🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3609@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes:
>
>greatest benefits of multitasking.  Seeing as how the Mac has
>single-tasking written all over its OS I don't see how Multifinder
>can be anything but large and complicated.  In other words:
>---> IT'S A HACK. <---

Large and complicated compared to what?  Sure it would have been easier and
smaller to design in MultiTasking from the start, but MultiFinder is not
large (50K) and it works very well.  As you said, it brings many of the
benefits of multitasking to Mac users, without having to rewrite
applications. 

>What does Multifinder have over multitasking?  In other words:
>---> WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO USE MULTIFINDER??? <---
>
>What's that?  Mac software?  Who cares about Mac software?

Millions of people care.  The available Mac software is in fact
MultiFinder's advantage over the Amiga or UNIX.  There are many tasks for
which the Mac is the best tool.  (There are tasks for which the Amiga or
UNIX is the best tool.)

If you simply judge systems on the basis of multitasking, then MultiFinder
would not offer any advantages.  Most users, however, don't buy computers
based on operating system features.

-- 
		 Larry Rosenstein,  Object Specialist
 Apple Computer, Inc.  20525 Mariani Ave, MS 32E  Cupertino, CA 95014
	    AppleLink:Rosenstein1    domain:lsr@Apple.COM
		UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr