schiebel@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Darrell Schiebel) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct8.091751.3053@csc.anu.oz.au>, pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: > In article <1990Oct6.172357.18366@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: > I am a long time Mac user and have just recently had to learn some UNIX for > a Decstation 3100. > > IT IS HORRIBLE! > > UNIX is an ancient operating system! Invented in the time of dinasour > computers with less power than a Mac Plus!! The "some" Unix you "kind of" know obviously qualifies you to pass judgement on the OS. MacOS will never posses the power and simplicity of Unix because of the loss of control which comes with layers of graphical user interfaces. By the same token, Unix will never be an operating system which the new user can use without work. I don't see MultiFinder being ported to workstation platform of nearly every major computer manufacturer (DEC Ultrix, HP-UX, SunOS, AUX, Xenix, etc.). However, undoubtedly all this will change now that the world knows the true nature of Unix which has remained hidden until now: "IT IS HORRIBLE!". Darrell Schiebel (schiebel@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu) Computer Science West Virginia University
pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct6.172357.18366@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: > In article <2867@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >> >> Where is it that Apple and NeXT are in any serious >> competition with each other? (In ego perhaps) but >> Joe Average is not going to run out and buy a Unix >> box. If you think they are, Why can't you buy a Sun >> or other Unix box at the local computer store? (outside Xenix) > > Could it have anything to do with price? Because of various design > decisions, Unix machines require more memory and disk space than > Macs and PCs running MS-DOS, and do better in systems that can > support virtual memory. Two years ago, memory was selling for > $250 per meg (not listing, *selling*), hard disks were physically > large for less space and cost twice as much as now, and VM micros > were just starting to drop in price. > > I am a long time Mac user and have just recently had to learn some UNIX for a Decstation 3100. IT IS HORRIBLE! UNIX is an ancient operating system! Invented in the time of dinasour computers with less power than a Mac Plus!! It may have some multitasking/virtual memory features that the MacOS does not have at present, but when the Mac gets there it will blow UNIX away! I know that UNIX can be made to do just about anything, and that Apple's A/UX can now run 32 bit clean Mac programs in a Mac-like manner, BUT if you are forever putting nice front ends onto an OS why not start at the start and have a nice OS (from the user's point of view anyway)? I know that if I had $10k to spend on a personal system, I would buy a high-end Mac; $20k and I MIGHT be persuaded to get A/UX as well. *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct8.091751.3053@csc.anu.oz.au> pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >I am a long time Mac user and have just recently had to learn some UNIX for >a Decstation 3100. > >IT IS HORRIBLE! > >UNIX is an ancient operating system! Invented in the time of dinasour >computers with less power than a Mac Plus!! There will always be people who prefer MacOS over Unix, just as there are people who call the Mac a toy, people who believe that VMS beats everything available, Atari lovers, Amiga-ites, MS-DOS and Windows fiends, and evangelists for just about every other hardware and software combo around. Having been a Unix systems programmer for a long time, most of my arguments for Unix would be emotional, though having also been a Mac user for a few years, I might be able to muster some objectivity. Still, the point of this is not whether Unix is better or the Mac is better. The point is that I believe that there exists a group of people who would just as soon buy a Unix workstation made by someone other than Apple as to buy a Mac. Now that these workstations are getting into the same price range as the Mac, the money part of the decision is going away.
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.051346.2365@smsc.sony.com> dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: >In article <1990Oct8.091751.3053@csc.anu.oz.au> pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >>I am a long time Mac user and have just recently had to learn some UNIX for >>a Decstation 3100. >> >>IT IS HORRIBLE! >> >Having been a Unix systems programmer for a long time, most of my >arguments for Unix would be emotional, though having also been a Mac >user for a few years, I might be able to muster some objectivity. Comparing Mac and UNIX would be totally frivolous. They are two different beasts for different uses. UNIX is capable of many many things that MacOS will never do. Same goes for Mac capabilites over UNIX. Although, the capabilites are getting closer, they will probably always be two seperately usable systems. One thing fer sure... UNIX is NOT horrible! _________ moof moof
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/09/90)
In-Reply-To: message from pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au That's one of the problems with Mac-folk trying to make the transition to UNIX. They don't know from command-lines (unless they have experience on a clone, Amiga, or previous experience on a Unix box). The Mac's interface is so easy to use and transparent to the user, that anything else is almost a nightmare. Here's one of the Mac's biggest advantages, and biggest weaknesses : an easy to use, but closed off OS. "Users" feel right at home, but are unprepared for work on any other system. However, if you keep up with what's happening in the Unix world, you'll see that with the benefits of Open Look, Motif, and NeXT Step, UNIX is nearing the Mac's intuitiveness...and may reach that before the MacOS gets preemptive multitasking or VM (VM may be coming in Sys7, but not m-tasking). Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.091751.3053@csc.anu.oz.au> pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >I know that UNIX can be made to do just about anything, and that Apple's >A/UX can now run 32 bit clean Mac programs in a Mac-like manner, BUT if you >are forever putting nice front ends onto an OS why not start at the start >and have a nice OS (from the user's point of view anyway)? I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what an operating system is. What you refer to as a "nice OS from the user's point of view" _IS_ just the "front end". Under unix, this is your shell (sh, csh, ksh, whatever) and under the Mac OS it is the Finder. I don't see why you (as a "user") should really care what the underlying OS is, since this "front end" is all you need to deal with... Take a look at Inside Macintosh sometime, then look at the operating system calls in the unix manuals. I think you'll find the unix version much easier to understand than the convoluted Pascal routines on the Mac side. Don't get me wrong; I like (enough to spend several thousand of my hard-earned dollars) Macs and use them extensively. Same goes for unix systems. To me, the real strengths of unix are its communications features and the fact that it is a multi-user (not just multi-tasking) OS. If you don't need these things, perhaps it's not for you.... ||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego ||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud ||| ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/09/90)
by ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff): [...] | Take a look at Inside Macintosh sometime, then look at the operating | system calls in the unix manuals. I think you'll find the unix version | much easier to understand than the convoluted Pascal routines on the | Mac side. I'll disagree here. I personally agonize when I have to dig into the UNIX man pages to track down exactly what I need to know to use a routine. The description is usually only useful as a reference for someone who already understands the routine and is just about useless to those who, like me, don't. Now, admittedly I've spent plenty of time staring at IM but I've never gotten the feeling that "gee, I wish I they would explain their explanations." Sure, some concepts may not come easily but IM tends to be a lot more verbose the UNIX manuals. Now, take into heart that there are lots more routines for the Mac because there are generally a lot more features to take advantage of on the Mac. Last I recall, the sections on graphics, sound, memory management, etc. were non-existant. With X Windows, the world of UNIX gets a rude introduction to many of the concepts that make the Mac seem so mysterious. It's just a different way of thinking. > To me, the real strengths of unix are its communications features and the > fact that it is a multi-user (not just multi-tasking) OS. If you don't > need these things, perhaps it's not for you.... I also respect UNIX boxes for the level of portability they provide. What other operating system lets you compile the same code on hardware as diverse as a Cray and an AT&T UNIX PC? That and I'm a technology junky and for some perverse reason I enjoy exploring the never ending learning curve UNIX provides. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) (10/09/90)
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes:
I'll disagree here. I personally agonize when I have to dig into the
UNIX man pages to track down exactly what I need to know to use a
routine. The description is usually only useful as a reference for
someone who already understands the routine and is just about useless to
those who, like me, don't. Now, admittedly I've spent plenty of time
staring at IM but I've never gotten the feeling that "gee, I wish I
they would explain their explanations." Sure, some concepts may not come
easily but IM tends to be a lot more verbose the UNIX manuals.
That may be so, but you're comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges.
There's no equivalent of the on-line man pages on the Mac, excepting the
Inside Macintosh DA that's in the public domain. The IM books should not
be compared with the on-line man-pages, but rather with the many different
books about the Unix operating system that are available. You'll easily
be able to find very good books that show you how to interface to the Unix
system calls etc as clearly as IM does for the Mac.
After all, IM doesn't come free with the Mac, right?
-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, NHH, Bergen, Norway. Telephone: +47-5-959205
tih@barsoom.nhh.no, thelbekk@norunit.bitnet, edb_tom@debet.nhh.novd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (10/10/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 9-Oct-90 Re: UNIX is yuck (was > Re: N.. Boyd Ostroff@Oswego.EDU (1536) > Take a look at Inside Macintosh sometime, then look at the operating > system calls in the unix manuals. I think you'll find the unix version > much easier to understand than the convoluted Pascal routines on the > Mac side. Amen! +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Vincent Del Vecchio \ #include <stddisclaimer.h> | | Box 4834 \ #include <stdquote.h> | | 5125 Margaret Morrison St.\ BITNET: vd09+%andrew@cmuccvma.bitnet | | Pittsburgh, PA 15213 \ UUCP: harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09 | | (412) 268-4441 \ Internet: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/10/90)
by tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo): me: > I'll disagree here. I personally agonize when I have to dig into the > UNIX man pages to track down exactly what I need to know to use a > routine. [...] tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo): > That may be so, but you're comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. > There's no equivalent of the on-line man pages on the Mac, excepting the > Inside Macintosh DA that's in the public domain. The IM books should not > be compared with the on-line man-pages, but rather with the many different > books about the Unix operating system that are available. You'll easily > be able to find very good books that show you how to interface to the Unix > system calls etc as clearly as IM does for the Mac. But which one is THE definitive standard by written by the designers/ implementors? I'm sorry but man pages are the closest thing to IM in the way they are distributed and supported. And don't get hung up on the online part; I can go to a rack down the hall and look at them on paper (which I generally prefer for trying to LEARN as opposed to remembering the order of the arguments.) I buy five volumes (soon to be six, I pray. Oh Apple, who art in Cupertino, bless thy little guy with some of that info about Sys 7 that is supposedly being spread around...) and I get most everything I need to know. FTP to apple.com and I have all the Tech Notes (in stack form _online_ if I prefer). With UNIX, you get to buy manuals that are the same thing as online but in nicer typefaces. As I said before, I _like_ UNIX for my very own special reasons. I also like the Mac. (In fact, I hate UNIX when I can't use my Mac as a term with multiple term windows...) The UNIX man pages (printed and online) are just not very useful for learning about UNIX unless, like me, you're interested enough to chew on them enough to swallow a few bits of info here and there. > After all, IM doesn't come free with the Mac, right? And neither do printed manuals for the UNIX systems I've dealt with... last time I checked, I couldn't find any useful UNIX stuff at my favorite discount bookstore but I did see IM for ~$20 apiece. :-) -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
softa@vax.MCD.3Com.Com (Douglas Phillips) (10/10/90)
tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) writes: >That may be so, but you're comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. >There's no equivalent of the on-line man pages on the Mac, excepting the >Inside Macintosh DA that's in the public domain. Wrong! There is Spinside Macintosh which is free to all certified developers and 411 which comes on the new ETO disc and is GREAT. Man pages suck in comparision to 411. >After all, IM doesn't come free with the Mac, right? No, and it shouldn't either, it should just be free for all developers. Douglas
ralph@cbnewsj.att.com (Ralph Brandi) (10/10/90)
In article <1990Oct9.003852.18788@oswego.Oswego.EDU>, ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) writes: > Don't get me wrong; I like (enough to spend several thousand of my hard-earned > dollars) Macs and use them extensively. Same goes for unix systems. > To me, the real strengths of unix are its communications features and the > fact that it is a multi-user (not just multi-tasking) OS. If you don't > need these things, perhaps it's not for you.... I think this shortchanges one of the UNIX(R) system's strongest points, the ability to easily chain together a number of small programs in a number of ways to perform whatever task you need done. I find this ability to be perhaps the most elegant thing about the system. It took me a long time to appreciate the simplicity of the approach, but I do now. When I came to AT&T three years ago, I had spent most of my computer time on a Mac. Dealing with UNIX seemed like a necessary evil. And it isn't the easiest system to learn. But I can do things with UNIX that I can't do with my Mac, and I like that. Use whatever's the most appropriate tool for the job. Of course, they'll have to pry my Mac out of my cold, dead hands if they want to take it away from me.... :-) -- Ralph Brandi ralph@mtunq.att.com att!mtunq!ralph The preceding are not the opinions of AT&T, CDI, or their lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.
bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au (10/11/90)
In article <3959@3comvax.MCD.3Com.Com>, softa@vax.MCD.3Com.Com (Douglas Phillips) writes: > tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) writes: > > >>That may be so, but you're comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. >>There's no equivalent of the on-line man pages on the Mac, excepting the >>Inside Macintosh DA that's in the public domain. > > Wrong! There is Spinside Macintosh which is free to all certified developers > and 411 which comes on the new ETO disc and is GREAT. Man pages suck in > comparision to 411. Maybe, but how do they compare to nothing! > >>After all, IM doesn't come free with the Mac, right? > > No, and it shouldn't either, it should just be free for all developers. Ah, but I thought the Mac was supposed to make us all developers. This sounds like the same logic that has a developer's only version of HC2.0. Unless of course you are part of the inner circle of wizards and know the magic words to activate the scripting spell :-) BTW, if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why is the Help key just another useless bit of plastic. -- Bellamy Email: bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au Dept. Commerce, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, AUSTRALIA
ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct9.040256.12082@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >I personally agonize when I have to dig into the >UNIX man pages to track down exactly what I need to know to use a >routine. I think you misinterpreted what I said. I certainly was not trying to defend the unix _manuals_! My point was that the programmer's interface to the operating system is less confusing. On both the Mac and unix side a little supplementary reading is needed (or at least helpful). >. The description is usually only useful as a reference for >someone who already understands the routine and is just about useless to The person who started this discussion stated he was a USER, not a PROGRAMMER. He then proceeded to criticize unix as an operating system. I merely sought to point out that his complaints were with the user interface, and not the underlying operating system. >It's just a different way of thinking. True. >I'm a technology >junky and for some perverse reason I enjoy exploring the never ending >learning curve UNIX provides. Me too. I can certainly understand that most other people AREN'T like this, though.... ||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego ||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud ||| ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct11.160526.22081@oswego.Oswego.EDU> ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) writes: #>In article <1990Oct9.040256.12082@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: #> #>>I personally agonize when I have to dig into the #>>UNIX man pages to track down exactly what I need to know to use a #>>routine. #> #>I think you misinterpreted what I said. I certainly was not trying to #>defend the unix _manuals_! My point was that the programmer's interface #>to the operating system is less confusing. On both the Mac and unix side #>a little supplementary reading is needed (or at least helpful). As someone who moved from UNIX on a VAX to the Mac (actually using both simultaneously), I thought the Mac was "yuck" when I first started using it (having to take my hands off the keyboard to touch a mouse, losing the powerful search/replace facilities in vi, not being able to type in commands, etc.). Now I appreciate what the Mac can do, though there are still lots of things I prefer to do in UNIX, including certain types of typesetting which are easier to do in troff. The moral (if there is one) is that you really can't judge an operating system until you become fairly expert at its use. It takes longer to do this with UNIX than with the Mac (I'm not speaking of programming the Mac, which I haven't tried). Steve Goldfield$
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct11.174236.55@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au> bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au writes: >BTW, if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why is the Help key >just another useless bit of plastic. Because the user interface is SO GOOD, that there is no need for any additional help-- everything is self evident from what is normally on the screen. That help key is only there for brain-dead MS-DOS emulation, and confusing Microsoft applications :-; -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct11.174236.55@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au> bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au writes: >Ah, but I thought the Mac was supposed to make us all developers. I've heard many unreasonable claims about the Macintosh, but I've NEVER heard that one. >This sounds like the same logic that has a developer's only version of HC2.0. >Unless of course you are part of the inner circle of wizards and know the >magic words to activate the scripting spell :-) HyperCard has always required that. Why do you think you needed a third party book or a Script Language Guide to do scripting? Or did you try to learn using the Help stack? If so, you're a masochist. Anyway, I anticipate that all the third-party books will explain the incantation required to do scripting. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) (10/12/90)
From article <58@genco.uucp>, by rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel): >>>IT IS HORRIBLE! >>> >>Having been a Unix systems programmer for a long time, most of my >>arguments for Unix would be emotional, though having also been a Mac >>user for a few years, I might be able to muster some objectivity. > > Comparing Mac and UNIX would be totally frivolous. They are two different > beasts for different uses. UNIX is capable of many many things that MacOS > will never do. I think UNIX the two can be compared. UNIX is an operating system. Mac is an architecture, os and implementation. Thus in one sense you are right. It does not make much sense to compare a Mac to UNIX. But it does make sense to compare UNIX to the MacOS. In fact one can compare UNIX on a Mac to MacOS on a MAC. Since both operating systems are available on one machine, that should say something about the validity of comparing the two operating systems, no? The thing which most people focus on when making these comparisons is (as has been pointed out else where) the user interface. The traditional unix interface is sh|csh. These are old character based interfaces, which the Mac is the antithesis of. The point is that a legitimate comparison of user interfaces would be between two icon based interfaces. (One note, I don't have any sales figures available but I would not be surprised if there have been more icon based UNIX osses sold than MacOSses. Sun, Apollo, HP, NeXt, and etc combined are a lot of units.) Now a lot of Mac fans are going to talk (if not rave) about the consistency of the Mac interface across differing applications. Well look at A/UX I think that the same standardization is achieved, no? If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware to run it. It has to be, it does more. UNIX is much cheaper per user. I find the UNIX os an exceptionally rich and flexible os. Once one has gotten over the "hump" a programmer can glean all necessary information from the *on line* documentation. I find programming a MacOS frustrating (I keep looking for services the os does not provide, and where are the header files?). There is a *lot* of good software available for the Mac at a reasonable price. UNIX software is *very* expensive. So it is pretty clear that for 1 user interested in available software running on a GUI on a minimal hardware platform MAC is about the only game in town. But for how long? Windows is here to stay. But UNIX may just be the os that keeps the Mac promise of ease of use and consistency. Now, today, you can develop an application on one box and simply move the executable to a machine of grossly different architecture and it will run. How much more standard can you get? Tomorrow you will be able to do this across vendors platforms. UNIX is now, today making the underlaying hardware invisible to users. This is (as especially Apple users should know) cool. Now you can buy your hardware on its merits, your os on the vendors merits and keep your software investment. (How long would Apple be in business if you could buy MS MacOS for nubus clones?) If you go with the MacOS you go with Mac hardware. And you wait for Apple to give you multiuser, multitasking, or even rudimentary IPC. And then you take what you get and pay what they ask. I am not trying to run Macs down. But at the top of the line (IIfx, ci and sx? ) the Mac is definitely competing against work stations. And where the work stations are today the mainstream will be tomorrow. So the MacOS is going to have to get more complicated and require more machine to run it. What will the MacOS which delivers these services be like? And how much sense does it make for Mac to spend $$ to develop a proprietary os *and* UNIX? Now for Apple to continue to deliver a quality product they need money. So far they have pursued a profit by margin strategy ie you pay more per mip for a mac than about anything else. But when MAC tries to crack the work station market (and they *must*) they will find buyers who are not going to pay too much for a machine that they can not run their software on so that they can wait for MAC to allow them to spend too much money for a fix. And they will expect *real* support. The Apple line might never grow into this problem but Mac has already. If Mac is going to compete in the 90's (never mind the next century) they are going to have to compete based on their engineering. Part of a good design is cost effectiveness. Even IBM has seen the light. The RS6000 is some of the hottest technology (not quite yet) available. And IBM is selling the thing (if you could buy it) at a price BELOW the industry average (per mip). Apple has a well deserved reputation for delivering a product with good quality and reliability at an outrageous price. Now I would like to see them quit carping about how only Apple understands GUIs, how every one else is just a cheap non standard imitation; and roll up their sleeves and get in there and duke it out. On price, quality, and performance. Lets see them make their money on volume. Lets see an Apple that will be around to see some what some of their ideas grow into. So no *I* don't think it is frivolous to compare UNIX and a Mac. I think it is *vital*. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett These comments are all mine UNIX Systems Programmer Unisys UNIX Development Center Salt Lake City Utah
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (10/12/90)
bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au writes: >BTW, if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why is the Help key >just another useless bit of plastic. What Help key? Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (10/12/90)
In article <1325@carol.fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au writes: >>BTW, if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why is the Help key >>just another useless bit of plastic. > >What Help key? The one on the extended keyboard. It's only a useless bit of plastic if the programmers of a given application decide not to implement it. Microsoft products do. I don't understand the original criticism. Why not ask: "if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why are the extended keyboard's function keys useless out of the box?" The original Mac had no "help" key, nor did it have any function keys. This being the case, how can one expect that they will do anything without a rewrite of software? Now, if System 7's Help Manager isn't invoked by the help key, then I'll be first in line to give Apple many, many dutch rubs and snake bites. chaz -- Bob Dylan Slaughters Twenty-Seven Game Show Hosts in drunken rampage. clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (10/13/90)
In article <9041@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: > Or did you try to learn using the Help stack? If so, you're a masochist. I admit it. I'm a masochist. Then again, at this point it's easy for me to learn "one more language." So what has been done to disable scripting under HC2.0? What's this about a "developers' version?" -- peace. -- Ed "Vote. Because it's the Right Thing."
ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (10/13/90)
In article <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp> dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes: >If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware >to run it. It has to be, it does more. While I think you make some very good points, I'll nitpick here. Unix itself does not require more hardware. I have an AT&T 3B1 (Unix-PC) which runs pretty nicely with a 10 Mhz 68010, 2 MB RAM and a 67 MB disk. The console has a 760 x 512 bitmapped windowing display. After installing unix (Sys V R2, pretty much) and all the development set plus 5 MB swap partition there are still over 40 MB free on the disk. I can't verify this personally, but am told it easily whips an 8MB Mac II with A/UX. In fact, you can buy a used complete system like mine for about the same cost as the A/UX software alone! Now if you want a *workstation*, that's another matter; more horsepower is required for X and such things.... If, though, you just want a traditional command-line-driven unix with things like mail and news you don't necessarily need lots of expensive hardware. ||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego ||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud ||| ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu
carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) (10/15/90)
In article <1990Oct11.191059.12976@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <1990Oct11.174236.55@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au> bellamy@covax.commerce.uq.oz.au writes: > >>BTW, if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why is the Help key >>just another useless bit of plastic. > >Because the user interface is SO GOOD, that there is no need for any >additional help-- everything is self evident from what is normally on the >screen. That help key is only there for brain-dead MS-DOS emulation, >and confusing Microsoft applications :-; Can I join in? Actually, System 7.0 and all the Whiz-bang thank-you 'mam new stuff from Claris will also come with on-line help. Afterall Matthew, don't you think we should accomodate new DOS converts somehow? :) At the moment, apart from some applications which support the help key, I use a macro to tell me the system info (About the Finder) when I press it. Please don't bug me if you don't know what I'm talking about. **My employers don't understand me, so I guess I'm on my own when I speak out** Norton Chia | I *think* my address is Micro Support | carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU *******************************************************************************
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (10/16/90)
In <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp> dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes: >UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware >to run it. That depends on the particular implementation of UNIX. Version 7 ran (probably still does) in 56 K of main memory. 4.xBSD needs a few megabytes. Xenix (the old version) ran quite nicely on an XT with 640K main mem and 10M mass storage. PC/IX probably needed about the same hardware. You don't hear of the older UNIXes much any more, but that's mostly because hardware has become so much cheaper that you can get a fairly fast 80386-based system (e.g. 33 MHz CPU, 64 K cache, 200 M disk, 8 M main mem) for a low price ($3000 or so). So it's not that it takes more hardware to run UNIX, but also that you can get so much hardware that you may as well use it. You can make MacOS run in 512 K memory, but you can also make UNIX run in that much memory. They both run slowly. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (10/17/90)
In article <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp>, dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes: |> If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware Interesting. I would have said exactly the opposite. Unix was designed to be simple. It has a simple file/peripheral model (files, tapes, and terminals are all basically byte streams), a simple process model with simple memory requirements. The "philosophy" of Unix is to build up software systems from smaller pieces of software. The Mac, on the other hand, is complex. Each program must handle much more of the "os" type of operations, dealing with a more complicated filesystem and memory model. Even the event structure of Mac programs is more complicated than that of X because of things like floppy disks, the menu bar, and desk accessories. Now, from a user's standpoint, the Mac is simpler to use because each program does more for the user, and Unix is harder to use because there are so many small "puzzle pieces" to put together. As a result, Unix is perceived as being "complicated", where that really isn't the case. I'll admit that I've simplified things here. Unix does have some complexities (ptys and sockets, for example), but even those are straightforward once you've done it. ...David Elliott ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce ...(408)944-4073 ..."Whoopee! I'm a human head kabob!" -- Grumpy old man
dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) (10/17/90)
From article <1990Oct13.011924.9894@oswego.Oswego.EDU>, by ostroff@Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff): > In article <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp> dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes: > >>If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware >>to run it. It has to be, it does more. > > While I think you make some very good points, I'll nitpick here. Unix itself > does not require more hardware. I have an AT&T 3B1 (Unix-PC) which runs > pretty nicely with a 10 Mhz 68010, 2 MB RAM and a 67 MB disk. The console > has a 760 x 512 bitmapped windowing display. After installing unix > (Sys V R2, pretty much) and all the development set plus 5 MB swap partition > there are still over 40 MB free on the disk. I can't verify this personally, > but am told it easily whips an 8MB Mac II with A/UX. In fact, you can buy > a used complete system like mine for about the same cost as the A/UX > software alone! May I be forgivin for considering A/UX UNIX. MacOS is (I believe) a ROM based os. Thus a 80/8 Mac has 80 MB of disc and 8 MB of memory left. It is true ROM is still memory and this address space *could* be used for something else. But practically speaking no one loads their 680x0 up with 4 GB of memory. And Mac does *not* include os ROM in their address calculations. And yes there are many flavors of UNIX floating around out there. Some are more space efficient than others. To guys like me (kernel hacks) there is a world of difference between them. To developers all they care about is SVID, POSIX and ABI. To the guy who doesn't know how much memory is in his system its what ever user interface is running on top of it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett these are my own opinions Unisys Unix Development Salt Lake City
hadjiyia@cat24.cs.wisc.edu (Simos Hadjiyiannis) (10/18/90)
In article <2409@ux.acs.umn.edu> clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >I don't understand the original criticism. Why not ask: >"if the user interface on the Mac is so good, why are the extended keyboard's >function keys useless out of the box?" Ever heard of Macros? Simos...
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/20/90)
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes: >In article <9041@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: > >> Or did you try to learn using the Help stack? If so, you're a masochist. > >I admit it. I'm a masochist. So am I. I *mostly* used the help stack to learn HyperTalk. Then I picked up ``The HyperCard Developer's Guide'' by Danny Goodman and ``HyperTalk'' by Lon Poole (the latter being much more helpful and a great buy at ~$7. >Then again, at this point it's easy for me to learn "one more language." Especially if it's HyperTalk. >So what has been done to disable scripting under HC2.0? What's this about >a "developers' version?" There's an opaque button covering the buttons to select the advanced user levels. Check comp.sys.mac.hypercard for more info; this has been hashed out there for the last couple of weeks. -- Geoff Allen \ Computers are useless. uunet!pmafire!geoff \ They can only give you answers. bigtex!pmafire!geoff \ -- Pablo Picasso
gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) (10/22/90)
In article <4873@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >Mac's intuitiveness...and may reach that before the MacOS gets preemptive >multitasking or VM (VM may be coming in Sys7, but not m-tasking). It's a funny thing, but do all UNIX people think that preemptive multitasking is the one true multitasking, and all other forms are excrement ? I mean, what's the difference for the average user ? As far as I can see it, the main difference is in *favour* of cooperative mt as opposed to preemptive. I preemptive, you never know when your program is going to be swapped out for a while and while this is fine for some applications (Who cares if a compile or a spreadsheet re-calc gets slowed down randomly), it is absolutely *lousy* for dynamic graphical programs. In the preemptive world, a bouncing ball is more likely to jerk madly than glide, even though it only needs a little time every so often. However I'm able to play arcade-style games without massive awfulness while my MPW program gets compiled and linked. In contrast, try playing WARP on a UNIX machine with a compile going on .... Graham Wills.
dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) (10/22/90)
From article <1990Oct16.173634.20494@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott): > > In article <1990Oct11.220943.9764@unislc.uucp>, dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes: > |> If we compare os to os. UNIX is more complicated. It takes more hardware > > Interesting. I would have said exactly the opposite. > > Unix was designed to be simple. > [...] > The Mac, on the other hand, is complex. Each program must handle much > more of the "os" type of operations, dealing with a more complicated > filesystem and memory model. If you take stuff out of the os and put in a user program the os gets simpler and the program more complicated, no? This implies moving things from a user program to the os makes the os more complicated, no? >[stuff about ptys and sockets] Yes, code is code once you understand it. But as any Mac hack will tell you adding ipc (which the Mac has none of), multitasking (*I* don't think the Mac has), paged vertual memory (...), buffered io (...), and multiuser capabilities (...) *does* make the os more complicated. You will discover this if and when Mac ever has an os which does these things. I mean the Mac os fits in 1/2M of ROM, no? The kernel on the machine I am working on now has ~2M data/stack/bss, and about 15M by time you alloc all of the data structures. You were joking right? Just pulling my chain? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Barrett I speak for myself Unix Systems Programmer Unisys SLC Utah