gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/30/88)
Please add this to your list of Ten Best/Worst
Best: The macintosh multifinder (delivered in late '87 / early '88).
This piece of software demonstrated that a big kluge can be immensely
useful. Even though people complain it's not "true" multitasking,
that doesn't matter, because the Mac is an interactive machine, not a
database/number cruncher. It turns out that for non-crunching tasks,
multifinder does about 90% of what you need in a multitasking PC.
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesbader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (12/31/88)
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Please add this to your list of Ten Best/Worst > > Best: The macintosh multifinder (delivered in late '87 / early '88). > This piece of software demonstrated that a big kluge can be immensely > useful. Even though people complain it's not "true" multitasking, > that doesn't matter, because the Mac is an interactive machine, not a > database/number cruncher. It turns out that for non-crunching tasks, > multifinder does about 90% of what you need in a multitasking PC. You have got to be kidding
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/01/89)
In article <79700018@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Best: The macintosh multifinder (delivered in late '87 / early '88). > This piece of software demonstrated that a big kluge can be immensely > useful. Even though people complain it's not "true" multitasking, > that doesn't matter, because the Mac is an interactive machine, not a > database/number cruncher. It turns out that for non-crunching tasks, > multifinder does about 90% of what you need in a multitasking PC. That last 10%, apparently, turns out to be 90% of what I use multitasking for. And of course Multifinder chews up so much of the CPU that a Mac-II running Multifinder seems way slower than an Amiga running Intuition, or an AT&T 7300 running User Agent, or an HP Integral running HP-UX. Despite the 5x faster CPU and the presence of the Mac Toolbox, one of the most heavily optimised graphics libraries available. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (01/06/89)
/* Written by bader+@andrew.cmu.edu in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.misc */ > gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Best: The macintosh multifinder (delivered in late '87 / early '88). > This piece of software demonstrated that a big kluge can be immensely > useful. Even though people complain it's not "true" multitasking, > that doesn't matter, because the Mac is an interactive machine, not a > database/number cruncher. It turns out that for non-crunching tasks, > multifinder does about 90% of what you need in a multitasking PC. > >You have got to be kidding /* End of text from p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.misc */ /* Written by peter@ficc.uu.net in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.misc */ > >That last 10%, apparently, turns out to be 90% of what I use multitasking >for. And of course Multifinder chews up so much of the CPU that a Mac-II >running Multifinder seems way slower than an Amiga running Intuition, or >an AT&T 7300 running User Agent, or an HP Integral running HP-UX. Despite >the 5x faster CPU and the presence of the Mac Toolbox, one of the most >heavily optimised graphics libraries available. Read my lips: I said "for interactive tasks", e.g. editing pictures, typing in WYSWYG documents, etc. Just what the Mac does best. Not programming / number crunching / running databases, etc. You complain that it doesn't do what you want. Well, tough, use another computer. I suspect you already do, hence the cynicism. Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies