this. I'm convinced that the phrase "true multitasking" was invented >by a computer-illiterate computer-journalist who didn't know how >to effectively contrast preemptive and nonpreemptive scheduling. Personally, I think the term "true multitasking" was invented the first time a programmer tried to explain to a marketing person why an interrupt driven keyboard routine didn't qualify as "multitasking", so he really shouldn't put it in the ads. :-) You know, maybe we should widen the definitions... I can see it now...Commodore had multitasking on the first PET :-) And, counting the graphics coprocessor as well as the 6502 in the keyboard, the Amiga is fully multiprocessing as well. :-) andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Do or Do Not. There is no Try." - Yoda, explaining the loop constructs in JCL (Jedi Control Language). Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
ali@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ali T. Ozer) (05/18/89)
In article <129000002@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Multitasking is nearly useless for interactive work (spreadsheet / word >processing / digital darkroom / picture editing). That's silly; haven't you ever been faced with a long computation (spreadsheet recalc, digital darkroom edge detect, etc --- a computation that might take 15+ seconds) during which time you would've wanted to go into another program a do something else without putting the first to sleep? I do that all time on the Amiga & NeXT machines. On the Mac, you can't, unless the first program has that "kludgy" (your words) mechanism for background processing. >I admit the mac needs a good background ray-tracer. There - you said it - unless someone adds that background processing to a program you want to use, you won't have the luxury of multitasking. In a multitasking environment, you wouldn't need to worry if a program was written to properly background; all programs do. Ali
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/21/89)
In article <4679@okstate.UUCP>, norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: > May I be so bold as to suggest Harvey Deitel's "An Introduction to > Operating Systems" Revised First Edition for a discussion of preemptive > vs. nonpreemptive scheduling. This is a very popular operating systems > text used to teach thousands of computer scientists every year. If > Dr. Deitel has no problem with this issue, I see no reason why I should. I've got that book, an old edition. Any book on operating systems that includes extensive discussions of CP/M (or probably MS-DOS, now) is hardly something to hold up as an authority. Could I hold up Comer's "Xenix" book as an alternative? > BTW, I plead with all intelligent computerists to cease to use the term > "TRUE MULTITASKING". If by "true multitasking" you mean multitasking > with preemptive job scheduling (or preemptive multitasking) by all means > say this. True multitasking means you can take a vanilla implementation of Emacs, compile it, and run it... without interfering with your ability to concurrently run without significant degradation, during the entire process, a regular commercial program like Photon Paint or Word Perfect. A better term would, perhaps, be transparent multitasking. Something that implies that conventional non-event-loop programs can be productively run under it. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (05/30/89)
From article <3846@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <4679@okstate.UUCP>, norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: >> May I be so bold as to suggest Harvey Deitel's "An Introduction to >> Operating Systems" Revised First Edition ... > > I've got that book, an old edition. Any book on operating systems that > includes extensive discussions of CP/M (or probably MS-DOS, now) is > hardly something to hold up as an authority. > > Could I hold up Comer's "Xenix" book as an alternative? That's a pretty cheap shot at Deital's book Peter. Yes, it contains a case study of CP/M (in addition to case studies of UNIX, VMS, and IBM's MVS and VM operating systems). But this does not detract from the execellence of the preceeding 500 pages of operating systems theory. BTW, Comer's book is on XINU... not Xenix. And I found his book a little short on operating systems theory, although it is an execellent discussion of the XINU system and I highly recommend it to those who are interested in wading around in the actual source for an operating system. >> BTW, I plead with all intelligent computerists to cease to use the term >> "TRUE MULTITASKING". If by "true multitasking" you mean multitasking >> with preemptive job scheduling (or preemptive multitasking) by all means >> say this. > > True multitasking means you can take a vanilla implementation of Emacs, compile > it, and run it... without interfering with your ability to concurrently run > without significant degradation, during the entire process, a regular > commercial program like Photon Paint or Word Perfect. > > A better term would, perhaps, be transparent multitasking. Something that > implies that conventional non-event-loop programs can be productively run > under it. No No No! A better term is the one used for the past 15 or 20 years... 'Multitasking with Preemptive Task Scheduling' or 'Preemptive Multitasking'. Transparent multitasking is still ambiguous: Is it transparent to the programmer, program, or user? People could see the term and still not know that you were speaking of a preemptive system. Ah *ell, call it whatever you want... I'm weary of my little crusade. > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' > ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U` +Norm -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences UUCP: {cbosgd, rutgers} 219 Mathematical Sciences Building !okstate!norman Stillwater, OK 74078-0599
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/31/89)
[I claim that Deitel isn't such a great authority on operating systems because one of his main examples is CP/M] In article <4704@okstate.UUCP>, norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: > That's a pretty cheap shot at Deital's book Peter. I don't know about that. I couldn't see any constructive reason for including CP/M. If Deitel considers CP/M sufficiently interesting as an operating system to include it is one of his 6 major examples, his definition of an operating system leaves something to be desired. CP/M is little more than a program loader. Since that's precisely what you're using his book as a source for, I think it's entirely relevant to this discussion. [I make a typo, and bring up Comer's XINU book ] In article <4704@okstate.UUCP>, norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: > BTW, Comer's book is on XINU... not Xenix. You're right. I hate it when my brain gets ahead of my fingers and I make a fool of myself. Still, the description of what a modern operating system is composed of in the preface (memory manager, scheduler, file system, etc...) is one of the most concise descriptions I've run across. [I suggest transparent multitasking as a better term than 'real' multitasking] In article <4704@okstate.UUCP>, norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: > No No No! A better term is the one used for the past 15 or 20 years... > 'Multitasking with Preemptive Task Scheduling' or 'Preemptive Multitasking'. Since pre-emptive multitasking is not necessary for transparency (see, as a counter example, the Polyforth development system of the mid-70s) I don't think that's a better term. > Transparent multitasking is still ambiguous: Is it transparent to the > programmer, program, or user? Yes. Yes. Yes. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (06/01/89)
In article <3895@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I don't know about that. I couldn't see any constructive reason for >including CP/M. If Deitel considers CP/M sufficiently interesting as >an operating system to include it is one of his 6 major examples, his >definition of an operating system leaves something to be desired. Simply on the grounds of the number of machines in the world that have run CP/M, any operating system text that fails to include it and attempts to survey is not doing the job. CP/M is not fancy, but it served 10's of thousands of people very well for a long time, including some multitasking versions. Let's cool down a bit... Jon
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (06/01/89)
In article <9621@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: #>In article <3895@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: #>>I don't know about that. I couldn't see any constructive reason for #>>including CP/M. If Deitel considers CP/M sufficiently interesting as #>>an operating system to include it is one of his 6 major examples, his #>>definition of an operating system leaves something to be desired. #> #>Simply on the grounds of the number of machines in the world that have #>run CP/M, any operating system text that fails to include it and #>attempts to survey is not doing the job. CP/M is not fancy, but it #>served 10's of thousands of people very well for a long time, #>including some multitasking versions. #> #>Let's cool down a bit... #> #>Jon I've still got access to four CP/M machines (2 Kaypros, a Molecular, and a modified Radio Shack), including the Kaypro 2 on my desk at home. Admittedly, they are obsolete, but they still do what I need them for until I break down and spend $2K or so to get a Mac system to go with my Mac II at work. So it's hardly accurate to use the past tense with CP/M. Steve Goldfield