gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (01/24/90)
Mitchell, after talking to you through email, I thinkit is pretty clear you are ignorant of the way the macintosh is designed. I wish you'd go back to reading comp.sys.amiga. The base note is very insightful -- it is exactly what I have said to others on many occasions. The macintosh is an interactive computer. The purpose of an interactive machine is to interact with the user in better ways, not to spend time trying to do a zillion things behind that person's back. Multifinder is an unqualified success in that respect. People criticize Apple for not adding multitasking to multifinder, but Apple understands that the development effort is better spent enhancing the interactive portions (sound, color, postscript), than enhancing the lives of applications programmers (who already have the tools they need to write some of the best editors on any computer ever invented). If you want to do background number crunching, or run batch JCL languages, by all means, buy an IBM mainframe (or an amiga) and enjoy. One nice thing about the macintosh is that the single-processing aspect eliminates the race conditions that crop up frequently in many multitasking windowing environments. I've seen people mouse-down on an object right before a background task takes it off the screen, leaving them with their finger on the detonator of a time bomb. This sort of thing cannot happen in a macintosh program.
jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Joseph M. Piazza) (02/22/90)
I need to clean-up some misinformation. In article <126900151@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Mitchell, after talking to you through email, I thinkit is pretty >clear you are ignorant of the way the macintosh is designed. I wish >you'd go back to reading comp.sys.amiga. For those who may not be aware of it, Amiga users tend to be even more fanatical than Mac users. :-> Well, I think we can all agree that at its beginning the Mac wasn't designed to multitask. The Lisa 2? yes. Amiga? yes. Mac? No. >... The macintosh is an interactive computer. >The purpose of an interactive machine is to interact with the user in >better ways, not to spend time trying to do a zillion things behind >that person's back. >Multifinder is an unqualified success in that respect. Nonsense. I've discovered that I can't trust downloading a number of files while doing too much of anything else -- it's too easy for some of those files to get trashed. And forget about doing anything else but wait when formating a disk. The Multifinder is great for task switching as well as running some concurrent tasks but hardly an "unqualified success," ... >People criticize Apple for not adding multitasking to multifinder, ... because if it was, nobody would be complaining. "Oh, please Mr. Apple! Don't make my Macie multitask! It's soooo horrible! It's too scary for me!" It's incredible that so many people who love their own machines that multitask "to a lesser degree" post articles that dismiss the importance and usefulness of multitasking "to a greater degree" on other machines. And then there are those that even go beyond that: >but Apple understands that the development effort is >better spent enhancing the interactive portions (sound, color, >postscript), than enhancing the lives of applications programmers I'm sure all Mac developers would be thrilled to learn about this. >One nice thing about the macintosh is that the single-processing >aspect eliminates the race conditions that crop up frequently in many >multitasking windowing environments. Yeah, just like a Mac doesn't need color because there are some color blind people out there. Or maybe we should spare millions of people from unnecessary exposure to CRT radiation by using punch cards. Sheesh, get a life. Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie:jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (02/22/90)
In article <18121@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: > Well, I think we can all agree that at its beginning the Mac wasn't > designed to multitask. The Lisa 2? yes. Amiga? yes. Mac? No. The part about being designed for multitasking is certainly true. It is interesting, however, that you agree that the Lisa O/S was multitasking, yet it used cooperative multitasking just like the Macintosh. The only differences were that the Lisa had protected address spaces, and the number of system call which resulted in the system yielding the CPU was larger. > The Multifinder is great for task switching as well as running some > concurrent tasks but hardly an "unqualified success," ... It sort of depends on what your definition of success is, but consider that there are more applications multitasking under MultiFinder than under the Amiga O/S. So MultiFinder is a success in that it provides multitasking without sacrificing the majority of the installed base of applications. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Joseph M. Piazza) (02/24/90)
In article <6840@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <18121@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU >(Joseph M. Piazza) writes: > >> Well, I think we can all agree that at its beginning the Mac >>wasn't designed to multitask. The Lisa 2? yes. Amiga? yes. Mac? No. > >The part about being designed for multitasking is certainly true. Agreed; I was refuting the previous poster's claim (who left no name) who also was partaking in some Amiga bashing. >It is interesting, however, that you agree that the Lisa O/S was >multitasking, yet it used cooperative multitasking just like the >Macintosh. The only differences were that the Lisa had protected address >spaces, and the number of system call which resulted in the system >yielding the CPU was larger. I agree that Multifinder multitasks. I also agree that Multifinder multitasks effectively, though not as effectively as I would like it to, such as preemptive multitasking used by the the Amiga. It's the problems I've had with Multifinder's downloading in the background and formating disks that irk me the most. I like that term: "Cooperative Multitasking." I included the Lisa 2 because I started using one in 1985? (time flies!), so from experience I know that it multitasked. I know it had some hardware protection though I wasn't sure of the extent of its nature. Did the original Lisa do this also? I'd like to point out that when I first worked with a Mac I was very confused because it wasn't behaving like the Lisa at all. By the way, we used the Lisa running MacWorks for another year or so before trading it in for a Mac+. We made the switch to MacWorks since the only way to use our LaserWriter (no pluses then) was with Mac software. >> The Multifinder is great for task switching as well as running some >> concurrent tasks but hardly an "unqualified success," ... > >It sort of depends on what your definition of success is, but consider >that there are more applications multitasking under MultiFinder than under >the Amiga O/S. So MultiFinder is a success in that it provides >multitasking without sacrificing the majority of the installed base of >applications. I agree strongly. Aside from the multitasking, the Mac has proven to be an excellent design. In particular, bringing it to it's current level of capabilities while maintaining compatibility is a major achievement. Our mr. no-name also claimed Multifinder's success as "unqualified." Successful? Yes, but, hey, I just "qualified" it. :-> Flip side, joe piazza --- "Where's my other sock?" A. Einstein CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie: jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu >Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F Vita) (02/27/90)
In article <18243@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: >In article <6840@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >>It sort of depends on what your definition of success is, but consider >>that there are more applications multitasking under MultiFinder than under >>the Amiga O/S. So MultiFinder is a success in that it provides >>multitasking without sacrificing the majority of the installed base of >>applications. > > I agree strongly. Aside from the multitasking, the Mac has proven >to be an excellent design. In particular, bringing it to it's current >level of capabilities while maintaining compatibility is a major achievement. Indeed. At the Macworld Expo in Boston last August, Randy Battat from Apple performed a neat little stunt that really drove this point home. He had a Mac IIcx running System 6.0.3, and stuck in a 400K floppy containing a vintage (circa 1984) copy of Microsoft Multiplan. He did a Get Info to show that the creation date was sometime in early 1984. Then he double-clicked on it, and... IT RAN. I was impressed. Just think, back when Multiplan was written, all Macintoshes had: - an 8-MHz 68000 - a 9-inch black-and-white display - 128K of RAM - 64K of ROM - no concept of a hard drive - no hierarchical file system - no MultiFinder Granted, he may have had to dig around a bit to find an application that would run, but nevertheless, it was pretty nifty to see that Apple's latest (at the time) 68030-based hardware, running an OS that had gone through several major revisions, could still run a 5-year old application out of the box. Perhaps most surprising of all was that the program was a Microsoft application :-). (Though I suppose Multiplan was written back in the days when Microsoft was really doing Mac development, as opposed to now, when all their code is bastardized so it will run under Windows, OS/2, and other such bogosities...) -- Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (02/27/90)
In article <18243@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jmpiazza@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: > flies!), so from experience I know that it multitasked. I know it had some > hardware protection though I wasn't sure of the extent of its nature. The Lisa had a custom MMU which provide protection between processes. > Did the original Lisa do this also? Yes. The main difference between the original Lisa and the Lisa 2 was the floppy disk drives. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1