thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) (08/04/89)
In article <577@studsys.mu.edu> stevej@studsys.mu.edu (jovanovic) writes: >Dear Apple, ...various apple bashings... >First, let's talk about multitasking. I tend to agree with many of the points in this posting. Apple should have REAL multitasking. I think amigas are cheesy, but even they can do some impressive multitasking. Apple needs to get it soon, too, because as we have seen with presentation manager etc. the competition isn't going to sit and wait for apple to catch up. Macs may still be slicker graphically and functionally, but the gap is closing and pretty soon the only difference between a mac and an IBM will be that the Mac is slow and non multitasking. To finish, see the interview in September's MacWorld with Edward Birss, VP for product engineering at Apple. He says something pretty scary at the end when asked if system 7.0 will have TRUE multitasking: "It depends upon what you mean by truly." (we've heard that before.) "From the user perspective, yes absolutely, because you can print in the background, download from compuserve, and type a memo, all at the same time" (that's a start, but what about caculating a long spreadsheet at the same time? LISA could do it! Come on, guys...) Referring to A/UX: "I would say that we have shown multitasking capability for both the user and for systems programming. And while it is not a traditional definition of multitasking, it is a version of multitasking well suited to our vision of personal computing." That's kind of scary...I don't think its going to suit most other people's versions in the coming years... Thomas Summerall thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
mnkonar@smallberries.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (08/05/89)
In article <14845@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) writes: >In article <577@studsys.mu.edu> stevej@studsys.mu.edu (jovanovic) writes: >>Dear Apple, >...various apple bashings... >>First, let's talk about multitasking. > >I tend to agree with many of the points in this posting. Apple should have >REAL multitasking. I think amigas are cheesy, but even they can do some >impressive multitasking. > >Apple needs to get it soon, too, because as we have seen with presentation >manager etc. the competition isn't going to sit and wait for apple to catch up. >Macs may still be slicker graphically and functionally, but the gap is closing >and pretty soon the only difference between a mac and an IBM will be that the >Mac is slow and non multitasking. I defy you as a user to sit at both a PM machine and a Mac both running modern software (in the Mac's case MF Friendly, in the PM case a PM app) and tell me which one is "truly multi-tasking" and which one isn't.and which one isn't. One thing that seems to get overlooked in these discussions of true vs. fake multi-tasking is that for the most part, it doesn't make a bit of difference if the user can't tell the difference. And I'm talking about the vast majority of users who ARE NOT programmers or harware types. Just ordinary folks mousing away. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
macgyver@banana.cis.ohio-state.edu (wilson m liaw) (08/05/89)
In article <14845@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> thomas@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Summerall) writes: [stuff deleted] >To finish, see the interview in September's MacWorld with Edward Birss, VP for >product engineering at Apple. He says something pretty scary at the end when >asked if system 7.0 will have TRUE multitasking: > >"It depends upon what you mean by truly." (we've heard that before.) >"From the user perspective, yes absolutely, because you can print in the >background, download from compuserve, and type a memo, all at the same time" >(that's a start, but what about caculating a long spreadsheet at the same >time? LISA could do it! Come on, guys...) When I read that two days ago, I remeber thinking to myself, "Great, that means Apple won't do anything about Multi-Tasking in 7.0" What Ed described can be done in every Macintosh that's running Multi-Finder. Heck, I can do it right now. Print in the background using apple supplied print monitor, download from compuserve using Microphone, and open up MS Word to write a memo. -=- Wilson Mac Liaw $ Two sure ways to tell a sexy male; Internet : macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu $ the first is, he has a bad memory. CompuServe : 71310,1653 $ I forget the second :) GEnie : W.Liaw $
t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) (08/08/89)
In article <27159@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@src.honeywell.com (Murat N. Konar) writes: >I defy you as a user to sit at both a PM machine and a Mac both running modern >software (in the Mac's case MF Friendly, in the PM case a PM app) and tell me >which one is "truly multi-tasking" and which one isn't.and which one isn't. > >One thing that seems to get overlooked in these discussions of true vs. fake >multi-tasking is that for the most part, it doesn't make a bit of difference >if the user can't tell the difference. And I'm talking about the vast majority >of users who ARE NOT programmers or harware types. Just ordinary folks mousing >away. I agree with your comments about the efficacy of multitasking where users are concerned. If they can't tell the difference then it's cool. HOWEVER - I'm not a user, dammit! Frankly, I would KILL to have an OS/2 kernel running on my Mac II. OS/2 and PM make a fantastic development platform, and the OS/2 multitasking model is a dream come true. Mac programming would, at least for me, be an order of magnitude cleaner and more convenient if the Mac OS supported threads and real IPC. I realize that I have a big ol' MICROSOFT splashed across my message header, but I am expressing my most honest opinions. I hack for fun, and as much as I love my Mac and the amazing things it can do (many of which we may never see under OS/2 and PM, if you ask me), since I started writing OS/2 and PM code I find it really hard to gear down to the Mac and the MPW or LSC environments - even under Multifinder. There is just no comparison. Again - hacker opinions on the importance of multitasking. Not user opinions. -- -- Stephen D. Poole -- t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic -- -- -- -- I'm just an Oregon Tech Software Engineering co-op at Micro- -- -- soft. Believe me, nobody here pays attention to my opinions! --
jrg@Apple.COM (John R. Galloway) (08/08/89)
In article <7270@microsoft.UUCP> t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes: >In article <27159@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@src.honeywell.com (Murat N. Konar) writes: >>I defy you as a user to sit at both a PM machine and a Mac both running modern >>software (in the Mac's case MF Friendly, in the PM case a PM app) and tell me >>which one is "truly multi-tasking" and which one isn't.and which one isn't. I agree, with one exception. When most developers think of true multi-tasking (or perhaps I should say true multi-programming) I suspect that the notion of seperate and protected addresss spaces is included. i.e. the INability of a user program to bring down the system is centeral. While USERS will never know the difference (unless they use buggy programs), developers will, and the happier develoeprs are the more user programs there will be, and the more sw available the more users there will be. So the degree with which a small number of users (develoeprs) like the multiprogramming model does have an effect on the bottom line, even though 99.99..% of users don't care. And (to lie and add another exception) users don't care how multiprogramming works but they do care that when they run some buggy programs that once in a while their system crashes rather then just that one program. This is also a bottom line, via marketing, issue since having a program crash instead of the entire system, clearly points the finger at just that one program rather than casting doubt on the entire system. (though having a program bring down your Mac is likely a very rare event, for the general user). apple!jrg John R. Galloway, Jr. contract programmer, San Jose, Ca These are my views, NOT Apple's, I am a GUEST here, not an employee!!
mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (08/08/89)
>I defy you as a user to sit at both a PM machine and a Mac both running modern >software (in the Mac's case MF Friendly, in the PM case a PM app) and tell me >which one is "truly multi-tasking" and which one isn't.and which one isn't. > >One thing that seems to get overlooked in these discussions of true vs. fake >multi-tasking is that for the most part, it doesn't make a bit of difference >if the user can't tell the difference. And I'm talking about the vast majority >of users who ARE NOT programmers or harware types. Just ordinary folks mousing >away. I don't know about PM, but I use Macs and Amigas both quite a bit. I can tell the difference (I'm a tech writer, not a programmer): - The Mac dialog boxes lock out *all* user input to tasks or windows other than the dialog box itself. What if I want to pull up the on-line documentation to help me decide what to set in the dialog? This is a BIG malfeature of Multifinder. - While printing a background job, I often have a hard time keeping control of the mouse pointer -- it's like using the mouse as a slingshot. Very annoying. - How do you set task priorities under MultiFinder; say, if you want your downloads to proceed faster while doing something else? - You need gobs of memory to do anything useful with MultiFinder. This is as much the fault of what I call "software bloat" as MultiFinder's actual memory requirements (although 500K+ is quite a bit), and this is getting just as bad on Amigas, so this isn't that much of a difference. Now I realize that MultiFinder patches an OS that wasn't designed for multitasking, but I hope Apple fixes at least the first two things in 7.0. I tend to expect more out of a computer that costs 3-4 times as much as the one at home. -- Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek : life BEGIN funds @ enough_to_retire < WHILE work REPEAT ;
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (08/09/89)
In article <21857@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@sunb.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes: ... >I don't know about PM, but I use Macs and Amigas both quite a bit. I can >tell the difference (I'm a tech writer, not a programmer): > > - The Mac dialog boxes lock out *all* user input to tasks or windows > other than the dialog box itself. What if I want to pull up the > on-line documentation to help me decide what to set in the dialog? > This is a BIG malfeature of Multifinder. This not a fault of the Mac, but of the programmer who programmed the dialog. Mac dialogs can be set up to be totally modal, as you describe, or to be modeless, i.e. just like any other window. It is more work for the programmer to write programs which use modeless dialogs, not much more work, but a little more. It is modal dialogs, not dialogs per se, which lock you out under MultiFinder, and 99% of the time, you have some lazy application programmer to thank for it. I am rather surprised at how many applications on the Mac use modal dialogs where a modeless one would do, given the degree of user frustration these things cause, and the small amount of labor saved. Earle
pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) (08/09/89)
In article <21857@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@sunb.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes: >I don't know about PM, but I use Macs and Amigas both quite a bit. I can >tell the difference (I'm a tech writer, not a programmer): >[stuff deleted] > - While printing a background job, I often have a hard time keeping > control of the mouse pointer -- it's like using the mouse as a > slingshot. Very annoying. >[remainder deleted] I agree, this is VERY annoying....interestingly enough, for those of you that remember, this did NOT happen with the early Macs and System software. I don't know whether it's because of the ADB, new ROMs, or the new System software, but I wish they'd change it back so that if the cursor position on the screen was not going to get updated IMMEDIATELY, the mouse 'movement' would just be 'discarded' (i.e., the cursor would move very slowly or not at all, rather than staying in one place and then all of a sudden jumping halfway across the screen). Just my opinion. M. A. Pasek Switching Software Development NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-7668 CNG Development 2700 N. Snelling Ave. pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM Roseville, MN 55113
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (08/10/89)
pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (M. A. Pasek) writes: >I wish they'd change it back so that if the cursor position on the screen was >not going to get updated IMMEDIATELY, the mouse 'movement' would just be >'discarded' (i.e., the cursor would move very slowly or not at all, rather than >staying in one place and then all of a sudden jumping halfway across the >screen). Just my opinion. FYIO: Description of why the new mice jump into postions.... The old mice used to have no brain's what so ever, so the pointer only moved when the computer had time to pay attention to it. It is my understanding that the new ADB mice kinda "know" when the last time the computer asked for a postion, and they "keep" all of the movements since the last query. So when you move the mouse and the Mac doesn't have time to look at it the ADB mouse keeps on adding movement until the mac asks it for the new postion, then when the mac finally gets around to talking to the mouse it realizes the mouse has moved quite a distance and updates the screen to reflect that, the mouse "jumps" into the new postions. I don't like it either, but I hear you get used to it. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | God doesn't know, he would have never designed it like that in the first | |_ place. ____________________________________________________________________|
bayes@hpislx.HP.COM (Scott Bayes) (08/15/89)
> EVERY system can behave in ways that some users might not like all the time. > EVERY system is a compromise between myriad design constraints. > Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce Point of fact: I am using an HP330 with only (!) 4MB RAM, running version 6.5 of HP-UX with X11. I just came back from a reboot. I had started a terminal process to an HP3000, and immediately afterward, triggered an X client to read the mail. After 10 minutes of waiting, I rebooted, as EVERYTHING was locked. Deadly Embrace with the LAN (I'm running discless over LAN)?? This in a "true multitasking" system. Don't try this one at home, kids. These are trained apologists for the way things _should_ work. Scott Bayes Oxymoron: "true multitasking" (quotes Copyright Claris Corp.)
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (08/15/89)
In article <21857@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@sunb.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes: > > - The Mac dialog boxes lock out *all* user input to tasks or windows > other than the dialog box itself. What if I want to pull up the > on-line documentation to help me decide what to set in the dialog? > This is a BIG malfeature of Multifinder. Dialogs are controlled by the program, not MultiFinder, if a programmer wanted to allow you access to other functions of the program while a dialog was open, it could probably be done, though it may not be easy. > - While printing a background job, I often have a hard time keeping > control of the mouse pointer -- it's like using the mouse as a > slingshot. Very annoying. The problem is disk access in the background, unless Apple includes DMA for SCSI in the future, mouse motions will always be jerky in some operations. > > - You need gobs of memory to do anything useful with MultiFinder. > This is as much the fault of what I call "software bloat" as > MultiFinder's actual memory requirements (although 500K+ is quite > a bit), and this is getting just as bad on Amigas, so this isn't > that much of a difference. Almost every platform is starving for memory with a variety of applications that are coming out now. And these programs are usually significantly more feature laden and powerful the before too....so this just is not a Multifinder problem by a long shot. Some programs want more than 1 meg whether MultiFinder is running or not. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM