rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (05/25/90)
John Sculley's comment to Windows 3.0 in "Macintosh News" 05/21/90: "Window 3.0 will garner a lot of attention, but it's not going to do much to stimulate the real breakthrough innovation. Why not? Because the morning after, when the hoopla is over, it's still only a GUI on DOS." I agree that Windows is flashy and looks like Mac but it's still DOS. In same issue of Mac News, Peter Norton talked about Mac and described Mac as "obviously the superior machine."
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (05/25/90)
Would someone please summarize the differences between Windows 3.0 and
the Mac Finder/Toolbox? I'm especially curious if Windows does
something *better* than the macintosh does.
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesjames968@walt.cc.utexas.edu (James Hammett) (05/26/90)
In a May 24 article rad@genco.uucp says:
>>I agree that Windows is flashy and looks like Mac but it's still DOS.
The new version of Windows (3.0) looks less like they tried to make it a Mac
operating system. The New Dialog Boxes and Scroll bar as well as the "NewLook"
make it look less Mac like. Maybe a little bit more NeXT like. I really prefer
Macs, but I thought I'ld make some comments on what I had seen.
james968@ccwf.cc.utexas.eduJim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) (05/29/90)
In article <71100007@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Would someone please summarize the differences between Windows 3.0 and > the Mac Finder/Toolbox? I'm especially curious if Windows does > something *better* than the macintosh does. > Here are the big differences I noticed in a 1 hour demo: * Windows runs over DOS, so you have a lot of the DOS limitations: eight character filenames, files don't have types, no system-wide "current printer", etc. * There is no "Finder", just a program launcher. So file manipulation is still performed with path names, etc. * The window-manipulation interface is klunky. The "close box" is a command in a menu that must be pulled down. Windows can be resized from any border but you have to click on a target that's about 2 pixels high (or wide). Applications seem to have one super-window that holds the menu bar, and that makes things confusing when you want a subordinate window to fill the screen. In general, the windowing interface has more features but is less useable. * Windows 3.0 isn't as ugly as version 2.11, but it's still ugly. The fonts for window titles, menus, etc. are not very attractive. In order to remain compatible with mouse-less PCs Windows designates one letter in each menu title or command as the keyboard shortcut, and shows it underlined. The result is messy and distracting. There is no consistent visual clue as to which window is in front (in part because the front window isn't necessarily the active one). * Windows is slow. On a 16Mhz 386sx machine the windowing functions seemed slower than MacOS on a Mac Plus. It's also bigger than the MacOS -- nearly 6Mbytes is required for a 386 machine. I'm not sure that you can buy a machine that would make Windows feel like MacOS on an '030 Mac. I didn't notice anything that Windows does "better" than MacOS. It does a lot "more" -- you can set a window color scheme and a desktop picture, make windows into icons, access all commands from the keyboard, etc. -- but most of those things are available as INITs for the Mac. Jim Matthews Dartmouth Software Development-- Jim Matthews Dartmouth Software Development
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/29/90)
In article <22321@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes: > Here are the big differences I noticed in a 1 hour demo: > * Windows runs over DOS, so you have a lot of the DOS limitations [...] > * There is no "Finder", just a program launcher. So file manipulation is > still performed with path names, etc. > * The window-manipulation interface is klunky [...] > * Windows 3.0 isn't as ugly as version 2.11, but it's still ugly [...] > * Windows is slow. On a 16Mhz 386sx machine the windowing functions seemed > slower than MacOS on a Mac Plus. It's also bigger than the MacOS -- nearly > 6Mbytes [disk?] is required for a 386 machine. I'm not sure that you can buy a > machine that would make Windows feel like MacOS on an '030 Mac. Thanks - this also answers my original question about how much it would cost to get equivalent functionality to a Mac. The point I was trying to make is this is at least the 4th time Microsoft has claimed to have "caught up" with the Mac, but when you examine the fine print it turns out you need a high-end PC to emulate a Mac Plus running last year's system software. HOWEVER, a lot of potential Mac buyers are not going to go to the complications of working all this out. They want a simple machine capable of running a word processor. They discover they can get a pretty loaded XT (or even AT) compatible machine for the price of a Mac Plus with a hard disk, and they hear MS claiming they can now do everything the Mac can do. Of course, they can't on a machine that costs the same as a Mac Plus, but I'm sure Apple is losing a lot of sales this way. Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (haseen alam) (05/30/90)
In article <71100007@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Would someone please summarize the differences between Windows 3.0 and >the Mac Finder/Toolbox? I'm especially curious if Windows does >something *better* than the macintosh does. > Also, how about some technical info for programmers. Is windows totally in software? Will it support toolbox type routines that can be called from various programming languages? Correct me if I'm wrong, software emulation is always SLOWER than hardware. So windows will always be soft and mushy!!! 8-) Haseen.
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (05/30/90)
I'm not a regular reader of comp.sys.mac.misc, but just to set the record straight and prevent the spreading of mis-information... In article <22321@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes: > >Here are the big differences I noticed in a 1 hour demo: > >* Windows runs over DOS, so you have a lot of the DOS limitations: eight >character filenames, files don't have types, no system-wide "current >printer", etc. Windows does run over DOS, and the filename limitation holds. But files are typed according to their filename extension. For instance, text files end in .TXT, WinWord files in .DOC, and so forth. Double-clicking on such a file will cause it to be loaded into the appropriate application. Admittedly not as transparent as the Mac way, but effective. NeXT does a similar thing with UNIX, incidentally. It's also nice to be able to get rid of all files of a certain kind using wildcards... Windows definitely does have a system-wide printer which all Windows apps can use. Documents can also be forced to use a certain printer (i.e. Epson for unimportant stuff, PostScript for illustrations). Windows apps share printer drivers, too--transparently. I've used the Mac and Windows and see little difference between them in the printer dept. >* There is no "Finder", just a program launcher. So file manipulation is >still performed with path names, etc. Bzzzt. There is a "File Manager" that allows directories to be viewed in a hierchical/tree format, subdirectories/folders to be opened by double-clicking, files and folders can be copied and moved about by dragging, multiple selections can be made, double-clicking on files or documents causes them to load, and so forth. I'd say everything I've ever done with Finder could be done here; the main diff is icons aren't used extensively in the File Manager. >* The window-manipulation interface is klunky. The "close box" is a command >in a menu that must be pulled down. Windows can be resized from any border >but you have to click on a target that's about 2 pixels high (or wide). >Applications seem to have one super-window that holds the menu bar, and that >makes things confusing when you want a subordinate window to fill the screen. >In general, the windowing interface has more features but is less useable. I used to feel the same way about Windows in the 2.0 days, but for multiple applications I find the Windows way much easier than Multifinder, especially for running multiple programs. Windows can be closed by double-clicking on a box in the upper left corner of the window; using the menu is optional. The frame width is pre-set at 2 pixels but can be made whatever you want in the Control Panel. I find frames much easier to manipulate than the silly resize- box (which Windows 2.xx had until no one used it!). Windows can be made to fill the screen by use of a "maximize" button (like the zoom button in the Mac) The ability to iconify a windows is something I really wish the Mac had--I like to be able to load an app, use it, shrink it down when I don't need it, and restore it to use it again. Cycling through programs or choosing one from the Finder is klunky and still leaves the unneeded ones occupying real- estate. >* Windows 3.0 isn't as ugly as version 2.11, but it's still ugly. The >fonts for window titles, menus, etc. are not very attractive. In order to >remain compatible with mouse-less PCs Windows designates one letter in each >menu title or command as the keyboard shortcut, and shows it underlined. >The result is messy and distracting. There is no consistent visual clue >as to which window is in front (in part because the front window isn't >necessarily the active one). Believe it or not, a lot of people who love Windows hate mice. Even mousers will find themselves using the keyboard shortcuts (as do most Mac users I know). I'm always miffed when I can't ESC out of a Dialog box or hit Enter instead of clicking OK on a Mac. At least Mac Word supports this... As for the system fonts, they're changeable, too. Won't surprise me if some weird ones start showing up... >* Windows is slow. On a 16Mhz 386sx machine the windowing functions seemed >slower than MacOS on a Mac Plus. It's also bigger than the MacOS -- nearly >6Mbytes is required for a 386 machine. I'm not sure that you can buy a >machine that would make Windows feel like MacOS on an '030 Mac. The speed of Windows is a function of the hardware. a 16 MHz 386sx with only a Meg, VGA, and a slow hard disk will seem slower than a Plus, but a 16 MHz 386sx with Hercules graphics, 2 meg, and a fast 1:1 hard disk (cost: $1100) will run circles around a Plus. A lot also depends on the quality of the graphics card--some older ones were meant for XTs and ATs and are slow. Remember than the VGA under Windows 3 has the same colors/resolution as the Mac II color card (640x480x8-bit), and I know of many Mac II users who run in the 2-color mode because of the performance hit. Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space* It runs well in 2 mb of RAM. Most of the 6 Mb is non-essential stuff--reams of on-line context-sensitive help, background bitmaps, assorted "DA"-type stuff, and so forth. Win 3.0 can be pared to about 2 Mb of disk space. Compare/contrast to System 7... >I didn't notice anything that Windows does "better" than MacOS. It does >a lot "more" -- you can set a window color scheme and a desktop picture, >make windows into icons, access all commands from the keyboard, etc. -- >but most of those things are available as INITs for the Mac. "Better" is always subjective, but in my opinion Windows is better at: 1) Loading/running multiple applications. This is a function of the windowing interface and the better memory management of Windows (applications are incrementally loaded, so only as much as is needed is in memory. Keeping Excel and Winword around costs about 300K total). Windows was always intended to multitask; in Multifinder I'm always reminded (i.e. global menu bar) that the Mac was a single-tasking OS with multitasking thrown on later. 2) DDE (a/k/a interprocess communication). DDE allows information pasted from the clipboard to be updated automatically when the source is updated. It also allows one program to "remote control" another, so (using the favorite example) an Excel macro could automatically load a communications package, dial in, get the relevant data, and paste it back into Excel. Or, stay con- nected and continually update the spreadsheet as things change. Okay, System 7 will have this as well... 3) Support for a wide range of displays and printers. At least until very recently, most Mac people I knew held that going the non-Apple route (esp. in printers) was a rough road. In Windows all 3rd party products are equal--no support for one or the other is hard- wired into the system. Hooking up a cheap 1024x768x8-bit display system to Windows is no harder than using the more standard adapters, provided the drivers exist. 4) Virtual memory. The performance hit isn't too bad, and VM allows for running an occasional program that needs a lot of RAM without shelling out the $$$ for SIMMs. 5) Memory protection. On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably will make an appearance. Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme, Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital part of multitasking--what's the use of having 6 applications running if one of them can cause the whole works to crash? >Jim Matthews >Dartmouth Software Development I'd recommend comp.windows.ms for those really interested in what Windows 3.0 really is... Aaron Wallace
kassover@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) (05/30/90)
In article <3476@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (haseen alam) writes: ... > >Correct me if I'm wrong, software emulation is always SLOWER than hardware. >So windows will always be soft and mushy!!! 8-) Depends on the circumstances? I know of several installations that run emulators of hardware that is no longer available, and the applications run faster than on the hardware for which they were written. (and no application migration costs, to boot) Now if you had said software SIMULATION is always slower than hardware, I might have agreed. -- David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against kassover@ra.crd.ge.com sharp weapons and dull judges." kassover@crd.ge.com F. Collins
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (05/30/90)
In article <3476@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, halam@umnd-cpe-cola (haseen alam) writes: >Also, how about some technical info for programmers. Is windows totally in >software? Will it support toolbox type routines that can be called from >various programming languages? > >Correct me if I'm wrong, software emulation is always SLOWER than hardware. >So windows will always be soft and mushy!!! 8-) Last time I looked, the Mac Toolbox was software... :-) (not counting whatever tricks the IIfx might pull, which I know nothing about). I agree that MS Windows stinks, though. I'm now a happy new owner of an SE/30. I will be sure to show it to anybody who thinks that windowing PCs are cool. >Haseen. Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Ich weiss jetzt was kein Engel weiss
jem@cs.hut.fi (Johan Myreen) (05/30/90)
In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >UNIX, incidentally. It's also nice to be able to get rid of all files of >a certain kind using wildcards... The way to do this from the Finder is to sort the files by type, grab them with the mouse and throw tem in the trash. Not as fast as typing del *.txt, but it can be done. >The ability to iconify a windows is something I really wish the Mac had--I >like to be able to load an app, use it, shrink it down when I don't need it, >and restore it to use it again. Cycling through programs or choosing one >from the Finder is klunky and still leaves the unneeded ones occupying real- >estate. The new Finder will fix this. And set aside applications won't even leave an icon occupying real estate... >5) Memory protection. On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably > will make an appearance. Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that > the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme, > Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital On the Mac, you will get a box saying that the application misbehaved... Not always, of course. __ Johan Myreen jem@cs.hut.fi
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (05/31/90)
In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >I'm not a regular reader of comp.sys.mac.misc, but just to set the record >straight and prevent the spreading of mis-information... [...] >Believe it or not, a lot of people who love Windows hate mice. Even mousers >will find themselves using the keyboard shortcuts (as do most Mac users I >know). I'm always miffed when I can't ESC out of a Dialog box or hit Enter >instead of clicking OK on a Mac. At least Mac Word supports this... Hitting the OK or Enter key should almost always result in a dialog box's going away on the Mac: it's standard behavior for ModalDialog. [...] >5) Memory protection. On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably > will make an appearance. Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that > the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital > part of multitasking--what's the use of having 6 applications running > if one of them can cause the whole works to crash? Um, is this really protected memory? Methinks not. In fact, this behavior seems quite similar to MultiFinder: if the program crashes with not too severe an error, MultiFinder will simply post the message "Program X unexpectedly quit". Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
roskill@cs.umass.edu (05/31/90)
In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >The speed of Windows is a function of the hardware. a 16 MHz 386sx with only >a Meg, VGA, and a slow hard disk will seem slower than a Plus, but a 16 MHz >386sx with Hercules graphics, 2 meg, and a fast 1:1 hard disk (cost: $1100) >will run circles around a Plus. A lot also depends on the quality of the >graphics card--some older ones were meant for XTs and ATs and are slow. >Remember than the VGA under Windows 3 has the same colors/resolution as the >Mac II color card (640x480x8-bit), and I know of many Mac II users who run >in the 2-color mode because of the performance hit. So...what would be the cost of say a Mac IIcx in the PC world? I would bet that the pricing would be fairly close. Given this, the Mac still seems like the better option because all of the program currently out there are designed around the MacOS, as opposed to Windows 3.0 which will require a wait to get up to the Mac's number of applications. > >Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space* It runs well in 2 mb of RAM. Most >of the 6 Mb is non-essential stuff--reams of on-line context-sensitive help, >background bitmaps, assorted "DA"-type stuff, and so forth. Win 3.0 can be >pared to about 2 Mb of disk space. Compare/contrast to System 7... > System 7.0, at least the alpha or beta (sorry I don't remember) I got on the developers CD-ROM was huge. >1) Loading/running multiple applications. This is a function of the > windowing interface and the better memory management of Windows > (applications are incrementally loaded, so only as much as is > needed is in memory. Keeping Excel and Winword around costs > about 300K total). Windows was always intended to multitask; > in Multifinder I'm always reminded (i.e. global menu bar) that the Mac > was a single-tasking OS with multitasking thrown on later. Yeah...that does sound good. I wish my Mac could do that. The "set-aside" function does exist, but does nothing for memory. Simply put, you can change the window defintion so it has a "Shrink-to-icon" button. This does nothing for memory, however. >5) Memory protection. On the Mac if one program goes south the bomb probably > will make an appearance. Under Windows 3.0 you get a box saying that > the application misbehaved and, if the error wasn't too extreme, > Windows will kick it out and continue along. Protection is a vital > part of multitasking--what's the use of having 6 applications running > if one of them can cause the whole works to crash? Aaron...I think you got this wrong. All the Mac applications I've worked with (with Macsbugs on) would just quit and leave the machine fairly intact. It doesn't work all the time...but, as with Windows 3.0, if the error wasn't too extreme, the MacOS will kick it out and continue. >I'd recommend comp.windows.ms for those really interested in what Windows 3.0 >really is... Thanks! I'll take a look. >Aaron Wallace Damian |----------------------------------------------------------------| |"Party For Your Right To Fight" | "Welcome to the Terrordome!"| | Damian Roskill | | | Roskill@cs.umass.edu | | |----------------------------------------------------------------|
msf10759@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (05/31/90)
In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space* It runs well in 2 mb of RAM. Most >of the 6 Mb is non-essential stuff--reams of on-line context-sensitive help, >background bitmaps, assorted "DA"-type stuff, and so forth. Win 3.0 can be >pared to about 2 Mb of disk space. Compare/contrast to System 7... While I don't have a copy of System 7 handy ;) System 6.0.5 was distributed on four 800K floppies and took up about 2.8 Mb in all. That's including all the goodies like MacroMaker, the Apple-supplied fonts and desk accessories, various printer drivers, the HD Setup program, the Installer and its scripts, etc. etc. The "Minimum Macintosh SE" installation of System 6.0.5 takes up about 400 - 500 K on one floppy disk. (Does this mean that System 7 *won't* fit on one floppy disk?) Scott Forbes msf10759@uxa.cs.uiuc.edu
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (05/31/90)
In article <14934@dime.cs.umass.edu> roskill@cs.umass.edu writes: > System 7.0, at least the alpha or beta (sorry I don't remember) I got > on the developers CD-ROM was huge. It was an alpha. The reason is was huge is that it had 2 copies of the actual system, 2 copies of Inside Macintosh volume 6, HyperCard, the Technical Notes stack, and the DTS Q&A Stack (plus a bunch of utilities). The system itself was 5.5 meg total, and that still includes files that are only needed for installing it. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (05/31/90)
In article <14934@dime.cs.umass.edu> roskill@cs.umass.edu writes: >So...what would be the cost of say a Mac IIcx in the PC world? Mac IIcx is roughly comparable to, let's say, a 20 MHx 386 w/1.44 floppy, 40-60 Meg HD, mouse, VGA/color, DOS/Windows, and 4meg. I'd say finding this for under $2500 wouldn't be too hard... >I would bet that the pricing would be fairly close. Given this, >the Mac still seems like the better option because all of the program >currently out there are designed around the MacOS, as opposed to >Windows 3.0 which will require a wait to get up to the Mac's number >of applications. This is a good point--no machine runs vaporware. It'll be real interesting to see what is ported to Windows. Maybe Windows will provide enough of a mass- market to help finance more Windows *and* Mac apps... >Aaron...I think you got this wrong. All the Mac applications I've worked >with (with Macsbugs on) would just quit and leave the machine fairly >intact. It doesn't work all the time...but, as with Windows 3.0, if the >error wasn't too extreme, the MacOS will kick it out and continue. This issue was more muddled that I thought! It seems that the Mac (and PCs) can trap certain errors (i.e. division by zero, illegal instruction) and will terminate the offending application. I have a buggy shareware program that does this with Win 2.xx. I guess I'm unclear whether or not System 6 or 7 will support memory protection. I understood they didn't, but have been lead to believe otherwise. By protection, I mean that if a program tries to address a chunk of memory it doesn't own, it traps and gets kicked out. This seems to be a vital element to multitasking, since it protects applications from each others' bugs. If System 6/7 do have this, is a PMMU needed? Aaron Wallace P.S. It must be nice to talk about System 7 w/o circumlocution. Before Win 3.0 was released, everyone was bound by nondisclosure mumbo- jumbo into talking about "possible future upgrades" of Windows!
roskill@cs.umass.edu (06/01/90)
In article <1990May31.072828.2220@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >This is a good point--no machine runs vaporware. It'll be real interesting >to see what is ported to Windows. Maybe Windows will provide enough of a mass- >market to help finance more Windows *and* Mac apps... I know a lot of mac companies are very interested in porting to Windows 3.0 because of the tremendous installed base. I understand that Microsoft already has Word (almost identical to the mac) up and running. >does this with Win 2.xx. I guess I'm unclear whether or not System 6 or 7 >will support memory protection. I understood they didn't, but have been lead to >believe otherwise. By protection, I mean that if a program tries to address >a chunk of memory it doesn't own, it traps and gets kicked out. This seems to >be a vital element to multitasking, since it protects applications from each >others' bugs. If System 6/7 do have this, is a PMMU needed? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of...then no PMMU is needed. But I hardly qualify as a mac memory expert. > >Aaron Wallace > >P.S. It must be nice to talk about System 7 w/o circumlocution. Before > Win 3.0 was released, everyone was bound by nondisclosure mumbo- > jumbo into talking about "possible future upgrades" of Windows! Yeah...it is nice. Damian |----------------------------------------------------------------| |"Party For Your Right To Fight" | "Welcome to the Terrordome!"| | Damian Roskill | | | Roskill@cs.umass.edu | | |----------------------------------------------------------------|
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (06/01/90)
In article <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu>, roskill@cs.umass.edu writes... [...] > >I know a lot of mac companies are very interested in porting to Windows >3.0 because of the tremendous installed base. I understand that Microsoft >already has Word (almost identical to the mac) up and running. Microsoft. Microsoft. Hmmm, where have I heard that name before? Seriously, not the best example of a Mac company going over to Windows. Although I'm sure there are a number who will do development on both platforms. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (06/01/90)
> (Does this mean that System 7 *won't* fit on one floppy disk?)
The system 7 installer does include minimum scripts, but as to the total size,
i'm not sure...
._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg
Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg
INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS
FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) (06/01/90)
In article <14934@dime.cs.umass.edu> roskill@cs.umass.edu writes: >In article <1990May29.214054.21609@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >> >>Windows 3.0 takes up 6 Mb of *disk space* It runs well in 2 mb of RAM... >>...Compare/contrast to System 7... > >System 7.0, at least the alpha or beta (sorry I don't remember) I got >on the developers CD-ROM was huge. ---- Can you say 'debugging code'? :-) Why do folks expect so much of beta systems, let alone *alpha* (which is the only System 7 I've heared has been around the developer community)?!! I would think the 6Mb disk (including all options), 2Mb RAM for Windows 3 will be a little more than System 7, but not a lot. (Damn! - speaking as a Mac fan!) =========================================================================== Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be +44 279 29531 x2763 | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...' dswt@stl.stc.co.uk | ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt | Subdivisions, Rush =========================================================================== 'You know how that rabbit feels - going under your spinning wheels...' ===========================================================================
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (06/01/90)
|>By protection, I mean that if a program tries to address a chunk of memory |>it doesn't own, it traps and gets kicked out. This seems to be a vital |>element to multitasking, since it protects applications from each others' |>bugs. If System 6/7 do have this, is a PMMU needed? |If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of...then no PMMU is needed. But |I hardly qualify as a mac memory expert. Bzzzt - memory protection DOES require a PMMU (built in to the 68030) unless the system wanted to trap EVERY memory reference. That would be sort of like SoftPC, which is slow. :-) Sys 6 and 7 do/will not have memory protection. (sigh) Apple has said that it will appear in a "future" system (please, dear God, sys 8!!!) as will preemptive multitasking. Memory protection looks to be quite an undertaking if we don't want tons of applications broken. Perhaps this will come with a complete rewrite of the OS, using that 20/20 hindsight! -- | _ /| | Robert Minich | | \'o.O' | Oklahoma State University | | =(___)= | minich@a.cs.okstate.edu | | U | - Bill sez "Ackphtth" |
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (06/03/90)
In article <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu>, roskill@cs.umass.edu writes: > In article <1990May31.072828.2220@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... > >does this with Win 2.xx. I guess I'm unclear whether or not System 6 or 7 > >will support memory protection. I understood they didn't, but have been lead to > >others' bugs. If System 6/7 do have this, is a PMMU needed? > If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of...then no PMMU is needed. But I > hardly qualify as a mac memory expert. Okay, let's get this straight: System 7 gives us VIRTUAL memory. If we have a PMMU (the 68030 has it built-in.) Virtual memory means you can set aside part of your hard disk for paging, and the machine pretends this part of the disk is in-core memory. Inactive parts of memory are stored on disk, while parts requested by applications are loaded back into RAM. This is done in hardware and completely transparent to the applications (but paging takes a little time - you'll probably notice this when you switch apps in MultiFinder) The RUMORED System 8 MAY have protected memory. Protected memory ALSO requires a PMMU. This PMMU can be told that certain applications only has write-access to certain parts of memory. If an application tries to write outside these parts (due to a bug in the software, for instance) this is caught, and the offending app is kicked out. This is so that MS WORD doesn't stomp your ZTerm when it reads a corrupted file. Protected memory on the mac is hard, though - the Window List, for one, spans applicatino heaps, and some applicatinos tend to be awfully fond of accessing the System Heap. What I would do, if I were Apple, is to map all memory as readable, but only your heap as writable. Then, if a write outside of this occured, the trap function could check if this was reasonable, and grant/deny access appropriately. Also, I would put in a status bit (much like MF Aware) that enabled these features. Old apps would get write access to their own heap AND the system heap - but not other applications heaps. Yes, a compromise, but something to work from. Jon W{tte, Stockholm, Sweden, h+@nada.kth.se
erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (06/04/90)
In article <13189@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: >> (Does this mean that System 7 *won't* fit on one floppy disk?) >The system 7 installer does include minimum scripts, but as to the total size, >i'm not sure... The System 7 installer says the minimum hardware configuration is two megabytes of memory and one 1.44 Mb floppy. I haven't tried this but seeing 7 run on a Mac II I suspect most Plus and SE owners will stick with 6.0.? (Can you say ssssllllloooooooowwwww?) Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk Yuppies think I'm a wino 'cos I seem to have no class, Girls think I'm perverted 'cos I watch them as they pass.
jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE) (06/05/90)
In article <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu> roskill@cs.umass.edu writes: >In article <1990May31.072828.2220@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >>This is a good point--no machine runs vaporware. It'll be real interesting >>to see what is ported to Windows. Maybe Windows will provide enough of a mass- >>market to help finance more Windows *and* Mac apps... > >I know a lot of mac companies are very interested in porting to Windows >3.0 because of the tremendous installed base. I understand that Microsoft >already has Word (almost identical to the mac) up and running. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Well, that is stretching the similarity. I try to use "Word for Windows" on my 386 machine at work and the menus are not the same as Mac Word 4. Most of the features are there, even some new ones, but they renamed and rearranged the menus so I'm constantly searching for stuff. I've been told that the menus can be changed by the user, but it's seemed like less trouble to work on my Mac, save in RTF, and copy it to the 386. James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth Standard Disclaimer++
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (06/06/90)
In article<4457@castle.ed.ac.uk> erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > > The System 7 installer says the minimum hardware configuration >is two megabytes of memory and one 1.44 Mb floppy. I haven't tried this >but seeing 7 run on a Mac II I suspect most Plus and SE owners will >stick with 6.0.? (Can you say ssssllllloooooooowwwww?) > Tony I think this is an unfair assesment of the performance of 7.0 The reason being that the only System 7 most people have seen is the recent alpha release, and making judgements of speed and performance at this time is irresponsible IMHO. I would think that by the time that its released, a number of things will be done to optomize the performance of System 7. Its like saying that just because this version crashes that the release will be buggy, chances are because of the initial releases this system will be much better than previous releases because of its early introduction to the developers, instead of the usual surprise. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM