🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3691@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes:
>In article <7658@apple.Apple.Com> dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes:
>>In article <3609@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes:
>   ...Lot's of discussion about how I'm confusing multitasking and windowing
> systems.
	Well, we agree that multitasking and windowing systems are separate
entities and you can't compare one to the other.  That's one of the points
I was trying to make.  The rest of the discussion I was trying to compare
windowing as available under MultiFinder and windowing as available under
other multitasking systems.

>You and I must have very different understandings of the term
>"multitasking."  I would like to use this definition:
>
>       "In a true multitasking system, tasks can run independently.
>	They can also communicate with and interrupt each other."
>		-- Caia Grisar, MIT Information Services.
>
>I do not understand how a system can be non-preemptive multitasking.
	Caia has a very limited definition of multitasking.  The more
usual definition I've seen is a system that allows multiple tasks to
appear to run simultaneously.  Only when one starts talking about
interactive multiuser multitasking is it safe to assume premptive.
In all other cases it may be more efficient and desireable to have
nonpreemptive.

>Multitasking has to be implemented in the operating system, in this
>case Unix.  This is partly why I feel MultiFinder is not multitasking;
>it was not written as part of the OS, it was added later.
	Well, fortunately, the definiton of the Macintosh OS allows
such things as multitasking and other OS features to be cleanly and
simply integrated in later.  It's not a very valid argument to argue
that all of an operating systems features must be designed in from
the start.  I prefer to see operating systems and computers as
dynamic.

>
>>			It (MultiFinder) presents a single, easily
>>learned, consistent interface across all applications.  That's
>>something that SunView and X can't provide and NeWS has yet to
>>prove that it will provide.
>
>Again, your points have nothing to do with multitasking.  Multitasking
>is about _multiple_tasks_, not user interfaces.
	Granted, but I was responding to the question of why would
anybody prefer MultiFinder to multitasking.  Apart from the fact that
multifinder vs multitasking is like apple vs. fruit, one reason to use
MultiFinder instead of other multitasking alternatives is that MultiFinder
provides the only multitasking that also provides a consistent user
interface across all applications and runs existing macintosh applications.

>>		    All other things equal, which they basically are,
>						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>consistency makes the Macintosh interface and MultiFinder simpler to
>>learn and use than X, NeWS, or SunView.
>
>I really can't let this go by.  Would you mind supporting that statement?
	Well, MultiFinder provides multitasking.  It allows 95% of all
users to do all the things one expects of a multitasking system.  That
seems pretty equal to me.

>
>>>What's that?  Mac software?  Who cares about Mac software?
>>>
>>>Adam
>>>
>>>disclaimer:  MIT lets me use their equipment because I pay them
>>>$12,500 a year.
>>	Well, Adam, eventually you'll make it out into the real world
>>and discover that there are several million people who want a system
>>that's easy to use, presents a consistent user interface and does
>>what Mac software does and Unix doesn't.  Unix is wonderful for
>>universities, some businesses and maybe even workstations, but it's
>>just too big and too complex for 95% of the worlds population.
>
>Don't patronize me.  I have my opinions and I enjoy discussing them.
>Your comment precludes any discussion between us; you imply my
>opinions have no value because I am a student.  If I agreed with you
>you would not make the same comment.  And why do you assume I have
>no real world experience?  Have you never heard of people working for
>a few years before returning to college to complete their degree?
	I apologize for being patronizing.  The simple fact of the
matter is that the ideal situation one has the freedom to explore
in a college and the situation one finds when dealing with most
users are quite different.  Your arguments that "I don't have any
any macintosh software therefore macintosh software doesn't matter"
indicates that you choose to deny a reality Apple and the rest of
the microcomputer industry has to deal with.  Apple has to support
a very large number of people who want to continue to use that
software, and/or find that that software meets their needs in a
reasonable, cost efficient, timely manner and is also easy to learn
to use.  Most users don't care about preemptive vs. nonpreemptive
multitasking and in fact don't know what either is.  They simply
want to get work done.
	I claim that MultiFinder is a very viable and effective
solution to the real world problem of providing real users with
a multitasking system which solves the problems they need to have
solved.  That it may not solve your particular problems is unfortunate.
I'm not convinced that it doesn't or in the future won't, but you
are obviously free to whatever opinion you wish.  Personally, I
find that it currently meets 95% of my needs.  I know of no other
system which better meets my needs.  The Amiga doesn't have the
applications.  Unix and it's attendant windowing systems don't
have the applications.  There are some things that I as a computer
professional would like it to do that it currently doesn't.  I do,
however, get much more done with it than with unehanced the Macintosh OS.
>
>Nor do I understand your comments about Unix.  I never claimed Unix
>was the world's salvation.  I never mentioned Unix at all.
	Well, in this forum it is reasonable to assume that multitasking
windowing systems refers to one of:
	Amiga
	Unix w/X, NeWS, SunView
	Macintosh w/MultiFinder
Those being the three that are commonly and readily available today.
Oops, I suppose VMS with X should be added to that list.  Since you
were discrediting MultiFinder I assumed you were declaring a preference
for Unix.
>
>I acknowledge the reality of several million Mac users (my last
>posting).  But you still have not addressed my main point:
>
>As a tool for switching between tasks, MultiFinder has absolutely no
>advantage over multitasking.  And at least one disadvantage (which you
>have granted me).
	Nope, I've repeatedly pointed out a couple of advantages of
MultiFinder over other multitasking systems which you've dismissed
without really discounting.
	1.  MultiFinder provides multitasking services to an existing
windowing system which has proven easy to learn and use.
	2.  MultiFinder allows millions of people to continue using
there existing software, most of it with no changes and still have
all the advantages of multitasking.
-- 
David W. Berry
dwb@Delphi	dwb@apple.com	973-5168@408.MaBell
Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly
	wouldn't want if they did.