woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/07/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar6030324@magrathea.uchicago.edu> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >In article <1991Mar4.052143.19855@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: > > In the Apple Macintosh community there are rules, guides, comments > about rules, Thought Police (remember them? also known as the > Macintosh Evangelists), and everyone follows them or faces the threat > of having their software possibly break in the future. > > Macintosh programmers hate Apple for this; you almost feel like you are being > >No we don't. (At least *I* don't. :-) I LOVE this. I get a big >kick out of being able to take any program I write and put it into any >Mac. And I know that it's largely because Apple's so careful. Actually, I personally *love* Apple for doing this, but I remember the grumbles of the old days (before HFS, before 128K ROMs), when programmers (mostly) still had not figured out the Macintosh. Most of the people I knew used to bitch about how hard it was to program the Mac, and how unsure they were to get thier programs up and running ("God, I just tuned my program to work on a 512K Mac, and it dies when I put it on a Mac Plus with 4 megs RAM. I hate Apple...") About that time I wrote my first utility, back in 1985. I still have that utility on my Mac II, and I have given it to people who use Mac IIfx's and Mac IIci's; I wrote it on my Mac 512K before there even was an HFS file system! Thank you, Apple. -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (03/07/91)
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) wrote praising Apples restrictivness on the Mac: > >Actually, I personally *love* Apple for doing this, >About that time I wrote my first utility, back in 1985. I still have that >utility on my Mac II, and I have given it to people who use Mac IIfx's and >Mac IIci's; I wrote it on my Mac 512K before there even was an HFS file system! > I agree. Anyone who thinks Apple's too restrictive should try porting "standard" C code from one "standard" Unix to another. You will cry yourself to sleep at night :-) wishing AT&T was so restrictive. Microsoft Windows imposes similar restrictions, but it is (IMHO) a case of too little, too late. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | uunet!gsm001!gsm | | Fan too!| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | WANTED: PAL VIDEO TAPES (VHS or BETA) inquire within. | | Especialy "missing" Dr Who Episodes. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/09/91)
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: >woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) wrote praising Apples >restrictivness on the Mac: >> >>Actually, I personally *love* Apple for doing this, >>About that time I wrote my first utility, back in 1985. I still have that >>utility on my Mac II, and I have given it to people who use Mac IIfx's and >>Mac IIci's; I wrote it on my Mac 512K before there even was an HFS file system I sympathize with this emotion. Many Windows programmers including myself share it, because they saw their programs do the big step from real mode to protected mode without any hassle. One of my programs, which was written without any knowledge that there would ever be a protected mode version of Windows still floats around, unmodified, and still runs well. ... >Anyone who thinks Apple's too restrictive should try porting "standard" C >code from one "standard" Unix to another. You will cry yourself to sleep >at night :-) wishing AT&T was so restrictive. >Microsoft Windows imposes similar restrictions, but it is (IMHO) a case >of too little, too late. Why "too little"? Many things which have to be handled by forbidding, by rules on the Mac, are handled by making something impossible or more diffi- cult under Windows. A handle is a token, not an indirect pointer, and there are no global variables, for example. "Too late"? It's never too late. Do you really think that users will go back to character based menu systems like old SPF/PDF? I doubt it. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (03/09/91)
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) comments on my posting: me: > >>Microsoft Windows imposes similar restrictions, but it is (IMHO) a case >>of too little, too late. > he: >Why "too little"? Many things which have to be handled by forbidding, >by rules on the Mac, are handled by making something impossible or more diffi- >cult under Windows. A handle is a token, not an indirect pointer, and there >are no global variables, for example. > >"Too late"? It's never too late. Do you really think that users will >go back to character based menu systems like old SPF/PDF? I doubt it. I think it's too late because although most dos applications are being ported to windows, most users will not upgrade their software. The majority of the p.c. users (IMHO) buy a system and are loath to upgrade. Those of us that do, keep the software vendors in business. How many copies of WordPerfect can the world support? Or MacWrite? I know many people who bought their machine with Lotus and WordPerfect, or (Mac owners) got MacWrite and bought Excell. They are perfectly happy with what they have. They might buy windows, especially since the $49 trade in deal. Many people (myself included) got a copy of windows for next to nothing buying a mouse, packaged system or (how antedeluvian) an EGA card. Windows 1 was a curiosity and placed on a shelf. Now, two releases later and many pages of Microsoft advertising later, the $49 upgrade seems like good deal. In order to use it properly you have to upgrade your software. Many people don't want to or just can't afford it. While Windows is the up and comming thing, Dos will stay mired back in the character interface. Rememeber that if Microsoft sells a milion copies of windows, and everyone "gives" a (pirate) copy to their friends, that's only about 10% of the MS/DOS computers in the world. Can a software vendor afford to support windows. They have to if thy want to sell new copies. But they will still have to support (and enhance) the old versions too. I think that (hindsight is 20/20) IBM blew it with O/S 2. They should have extended dos (ala windows 3.0) instead. Then it would have been an evolutionary change instead of a revolutionary one. Also it would have been 2-3 years earlier. Since I'm now reminiscing, I thought that IBM should have put a 680x0 in the PS/2. For dos compatability, they would have an 80286 (now 386/486). The dos system could run in a real "8088" instead of in an (in)compatability box. Dos (or doses dependeding on how many "8088"s, would run in a window. Commodore has been doing this for years with the Amiga, Why couldn't IBM? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | uunet!gsm001!gsm | | Fan too!| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | WANTED: PAL VIDEO TAPES (VHS or BETA) inquire within. | | Especialy "missing" Dr Who Episodes. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------