hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (01/02/89)
In article <2590@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: #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 Not all that time is spent running the screen or waiting for a response That is the definition of interactive. I DO still like macs, though. #> 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. "*slower*... Despite.... 5x faster CPU... (with) optimized graph. libaries." #-- #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. Allright NOW!!! I have heard so many complaints about the latest splurging of companies to stuff everything into their systems. I have also heard a good degree of why-do-we-need-all-this-stuff-I-don't-use from programmers. I am a minimalist and DO find these 300+K operating systems to be obese and obscenely rediculous compared to what they could be. - Where is the system spending its time. All in compatibility code? All in socket-connecting code? All in filling-out-system-forms code? Which of this stuff could be done better, is duplicated? - WHAT THE #@$@@ makes these systems so blarking HUGE given the libs? Actually that makes some sense but moreso what makes their appications so bleeding big? Where do *they* get their size/delays? [Is all this simply because they're using C? and not assembly?] I have posted some of the same opinions and got countered with someone pledging that -If we all just stay nice and compatible the Mhz fairy will save us all. Now use your operating systems. Good programmers.- (Quite anonymous flames intended.) I am getting tired of <OOH all big me now, I know> the stuffing of mainframe- stolen source into these machines without so little a care for usefulness. I believe this scourge has all but consumed the mac's original good looks. My personal way out is versitile parallelism <a single background processor>. I even plead this as an idea for the sagging Apple // line to said response. Can anyone tell me why this model hasn't fallen under its own weight? Are we addicted to Megs now? Will it ever end <gasp>? I think we must stop asking for more Mhz and branch off into non-chip-quality-limited architectures. We will someday stop getting little Mhz presents <after GaAs though> under our design trees. Answers for the weak in patience. #### C>H> #####