seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (05/28/90)
(Note the followup...) In article <26200.265dd7be@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >Gee, that's cute. >But according to your definitions, there is no such thing as an "operating >system" on any computer ever made... after all, they're just a bunch of >programs that talk to each other, right? >And UNIX even more so... since most UNIX users I know tend to treat commands >as programs... :) No. They are a bunch of programs that talk to the kernel far more often than they talk to themselves (generally). Also, please read the article again. He said "procedures," not programs. Yes, Virginia, there *is* a difference. Most people consider that a *true* OS has protection of some sort; that is, some way of making sure that programs don't step on each other and can live in peace and harmony. (Sometimes, this is done just to make sure that the program doesn't step on the OS, true, but it's still nice to be there 8-).) Ask yourself this: using your "OS," following all of the rules, is it possible to write a program that will lock up the machine? On the Mac, I think it is, under MSDOS it certainly is. On the Amiga, I don't think it is, because the rules they laid down were oriented towards multitasking instead of rapid screen update. Yet the Amiga doesn't have an MMU, just like the Mac. Which one has the OS, then? >So- for your next trick, are you going to prove black is white, or that >1 + 1 = 3? No, the next trick would be to make sure that people take an OS course before defining what an OS is. That's going to be very, very hard, though, I think. >[Written with more than a little tongue in cheek... the Mac OS is more of >an operating "system" than most, since it *does* have a fairly firm set of >rules, as opposed to most machines, which have few outside of the coding of >the ROMS and the CPU...] Huh? The Mac, last time I checked, had a lot of routines a programmer could use, some of which were in ROM, others in RAM, but not much else. I have never, for example, seen something that said "do not modify the Status Register" (N.B.: It's been a while, I'll admit, and I may have missed it. If so, I'd be glad to hear about it). -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (05/29/90)
In article <6392@scolex.sco.COM>, seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > > Most people consider that a *true* OS has protection of some sort; that is, > some way of making sure that programs don't step on each other and can live > in peace and harmony. (Sometimes, this is done just to make sure that the > program doesn't step on the OS, true, but it's still nice to be there 8-).) > No- most people consider that a *true* OS lets the machine run, access its peripherals, and not mess on the carpet... :) You're running into the "computer science" viewpoint... 'the ideal system is whatever you happen to like...' ...up until a few years ago, small computers didn't have to sweat protected modes. People were happy to run any programs they wanted without having to submit a job to the queue, and you didn't *need* multitaksing- it was for those multimillion dollar "big iron" mainframes... ;-) > Ask yourself this: using your "OS," following all of the rules, is it > possible to write a program that will lock up the machine? On the Mac, I > think it is, under MSDOS it certainly is. On the Amiga, I don't think it > is, because the rules they laid down were oriented towards multitasking > instead of rapid screen update. Yet the Amiga doesn't have an MMU, just > like the Mac. Which one has the OS, then? Yes, it is- sorta. But it's also possible to lock up any machine under those conditions... [P.S.- Not all Macs have MMUs... As a matter of fact, most don't.] > >>So- for your next trick, are you going to prove black is white, or that >>1 + 1 = 3? > > No, the next trick would be to make sure that people take an OS course > before defining what an OS is. That's going to be very, very hard, though, > I think. > No- the hard part is keeping people from redefining what an operating system is- in defiance of what everybody else calls it... Just because they tell you something in class, it doesn't automatically make it true... The Mac is *not* a top-notch multitasking operating system- but it *is* an operating system. >>[Written with more than a little tongue in cheek... the Mac OS is more of >>an operating "system" than most, since it *does* have a fairly firm set of >>rules, as opposed to most machines, which have few outside of the coding of >>the ROMS and the CPU...] > > Huh? The Mac, last time I checked, had a lot of routines a programmer could > use, some of which were in ROM, others in RAM, but not much else. I have > never, for example, seen something that said "do not modify the Status > Register" (N.B.: It's been a while, I'll admit, and I may have missed it. > If so, I'd be glad to hear about it). > And piles upon piles of manuals on the Mac OS... which makes it hard for a person to know them all. The strongest part of an operating system is the framework it provides for the user and programmer. But if you *really* follow all of the rules in all of your programs, they won't crash. But humans aren't smart enough to do that... :) > -- > -----------------+ > Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented > seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (05/29/90)
In article <6392@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: >In article <26200.265dd7be@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >>But according to your definitions, there is no such thing as an "operating >>system" on any computer ever made... after all, they're just a bunch of >>programs that talk to each other, right? >Also, please read the article again. He said "procedures," not programs. >Yes, Virginia, there *is* a difference. What's the big difference between a program and a procedure? Programs are just procedures that happen to be called in response to certain types of user input. >Most people consider that a *true* OS has protection of some sort; There sure is alot of misconception about what an OS is. An OS is a set of procedures that make it easier for application programs to use the hardware. This frequently includes a file system, memory management, and device drivers. Multitasking is also a common feature. In multiuser systems it's usually important to make sure that the multitasking and file system implement the desired policies; in this case the OS must be protected in order to protect the users from each other. On single-user systems it's useful to protect applications and the OS from each other for reliability, but it's not as critical as it is on multiuser systems, and there are often benefits from allowing applications to manipulate the OS and each other directly. > that is, >some way of making sure that programs don't step on each other and can live >in peace and harmony. (Sometimes, this is done just to make sure that the >program doesn't step on the OS, true, but it's still nice to be there 8-).) There's a fine line between "step on" and "work with". It's like dancing: would you outlaw close dancing just because sometimes toes get stepped on? >Ask yourself this: using your "OS," following all of the rules, is it >possible to write a program that will lock up the machine? Most "true" OSes (to use your term) provide ways to set the priority of each process, and there is usually a high priority setting that specifies that the process should be allowed to run whenever it needs to. So, all you have to do is write a program that gives itself this priority and then goes into an infinite loop. On multiuser systems you might need privilege to run such a program, but on single-user systems there generally is no such thing as privilege. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
als@bohra.cpg.oz (Anthony Shipman) (05/29/90)
In article <6392@scolex.sco.COM>, seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > Most people consider that a *true* OS has protection of some sort; that is, > some way of making sure that programs don't step on each other and can live > in peace and harmony. (Sometimes, this is done just to make sure that the > program doesn't step on the OS, true, but it's still nice to be there 8-).) > > Ask yourself this: using your "OS," following all of the rules, is it > possible to write a program that will lock up the machine? On the Mac, I ^^^^ bugs notwithstanding?? > No, the next trick would be to make sure that people take an OS course > before defining what an OS is. That's going to be very, very hard, though, > I think. What sort of OS? A "time-sharing" OS is supposed to create the illusion of one virtual machine as the programmer's model. Therefore memory protection, relocation, multi-tasking etc will be required. I can generate subgoals for defining: 1 single user (multi-tasking) 2 multi-user (multi-tasking) 3 time-sharing You could define OS to cover any or all of the above. The Mac is certainly not 3 nor 2. It could be 1 depending on how you define OS. I suspect that what passed for an OS in the machines of the 50s was a set of I/O etc. routines which loaded programs and called them as subroutines, like the Mac. I would vote the Mac's system software as an OS, albeit primitive in style. -- Anthony Shipman ACSnet: als@bohra.cpg.oz.au Computer Power Group 9th Flr, 616 St. Kilda Rd., St. Kilda, Melbourne, Australia D
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (05/30/90)
3.ferranti.com> Followup-To: .ferranti.com> Lines: 48 In article <M0T363F@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <36860@think.Think.COM> > barmar@nugodot.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >> There sure is alot of misconception about what an OS is. An OS is a set of >> procedures that make it easier for application programs to use the >> hardware. > > This is a definition of an operating system that is so watered down as to > be meaningless. To me, an operating system is a resource manager: it > allocates resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, devices, and so > on to various user agents (i.e. programs). An adequate operating system > should manage at least the major resources: disk space, memory, CPU time, > and I/O devices. The Macintosh system software does not, at this point in > time, manage CPU time in anything like an adequate manner. It has a weird > memory manager, an excellent I/O manager, and a competant if hairy disk > space manager. But without a scheduler it's just another DOS. > -- Let's turn this around- UNIX has most of those :-), but it has a *lousy* user interface. To most folks, the interface controls the amount of work you can get out of a computer. They don't want to spend six months learning how to get the thing to print a directory... Someone (with a :) or two) might say that UNIX isn't an OS- it's just a programming language with a Napoleon complex... And if an adequate operating system is supposed to "manage" disk space, why does UNIX take up so much of it? Here's some more smileys to make the point... :) :) ;) :-) :P You're doing the same thing- "If it doesn't act like MY machine, it's not a *real* OS..." Instead of trying to rewrite the definition of "OS," why not see what people think an OS is? The average computer user isn't going to buy your argument. [To be honest, it's starting to sound like those "A Mac isn't a _real_ computer" gripes from a few years back...] C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax "Oh, yeah? Well, I suppose you think because you're big and tough you can just walk in here and [thud]..."
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (05/30/90)
[On another note...] "A computer operating system is like an elephant..." (Blind man feels trunk) "It's like UNIX... It's got a pipe..." (feels under elephant) "It's like the Mac OS... it's got a mouse... *wait- that's not a mouse...*" Headline: BLIND MAN KILLED BY ELEPHANT et cetera... C Irby
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/30/90)
In article <36860@think.Think.COM> barmar@nugodot.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: > There sure is alot of misconception about what an OS is. An OS is a set of > procedures that make it easier for application programs to use the > hardware. This is a definition of an operating system that is so watered down as to be meaningless. To me, an operating system is a resource manager: it allocates resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, devices, and so on to various user agents (i.e. programs). An adequate operating system should manage at least the major resources: disk space, memory, CPU time, and I/O devices. The Macintosh system software does not, at this point in time, manage CPU time in anything like an adequate manner. It has a weird memory manager, an excellent I/O manager, and a competant if hairy disk space manager. But without a scheduler it's just another DOS. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) (05/31/90)
> Let's turn this around- > UNIX has most of those :-), but it has a *lousy* user interface. > To most folks, the interface controls the amount of work you can get out of a > computer. They don't want to spend six months learning how to get the > thing to print a directory... > Someone (with a :) or two) might say that UNIX isn't an OS- it's just a > programming language with a Napoleon complex... Many of us would call a user interface an APPLICATION, not an operating system. I guess it all depends on your point of view. From my background (large scale IBM, --- hey, we all had to start somewhere :-) ) We called the part that managed the system resources the O.S. and the part that talked to the user the application. Probably the blurring of the line is why the MAC takes some heat from lots of folks with traditional views. Windows and OS/2 have some of the same 'features' :-). Unix is capable of any variety of user interfaces, the MAC only one. :-). My question is, do we really want everything (user interface, database manager etc. )to be a part of the operating system, or do we want the freedom to pick and choose our 'applications' or even perhaps run multiple user interfaces on a single platform? This is where the traditional view helps. My vote is that the os is the part that manages the system resources and provides a standard interface to the hardware. Anything else should be an application. Course, then what do we call OS/2 Windows/ MAC?? Now if only the MAC had a decent command line shell processor ......... :-) :-). Rick.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (06/04/90)
(Note, once again, the followup line.) From: philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) > This "is the Mac OS an OS" line seems to assume that an OS _only_ defines > multitasking. Ok, how about this: a single-tasking "OS" is a true OS if a program written for it can be moved to a multi-tasking version of said OS without breaking in anyway. That is, if it worked before, it should work now. I don't believe the Mac does this properly, and that's why I think of it as a non-OS. It would be possible, I imagine, to have a "true" MacOS, that multitasked, and trapped each and every trap, decided what should be done about it, and then continued the process (for example, doing a bunch of windows on the screen by trapping screen writes, and then only showing a certain portion of the "screen" in the window). But I would, I think, consider that an emulation package, a la DOS-under-unix. (I'm not sure whether things like dereferencing NULL, which would probably be a bug [but not necessarily! The design could depend on it!], causing a fatal exception of some short should count when going single-user to multi-user.) -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai) (06/06/90)
In article <M0T363F@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >This is a definition of an operating system that is so watered down as to >be meaningless. To me, an operating system is a resource manager: it >allocates resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, devices, and so >on to various user agents (i.e. programs). An adequate operating system >should manage at least the major resources: disk space, memory, CPU time, >and I/O devices. The Macintosh system software does not, at this point in >time, manage CPU time in anything like an adequate manner. It has a weird >memory manager, an excellent I/O manager, and a competant if hairy disk >space manager. But without a scheduler it's just another DOS. I agree with your opinion in general: But as a resource manager, Mac OS is one of the best OS in the world: You can let OS draw screens instead of writing your own or link to libraries like DOS or UNIX. It even allows you to replace some of those System Resources via INITs and CDEVs, hardly possible for DOS or UNIX. Also not Mac's "Big Chunky OS" reduces application sizes for the same reasons--Applications run on less codes of its own. I was surprised small "hello world" C program made 32kbyte application on Sun. With that size you can write far more complex programs on Mac--Boomerang, one of my favorite CDEVs is almost as complex as UNIX shells yet it's only 50+k, including highly graphical help resources. So I have a question--Where do we draw the line between OS and others? For many shell is a part of OS. For some it is only Kernel. Do we include INITs and CDEVs and the like as OS? One of CDEVs allows you to work on vertual memory. Is it OS? A/UX uses Toolbox routines. Is Toolbox OS? In your sense Toolbox is not OS but A/UX is but in hieralchy Toolbox is a layer behind. ---------------- ____ __ __ + Dan The "Mac Bigot" Man ||__||__| + E-mail: dankg@ocf.berkeley.edu ____| ______ + Voice: +1 415-549-6111 | |__|__| + USnail: 1730 Laloma Berkeley, CA 94709 U.S.A |___ |__|__| + |____|____ + "What's the biggest U.S. export to Japan?" \_| | + "Bullshit. It makes the best fertilizer for their rice"
dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai) (06/06/90)
In article <880001@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes: >Many of us would call a user interface an APPLICATION, not an operating system. >I guess it all depends on your point of view. From my background (large scale >IBM, --- hey, we all had to start somewhere :-) ) We called the part that >managed the system resources the O.S. and the part that talked to the user the >application. Probably the blurring of the line is why the MAC takes some >heat from lots of folks with traditional views. Windows and OS/2 have some >of the same 'features' :-). Unix is capable of any variety of user >interfaces, the MAC only one. :-). My question is, do we really want >everything (user interface, database manager etc. )to be a part of the >operating system, or do we want the freedom to pick and choose our >'applications' or even perhaps run multiple user interfaces on a single >platform? This is where the traditional view helps. Choice! But are you going to choose bunch of Yugos and Hyndais when you have a BMW? You have more choice of crap in Xwindow/Window and Presentation Manager. I just didn't choose a crap and I'm glad. And what you call "freedom of choice" is not free--it not only takes user's money but pain. Mac OS is free for all Mac users. How much does Window cost? And Presentation Manager? You can buy a decent Plus for the price of Presentation Manager and I'd rather choose a Mac Plus. And too much freedom in such fundamentals as OS gives nothing but pain--and interface is such a precious fundamental that I think it should be integrated in OS--it's like car's cockpit. Imagine you gas pedal is on the left and you drive with joystick, not Steering wheel. I always have trouble driving in Japan but the only difference there is left and right. GUI is even more chaotic but the one of the Mac is not only the most confort- able but also consistent. Consistency counts more than freedom in case of interface. Plus also don't forget to note you can customize Mac with INITs and CDEVs, also absent from Windows, OS/2, Unix, et al. >My vote is that the os is the part that manages the system resources and >provides a standard interface to the hardware. Anything else should be >an application. Course, then what do we call OS/2 Windows/ MAC?? I agree. Then why only Apple include GUI as standard interface still? Xwindow is not standard OS. Windows and OS/2 is more like application than OS in a sense you have to buy it separately. IBM/Clone is not Windows but Mac is indeed Mac by itself and system >Now if only the MAC had a decent command line shell processor ......... :-) :-). I hate to admit I love CLI also. You can get one via MPW or A/UX but you have to pay for it: It's funny everything is upside down between Macs and others. For others, you have to pay for GUI. For Macs, you have to pay for CLI. ---------------- ____ __ __ + Dan The "Mac Bigot" Man ||__||__| + E-mail: dankg@ocf.berkeley.edu ____| ______ + Voice: +1 415-549-6111 | |__|__| + USnail: 1730 Laloma Berkeley, CA 94709 U.S.A |___ |__|__| + |____|____ + "What's the biggest U.S. export to Japan?" \_| | + "Bullshit. It makes the best fertilizer for their rice"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (06/07/90)
In article <1990Jun6.132037.8645@agate.berkeley.edu>, dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai) writes: > I agree with your opinion in general: But as a resource manager, > Mac OS is one of the best OS in the world: You can let OS draw screens > instead of writing your own or link to libraries like DOS or UNIX. Translation: the Mac O/S does a very good job of managing the "display" resource. This is true. So does the Amiga O/S, but the Amiga O/S also manages memory, devices, primary and secondary storage, and CPU time. The Mac O/S doesn't do nearly as good a job at that. > Also not Mac's "Big Chunky OS" reduces application sizes for the > same reasons--Applications run on less codes of its own. Same on the Amiga. But you don't have to write your application as if it was a device driver, being areful to explicitly give up CPU time every 1/60th of a second so the grand illusion of multitasking can continue. > So I have a question--Where do we draw the line between OS and > others? The O/S manages machine resources. The toolbox is one of these resources. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (06/07/90)
> I agree. Then why only Apple include GUI as standard interface still? I must have imagined these machines. Commodore Amiga. Atari ST. NeXT. Xerox Star/8650. The last one is interesting, since it's the machine the Mac is a very limited copy of. I first played with one in 1982, at the NCC. It's still available, 8 years later. > For others, you have to pay for GUI. For Macs, you have to pay for CLI. And on the Amiga, and the NeXT, you get both. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (06/07/90)
In article <:LZ3SIE@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >> I agree. Then why only Apple include GUI as standard interface still? > > I must have imagined these machines. > Commodore Amiga. > Atari ST. > NeXT. > Xerox Star/8650. > > The last one is interesting, since it's the machine the Mac is a very limited > copy of. I first played with one in 1982, at the NCC. It's still available, > 8 years later. The Mac is a *limited* copy of the Star? Peter- you're dreaming again... :) I saw a Star a week or two ago at the Xerox showroom. It's slow, the interface is *very* primitive, and there wasn't much else to say about it... even the Xerox people weren't proud of it. > >> For others, you have to pay for GUI. For Macs, you have to pay for CLI. > There's some nice little DA and/or INIT products out there that let you do CLI on the Mac for free (or cheap shareware), but almost nobody uses them. Programmers like CLI, but nobody else does... :) > And on the Amiga, and the NeXT, you get both. And once Amiga finishes polishing theirs, it'll be a helluva system. And once the Next sells more than 10,000 of them, someone might write some programs to run on them... :) > -- > Peter da Silva C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (06/08/90)
(Note followup again, ok?) In article <41684@apple.Apple.COM> daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > What if the user, a programmer in this case, wants to stop the compile?? Uhm, Unix handles that just fine. So did RSTS, RT11, VMS, etc. Why should an application program have to implement parts of the OS in order to be useful? >"Hey where'd you learn to shoot like that?" ... "At the 7-11." Not quite. The response was "7-11". Only. (8-)) -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
lennox@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Craig Scott Lennox) (06/08/90)
In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: > There's some nice little DA and/or INIT products out there that let you > do CLI on the Mac for free (or cheap shareware), but almost nobody uses them Oh my Gawd ... you wouldn't be talking about CLIM, would you?? I'll TELL you why nobody uses it: (a) It is very buggy (b) It takes away your mouse pointer so you can't use MultiFlounder (c) It has trouble parsing filenames with spaces in them (i.e. ALL filenames :-) ) (d) It implements a SUBSET of the (yeccchh!) MS-DOS interpreter, but is not nearly as powerful :-) (e) It's written in ZBASIC Actually, this summer, there will be a very good CLI for the Mac out. It's called MacMINIX :-) :-) :-) -- | flame me at: lennox@shire.hw.stratus.com, Craig Lennox, Stratus Computer | |"Oh boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a REALLY BIG ram disk!" | | Disclaimer: My opinions are covered by section 2b of the Gnu Public | | License and thus do not belong to Stratus Computer. |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/08/90)
In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: > The Mac is a *limited* copy of the Star? The Mac was a limited copy of the Star. The Star has a multitasking O/S, with complete file and application transparency over a network. This would have never fit into the Mac's combined 192K of RAM and ROM, so it was deliberately designed as a standalone, single-tasking subset of the Xerox 1100 and Star. > I saw a Star a week or two ago at the Xerox showroom. I saw a Star 8 years ago at a Xerox booth. It was quite zippy for the time, and certainly faster than a 68000-based Mac. It was also faster than the Lisa. > It's slow, the interface is *very* primitive, and there wasn't much else > to say about it... even the Xerox people weren't proud of it. The Mac has gained considerable horsepower in the past 4 years. The Star has pretty much stood still. The Star and the Lisa suffered from being too early in the game, and so were left by the wayside. Even so, people I know who've used the Star and the Mac extensively prefer the Star just because of the greater level of integration between apps. And the Mac system software is still not up to the Star's standard, simply because it's never recovered from that original 192K diet. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (06/09/90)
In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >> And on the Amiga, and the NeXT, you get both. >And once Amiga finishes polishing theirs, it'll be a helluva system. Uhm, I hate to tell you this, but many people (including myself) prefer the Amiga to the Mac. Why? It's faster, it has a "true OS," supports better hardware, etc. The GUI and CLI are both superior to what the Mac offers; the CLI is better than the Mac can *ever* offer (excluding A/UX). -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) (06/09/90)
In article <6567@scolex.sco.COM>, seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >>> And on the Amiga, and the NeXT, you get both. >>And once Amiga finishes polishing theirs, it'll be a helluva system. > > Uhm, I hate to tell you this, but many people (including myself) prefer the > Amiga to the Mac. Why? It's faster, it has a "true OS," supports better > hardware, etc. > > The GUI and CLI are both superior to what the Mac offers; the CLI is better > than the Mac can *ever* offer (excluding A/UX). > > -- > -----------------+ > Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented > seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." > uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ > (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'. Sorry- the GUI on the Amiga is certainly *not* superior- it's not consistent enough. It's also clumsy *looking*, and that's what I mean by "polish." I know you love the Amy a lot, but a good GUI is a lot more than being able to draw windows and menus... true, the Amiga has a CLI- but the average computer *user* (note that I didn't say "programmer") does not need a CLI for everyday tasks... Give it some time, though, and you might be right... but not right now. C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax
dankg@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Dan KoGai) (06/11/90)
In article <26637.266e6ed4@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: >There's some nice little DA and/or INIT products out there that let you >do CLI on the Mac for free (or cheap shareware), but almost nobody uses them. > >Programmers like CLI, but nobody else does... :) I tried some of those but never get used to it (but I love CLI in UNIX). One of the reasons is that you can hardly use wildcard on Mac where most filenames have nothing to do with file type and none of which I tried had such features as "list by Creator" or "list by Author". Even CLI it takes something unique for Macintosh. MPW looked nice but I don't want to type "grep "long-file-name". And none of CLI shells, with possible exceptions of A/UX, had nifty feature of csh or tcsh. Maybe tcsh is not exactly CLI because you can use curses but what I wanted was something like tcsh + mac features (creator|author sensitive). >> And on the Amiga, and the NeXT, you get both. >And once Amiga finishes polishing theirs, it'll be a helluva system. >And once the Next sells more than 10,000 of them, someone might write >some programs to run on them... :) Next was very charming machine for me. It is a true Unix machine with even better user interface (need some polishing though) of Mac. And though it's slower than Mac QD, it's still faster than Xwindow, not to mention easier to use. It can be Mac Killer if it start using 040 and color... Dan Kogai (dankg@ocf.berkeley.edu)