guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) (06/01/88)
In article <11388@apple.Apple.Com> dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >About DAs of the 70K size, written in MPW Pascal... >[...] >The party line today is to not write DAs that big: just write an >application which **does** have its own A5 World, and use MultiFinder! This is not the first time I notice that Apple has essentially given up support for machines as "small" as a Megabyte. Running MultiFinder on a 1M machine is not realistic. It doesn't work with any interesting program (Dan may read this as MPW or HyperCard, for the rest of you folks, I really mean LightspeedC :-). An unexpanded Mac+ (with HD) is just fine for for my development needs, and apparently all that my institute wants to afford for a while. I'm not asking support for 128K old ROM Macs; but surely the Mac+ (which is still sold!) deserves a better future than being made obsolete by ever-growing system files and other software. I can see two reasons for this attitude at Apple: 1) (malicious) They want to sell more Mac IIs. What would be more appropriate than to gradually make the software to big or too slow for the smaller models... 2) (naive) All programmers at Apple have Mac IIs on their desks and have forgotten about all those users who can't afford an upgrade on a one-year old machine. PS: don't tell me that using MultiFinder on a Mac+ is doable. It isn't, for any serious purpose. -- Guido van Rossum, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI), Amsterdam guido@piring.cwi.nl or mcvax!piring!guido or guido%piring.cwi.nl@uunet.uu.net
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/02/88)
>This is not the first time I notice that Apple has essentially given up >support for machines as "small" as a Megabyte. Running MultiFinder on a >1M machine is not realistic. Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) the standard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away, and the minimum memory is 2 Meg. Considering this is their official position, I don't see any problem with telling people to write applications instead of 70K DA's.... Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
dan@apple.UUCP (06/02/88)
>Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) thestandard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away,and the minimum memory is 2 Meg. >Chuq Von Rospach *** I am dumb: will somebody tell me how to quote stuff with vi ? *** Anyway, although these sentiments about Unifinder going away and 2 MB are certainly discussed, the RAM shortage still requires us to consider our mainline machines to be Mac Pluses. I am NOT aware of any official pronouncments about System Tools 7.0, let alone that it will require 2MB. We ARE moving in that direction, but slowly. Dan Allen Apple Computer
dan@apple.UUCP (06/02/88)
I mentioned previously that the "party line" was to write Apps, not DAs. I should add that I am (personally), not of this "party". I very much sympathize with the many Mac Plus owners, and yes, for development in LightSpeed C or with Turbo Pascal or with MPW, MultiFinder does not work in 1 MB. (With Turbo 1.1, MF doesn't work no matter how much RAM you have.) Yes, all of the programmer's at work DO have Mac IIs, and yes, we DO forget about the many that have Mac Pluses. But after a recent trip that I made to the University of Michigan, I realized that VERY FEW people use Mac IIs, use MultiFinder, or have more than 1 MB of RAM. I sincerely hope that Apple does NOT require the use of MultiFinder until we can be assured that everyone in the Real World has 2 MB of RAM. Alternately, we could require MultiFinder if we could get MPW and HyperCard to each run in about 500K doing everything, but that just won't happen. If you have problems with these things, WRITE PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY AT APPLE AND COMPLAIN. If you have problems with anything to do with Developement software (using MPW, 32K global limits, MPW being a memory hog, etc.), write the head of Development Software. He does not read the net, but can be reached through AppleLink at THOMAS3 or write to him at: Jim Thomas Apple Computer 20525 Mariani MS 27E Cupertino, CA 95014 Or write Jean-Louie Gassee at the same address (leave off the mail stop). They need to hear. Dan Allen Software Explorer Apple Computer
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (06/03/88)
In article <523@sering.cwi.nl> guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) writes: >I can see two reasons for this attitude at Apple: > > 1) (malicious) They want to sell more Mac IIs. What would be > more appropriate than to gradually make the software to big > or too slow for the smaller models... > > 2) (naive) All programmers at Apple have Mac IIs on their desks > and have forgotten about all those users who can't afford an > upgrade on a one-year old machine. > >PS: don't tell me that using MultiFinder on a Mac+ is doable. It isn't, >for any serious purpose. 3) (expense) Apple wants to make their stuff look good. One way to make software look good is to make it bigger, and throw more hardware at it. Another way is to make the software "better", which can be done by being more clever when you write it, having more employees whose job is to test stuff, and spending more time optimizing things. Clever programmers cost LOTS of money, so do GOOD software testers, and time, well we all know what that costs. The reasoning is probably "Look, we can do all this fancy stuff." rather than "Look at how well we can do this." Look on the bright side: Someday RAM prices will go down again (I hope). ********************************************************************* *Earle R. Horton, H.B. 8000, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 * *********************************************************************
andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) (06/03/88)
In article <55070@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) the > standard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away, and the > minimum memory is 2 Meg. I've seen this statement before, and I'm curious. How will this affect programs that fail under the current Multifinder? Is Apple going to make Multifinder as robust as the regular Finder? Or will I have to keep an old version of "Classic Finder" around to boot from when I want to run some old applications? Just wondering... -- Andrew Scott andrew@teletron.uucp - or - {att, ubc-cs, watmath, ..}!alberta!teletron!andrew
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (06/04/88)
| Essentially? They've announced that as of System Release 7.0 (this fall) the | standard finder will be Multifinder, that Unifinder is going away, and the | minimum memory is 2 Meg. | | Considering this is their official position, I don't see any problem with | telling people to write applications instead of 70K DA's.... I think they have a big problem if they have adopted such an "official position" when they can't supply the memory they are requiring users of their software to have. -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu
clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (06/04/88)
From article <11505@apple.Apple.Com>, by dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen):
> *** I am dumb: will somebody tell me how to quote stuff with vi ? ***
Dear Dan. You are not dumb at all. Most of us have news reply
software that does the indent quotes automatically.
In vi, you could try:
go to the top of the quotable. key in ma (Mark a)
go to the bottom of the quotable. key in mb (Mark b)
then, with a return after it: key in :'a,'b s/^/> /
This will do it. I tried it. In a crooked sort of way (what consistency)
it substitutes '> ' for line beginnings (regular expression is prefix ^),
without losing the line beginnings. Between and including the marks.
In ex mode (the colon).
Well, you asked. Cheers, and welcome to *nix,
Clivechuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/05/88)
>I've seen this statement before, and I'm curious. How will this affect >programs that fail under the current Multifinder? Is Apple going to make >Multifinder as robust as the regular Finder? Or will I have to keep an old >version of "Classic Finder" around to boot from when I want to run some >old applications? Well, I think a similar precedent was set between MFS and HFS. There was some compatility attempts made, but in general, it was either updated or it went away. (Or you learned to boot that program on a floopy with an old system on it). At least this time you don't have to worry about ROM incompatibilities, so it's always possible to fix it with a re-boot. A year from now, any program that isn't Multifinder compatible will be unsaleable on the marketplace. For the most part, that's already true. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/05/88)
>A year from now, any program that isn't Multifinder compatible will be >unsaleable on the marketplace. For the most part, that's already true. Damn. One clarifications BEFORE everyone yells at me on this. A major market segment where this is NOT true is games. That'll probably continue to be true for the forseeable future (many games would have trouble dealing with sharing their environment, frankly). but it's something that is going to have to be dealt with sometime. I'm already at the point where if it isn't Multifinder compatible, I don't bother because I know I won't play it -- my primary game playing time is with a 50 page document in the laserwriter spooler, which doesn't lend itself well to rebooting and playing Crystal Quest (unless, of course, the OTHER Mac isn't being used, which is rare these days....). So except for games, it has to be MF compatible. And games better start thinking about it, or System release 7.0 is going to really slap some folks in the face. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (06/05/88)
In article <11507@apple.Apple.Com> dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >Yes, all of the programmer's at work DO have Mac IIs, and yes, we DO >forget about the many that have Mac Pluses. But after a recent trip >that I made to the University of Michigan, I realized that VERY FEW >people use Mac IIs, use MultiFinder, or have more than 1 MB of RAM. Thankyou for this comment. I have a couple of friends that work at Apple and they seem to take that attitude that everyone has as nice of a configuration as they do. And it's frustrating!!! I mean these are the people defining the tools that I have to work with, and if they don't get a chance to deal with "real world" too often then they loose touch, {the thing that really bothers me is these people avoid opportunities to see the real world by claiming "they're too busy"}. Anyways it's nice to see someone at apple realizing that not every one has a Mac II, or is going to get one in near future. Keep it up!! Misc. Trivia: I used to work for a company that made a MS-Dos 80286 clone {sorry but the pay was good!!}, it used to frustrate me that these people never bothered to consider how many XT clones are still out there, and they refused to believe that they wouldn't be upgraded, the 80286 is sooo much better they used to say, how could anyone stay with an XT? Well folks the breaks of the matter are, there are a lot of XT's out there, they will all be there for a while, and I feel the Mac Plus is the same way. Thankyou again, and keep up the good work. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
ee154aby@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Grobbins) (06/05/88)
In article <55442@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >A year from now, any program that isn't Multifinder compatible will be >unsaleable on the marketplace. For the most part, that's already true. While I also usually trash programs which don't work under MultiFinder, I do see a problem for Plus and SE owners more serious than lack of RAM. Without reigniting arguments over the quality of MultiFinder's cooperative style of multitasking, it is clear that many applications are unable to function appropriately in its shared environment. When put in the background, some programs (like DiskFit) slow to a snail's pace; others (like Stuffit) pretend that they own the machine. Even with only very well behaved applications open, a foreground terminal program becomes jerky when background tasks are working. The only way to guarantee that applications function appropriately will be hardware-supported preemptive multitasking, a very unpleasant prospect for Plus and SE owners. Grobbins grobbins@ucsd.edu
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (06/06/88)
In article <4221@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> grobbins@ucsd.uucp writes: >The only way to guarantee that applications function >appropriately will be hardware-supported preemptive multitasking, >a very unpleasant prospect for Plus and SE owners. Yeah. Unless Apple Computer Co. comes to its senses and realizes that the Mac II (and Mac III and Mac IV...) is a different machine from the 68000 machines. Then it has the options: a) Support a two-architecture OS which is crippled on the 68020. b) Support a two-architecture OS which has the best features of A/UX (virtual memory, multitasking, 32-bit mode, etc.) and the best features of the Mac we have all come to know and love (uses mouse, window manager, etc.) when run on 68020 machines and which is "just like a Mac" on the 68000 machines. For this to work effectively, Apple will have to be tough about which areas of the 68020 OS are out of bounds to application developers, AND will have to implement those areas CORRECTLY, so there is not consumer demand for various patch programs to implement features Apple left out, like the vaporware "Keyboard Macro" desk accessory. A front end for A/UX that looks like MultiFinder would be a good start. Price could be reduced by leaving out all the UNIX junk, since the Finder-like front end would be complete enough so that the UNIX esoterica would be unnecessary to all but hackers. The thing would have to recognize HFS disks (or maybe even run on them) and would not require different programming techniques from the present Mac OS other than those required by Color QuickDraw or possible new features for the 68020. For this scheme to work correctly, present programs which use either GetNextEvent or WaitNextEvent would all get a time-slice in the multi-tasking environment, and there should be no annoying conditional code based on what the environment is. The multi-tasking on 68000 machines would have to be as good as the 68000 allows, and should accommodate those users who just don't want multi-tasking, i.e. could be shut off. The 68000 version should also run on the Mac II, in case the user doesn't want to spring for SIMMs which might cost even more next year. c) Abandon 68000-machine owners. The following chart is in ascending order of the parameter, i.e. the Most () development is at the top. Most Expensive Most Sleazy Most Likely to be Seen -------------- ----------- ---------------------- (b) (c) ? (a) (a) ? (c) (b) ? I don't know what's going to happen, but I for one hope the Mac Plus and SE are around for a long, long time. These are ideal student and intro machines, and I happen to think they are still durn good computers for most general use. I also hope Apple backs off on Multi-Tasking frenzy at least until SIMM prices go down. The amount of obvious conviction which appears in some of these Mac newsgroup articles prompts me to urge anyone with opinions about the future development of the Macintosh series to write to Apple about it. I seriously doubt that anyone who reads this USENET junk has any more influence than you or I, but maybe if we all write to Sculley or Gassee or somebody, we might get some response. ********************************************************************* *Earle R. Horton, H.B. 8000, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 * *********************************************************************
mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) (06/06/88)
...
(please take what follows with a grain of salt, or a sip of Coke)
After spending ALL my money on a Mac+, and then through some sleazoid
connection getting simms for a full load of memory, now I get to watch
as the Mac OS gets so big that it won't fit in a MEG and I have to
start deleting stuff off my 20 meg hard disk. And people are talking
calmly about how this AMAZING DEBUGGER will ONLY take 512K!! OOO
AHHH!! I hope it writes code for us too (cause with no memory left,
somebody's got to!)
DaMn!! I guess I won't be able to run that new ULTIMATE SCREENSAVER
now. (y'know... would someone who mainly is trying to NOT LOOK AT THEIR
SCREEN please just sell me their keyboard and mouse? Think of it as
KEYSAVER AND MOUSESAVER).
This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but
I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to
something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting
paid by the hour so they don't spend time trying to make it smaller.
Maybe next contract Apple should add: "And after adding these new
features the core operating system will still run fine on a 1 (2????)
meg Mac+.
Then of course the BoYs in MaRKetTing don't usually know chit about
computers, except to say at some meeting in front of the right
managerial types: "Well, you know Jean Louis, those kids at SUN are
gonna be adding Feature X[11,12,13] to the SUN OS V007.0, can I go down
the hall and hassle your operating systems guy in to hanging a large
bag off the side of the MAC OS so we can announce this feature in
System 7.0?"
Who's to say? Any you boys (or girls) at apple have any idea how we
can get the system software on a weight reduction plan?
Of course, barring that, perhaps the NEXT (inc.) thing to do is help
Apple keep it's priorities straight with a little MAD Magazine style
'yumah' (as we say down east)...
Must Be time for some Bumper Stickers and Tee-Shirts!
Macintosh II: "It simply costs more!!"
The Few, The Proud: "The people with enough memory to run MultiFinder."
(or) "The people with enough memory to run System 7.0"
or how about:
Macintosh: "The computer for a few of thousand more than I have!!"
Think about it, Apple... And "Thanks for your support!"
--
----------------
Marty Connor
Director of Innovation, The Entity
mdc@mcp.entity.com, ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mcp!mdcholland@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (06/11/88)
In article <172@mcp.entity.com> mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >... >This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but >I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to >something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting Am I misunderstanding this? If you're complaining about the size of the System growing AND you're satisfied with the features and the way the current System works, WHY don't you just continue to use the old System? There are people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more capable software. People who are satisfied with the old software shouldn't care if new software requires 1Meg or 10Meg. If they don't want to upgrade, they simply won't buy the new software. Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) (06/11/88)
In article <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>, holland@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes: > In article <172@mcp.entity.com> mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > >... This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but > >I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to > >something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting > Am I misunderstanding this? If you're complaining about the size of the > System growing AND you're satisfied with the features and the way the current > System works, WHY don't you just continue to use the old System? Yes, you misunderstood. I am reasonably satisfied with the current system software, and I am complaining that the software is overtaking the hardware TOO QUICKLY. Just because I am currently satiated does not mean that I must never have urges again. (quote that out of context...) I like sexy features as much as the next guy, but when you tell me "loads of new features, but too bad if your machine is over 18 months old..." or "I sure hope you have 2.5meg..." I have to say: Hey! What about us, Mac+ users! You see, as someone who wants to develop software for the Mac (this is comp.sys.mac.programmer), I have to have a machine (HARDWARE + software) that is current enough to allow meaningful contribution. Sure, I know a few folks happily running on 512k macs, using the last stable 64k system, running Word 1.05, and I say more (or less) power to them. Of course, they had the chance for a nice $300 ROM and disk Upgrade to help them some, as I remember... > There are people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more > capable software. ^^^^^^^ ARGH!! ** NEWS FLASH ** WILLINGNESS ALONE DOES NOT UPGRADE MACHINES. CASH upgrades machines, and I seem to have just spent loads of it on this Mac+. That is why I wrote in. I am trying to make sure that now that all the developers at Apple are using Mac-II's that they don't forget TOO SOON about the fact that they SOLD ALL THOSE MAC+s (which can't be upgraded to Mac-II's) I believe. What I am asking is that they give a care to the size of things. {Make it good, Make it fast, make it small.} > People who are satisfied with the old software shouldn't care if new software > requires 1Meg or 10Meg. If they don't want to upgrade, they simply won't buy > the new software. Agreed. Well, perhaps you will sink whatever is a small fortune for you into a Mac-XX, and then about a year or two later have someone tell you that you have to spend triple the investment to stay in the game. (not just a few hundred for an upgrade, or something easy). Then you might understand why some poor loser would want to write in and remind the guys with the Mac-II's and ALL THAT RAM what is going on. But hey, why should you care? I don't see this issue as 1/0, btw; I agree the system should evolve, but not without a little self-restraint. It's easy to forget last year sometimes... > Fred Hollander > Computer Science Center > Texas Instruments, Inc. > holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela > > The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments. -- ---------------- Marty Connor Director of Innovation, The Entity mdc@mcp.entity.com, ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mcp!mdc
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (06/13/88)
>> There are people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more >> capable software. > ^^^^^^^ ARGH!! > ** NEWS FLASH ** > WILLINGNESS ALONE DOES NOT UPGRADE MACHINES. > CASH upgrades machines Sometimes even cash won't do it. We've ordered a memory upgrade for an SE here and Apple tells us there will be a 6 to 7 month wait. I've spoken to others who have been waiting longer than that. I hope that this memory shortage problem (and the rising costs) will resolve itself soon... -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (06/14/88)
> Then you might understand why some poor loser would want to write in and > remind the guys with the Mac-II's and ALL THAT RAM what is going on. A friend of mine went to work at Apple for the summer. When he got there they gave him a machine to work on, but not much RAM. He had a friend here remove the SIMMs from the machine he left behind (here) and Fed Ex them to him at Apple. I guess there's not ALL THAT much RAM at Apple. -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu