peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) (05/02/90)
In article <1990May2.003335.3250@agate.berkeley.edu> lippin@math.berkeley.edu writes: > .... What is needed is a way >to boot from a read-only file system (currently the system folder must >be writable.) Then a local hard disk could have a read-only system >partition, which is safe against all users except those both cunning >and malicious. Huh? I boot from write-protected floppy disks all the time! The only thing annoying is that the system won't let you even go into the Chooser if it is locked (for instance, if you just want to look at the current settings). -- Steve Peltz P-ASEL C-G Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
zben@umd5.umd.edu (Ben Cranston) (05/02/90)
In article <5590@okstate.UUCP: minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: : o Security for public labs, so we don't have to have a bunch of : hacked inits to stay sane. Maybe network booting, as well. Recently sl198004@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Vincent Schonau) wrote: : This is definitely a _must_ keeps people from screwing with your system : disks.... In <1990May2.003335.3250@agate.berkeley.edu: lippin@math.berkeley.edu writes: : While network booting would be real nice, it's not going to keep : people from screwing with tghe system disks. What is needed is a way : to boot from a read-only file system (currently the system folder must : be writable.) Then a local hard disk could have a read-only system : partition, which is safe against all users except those both cunning : and malicious. One possibility is to erect a local RAM disk and switchlaunch to a system on that RAM disk. I don't think you need to write to the system folder until after the boot, I believe in the scheme we are using the switchlaunch is a startup application. -- "It's all about Power, it's all about Control All the rest is lies for the credulous" -- Man-in-the-street interview in Romania one week after Ceaucescu execution.
dent@fergvax.unl.edu (Dave Caplinger) (05/03/90)
From article <2129@zipeecs.umich.edu>, by gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin): > In article <67@victoria.cs.utexas.edu> s881@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Connolly) writes: >>world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process >>is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take >>MacDraw EVERY day). > > Suppose you want to do a large ray trace? I wouldn't want to sit around for > several hours without being able to use my system for something else. > With preemption, you just shove the process in the background at a low > priority, and it gobbles up any CPU time that you do not use. Generally, when > you're doing something like word processing, there are tons of cycles to spare > since you appear to be moving about as fast as granite to a computer. > [...] > How about: Cooperative is fine for somethings, but just doesn't cut it for > others. I see what you're saying, but I think you gave the wrong reason. (Didn't you read The Macintosh Way? :-) Macintosh (non-preemptive) multitasking lets you do exactly what you just said you wanted preemption for: starting up a task (for example a large ray trace), and shoving it in the background at a low priority while you do something else. In fact, the get the "low priority" part for free because the "front" application will get a "high priority" simply by the nature of cooperative multitasking. :-) > See ya, Ralph -/ Dave Caplinger /--------------------------------------------------------- President -- University of Nebraska at Omaha Student Chapter of ACM dent@rsal.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent (BITNET? HA!) -/ Dave Caplinger /--------------------------------------------------------- Microcomputer Specialist, Campus Computing, Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha dent@zeus.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent DENT@UNOMA1
dave@diddley.ccs.cc.umich.edu (Dave Koziol) (05/04/90)
In article <54317@microsoft.UUCP> t-allenb@microsoft.UUCP (Allen BRIGGS) writes: >I'm not speaking for Microsoft on this in any way, but MS Word 4.0 >runs fine on my A/UX 1.1 system at home, and if it runs in that >environ, it should (IMHO) run on any MacOS system that Apple can >throw out in the next few years (if any ship in that timeframe). >I can see it now, System 6.0.6, 6.0.7,... > >-allen briggs > (...!{uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!t-allenb) I can't resist this one. Gee, if Word 4.0 was such a well behavied application then why would Microsoft need to release a 4.0a, and gee, what about a 4.0b? (Anybody want to take bets on whether or not there will be a 4.0c?) (Did someone say Mac IIci compatability? among other fixes) Every year at MacHack, we've been using Microsoft products as a test of INITs, cdevs, patches, and other good stuff. Every year we find some interesting neat feature (read BUG!) in a Microsoft application. It's a real shame Microsoft isn't willing to let any of their programmers come to MacHack. (That's the Macintosh Technical Developers Conference for you suits out there...) Dave Koziol | Internet: dave@ccs.cc.umich.edu Macintosh Programmer | Bitnet: UserDave@umichum.bitnet Information Technology Division | UUCP: ...!terminator!koziol University of Michigan | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: "They don't pay me enough to need a disclaimer" But this is of course, my own opinion....
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/04/90)
s881@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Connolly) writes: >I heard the Mac OS is derived from S.O.S. (sophisticated operating system), >written in pascal for the Apple ///. Is this true? God, I hope not. ProDOS was derived from S.O.S.'s low level interface, and it's written entirely in assembly (like much of the Mac toolbox). I thought the Mac OS was supposed to be a much cleaner break: S.O.S. was never that bad, the Apple /// designers just bit off much more than they could chew about a year too soon (64k DRAMs were still too expensive... wow) and by the time the got the problems fixed the machine had a horrid reputation and nothing could save it. The machine was a mistake, really: it really needed things which didn't show up until the IIGS. (Of course, by that time the Mac OS was already beginning to show some 20/20 hindsight, and that helped too...) > Oh well, I guess it's better than CP/M-derived stuff. >But why not a scaled down unix (OS-9, Minix, etc) in the first place? I always wondered that. I heard the Lisa design team had worked from that frame of mind, but the Mac team didn't borrow enough from them and the Mac OS paid for it later (Multifinder tech notes, 32 bit clean, etc). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (05/04/90)
In article <17591@well.sf.ca.us> nilesinc@well.sf.ca.us (Avi Rappoport) writes: >Who says developers complained? Who says developers even got System 7 yet? >I want a little attribution here! If anyone actually has it they wont be saying, they will be under non-disclosure >As far as I can tell, it's slipping because it's complicated. We're supposed >to get beta copies at the Developer Conference next week, and I expect that >the thousands of developers will find yet more bugs and design problems. Of course ... that's one of the main reasons for shipping betas (lots of free QA testing - by very expensive programmers). [The other reason of course is so that applications will work with the new software and potentially use some of the new features]. Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P "The current plan is to replace the flag with one with alternating vertical black and white stripes of varying widths - this is thought to better represent the country's system of government ..."
ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) (05/05/90)
In article <5069@utastro.UUCP> james@utastro.UUCP (James McCartney) writes: >In article <67@victoria.cs.utexas.edu>, s881@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Connolly) writes: >> When using a graphically oriented machine like the mac, real-time >> response is WONDERFUL: I use a Mac at home and an X-windows Unix >> box at school. (I'm sure this is not rare) In the time-sliced X-windows >> world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process >> is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take >> MacDraw EVERY day). > > Try starting a large print job in the bacground across Appletalk. You will >then find your Mac lagging seconds behind on Mouse clicks and Key presses, >JUST LIKE UNIX!!. > > --- James McCartney Ah, but the HP 9000/370 Dan was using to post that article, and the Sun Sparcstation 1 I'm using to post this have a bit more horsepower than my SE at home (I have no idea what Dan has). I've been on a Sparcstation, with nobody else on, running Xwindows, with 3 windows open. I'm reading news on one, another is the console window (for messages), and the third is doing nothing. I just LOVE hitting a mouse button and waiting a full second for the menu to appear...and xload said the system load was less than 1... If Printmonitor had been written well, it would operate almost transparently... It wouldn't take over the system for a few seconds at a time, more like about 1/4th of a second at a time... The reason Unix boxes lag while in window environments is not lack of power, but the fact that not enough priority is given to the user interface. Just today, I was copying my directory (it was huge), and wanted to check out it's status by doing a du on my console window. I'd move the mouse from my rn window to the console window, the console window would highlight, and THEN I'd hit !!. Unfortunately, the !! frequently came out on the rn window. Time for a shell escape...and yes, this was AFTER the console window was highlighted...and the Sparcstation is supposed to be optimized for windows!!! (don't believe me? check out scrolling while on console and not using a window system. It really sux bad...) And, of course, I just love the way the damn machine locks up while doing an xsetroot -bitmap...so much for time slicing...I'd much rather be able to do something and wait a bit longer for my background than just sit around... -- Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) Someone shot the food...
ted@cs.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward) (05/05/90)
In article <2129@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: >Suppose you want to do a large ray trace? I wouldn't want to sit around for >several hours without being able to use my system for something else. >With preemption, you just shove the process in the background at a low >priority, and it gobbles up any CPU time that you do not use. Generally, when >you are doing something like word processing, there are tons of cycles to spare >since you appear to be moving about as fast as granite to a computer. If I were writing a ray tracing program, I would call WaitNextEvent() every so often (note C bias :-) ). This allows the background raytracer to give control back to the foreground application. Then you could use the system for whatever else you wanted. Designed correctly, applications like this work very well in a cooperative multitasking environment. You just have to be willing to give control back every so often; often enough that the user has a minimum of frustration because the Mac does not respond (ie, NOT Printmonitor...:-( ) -- Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) Someone shot the food...
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (05/08/90)
What enhancements would I like to see? This is rather mundane, but I would like to see better icons for folders. I have a hard disk (two of them, actually), and all I ever see on my desktop anymore are folders. When I open one, I typically see a couple of meaningful icons, and several more folders. I *like* icons. It's a lot easier, visually, to find the icon for (say) MS Word than it is to find the Word Processors folder. All the folders look the same, and at this point, everything is in a folder. So I'm suggesting that, instead of the generic "blank folder" icon, suppose we could have different icons for different folders. It would be nice to have a visual indication that a given icon represents a folder, so it would be logical to keep the generic folder outline, and squeeze an icon into the area representing the front of the folder (as on the system folder)--but there just isn't enough room. Suppose, instead, we expand the folder icon to be the largest possible square--a black border and a white interior. Other icons could be superimposed on this: the icon for the "most important" application in the folder, or a "representative" icon, or we could roll our own. For example, the icon for the Word Processors folder might consist of the MS Word icon enclosed in a square. If you think this is a poorly-thought-out idea, you're right. It's nothing more than a first crude suggestion for getting rid of all those uninformative blank folder icons. [And yes, I do know about icon docks. A cool idea, and possibly of some help; but it doesn't solve the problem of all those identical folder icons.] How does this sound? Any better ideas? -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. << "Next time, Jack, write a goddamned memo!" >>