🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Glue (daveacg@interlog.com) wrote:
: english@primenet.com (Lawson English) wrote:

: >So, shoehorn in multitasking on top of a single-tasking OS without 
: >breaking previous applications in the process and without requiring a 
: >complete rewrite of the entire ToolBox and OS while you are at it.

: So, due to previous lack of foresight, the Mac's multitasking is now
: "good" because it was _difficult_ to make it any better?

: Destroys a lot of criticisms for Microsoft's compromises had to make
: with 95, doesn't it?  Don't blame them- it was "hard" to overcome all
: that old baggage.  But they will get the flames, because they
: _created_ that baggage that they had to work around- as did Apple.


I don't criticize MS for taking so long to do WIndows 95. I DO criticize 
them for pretending that it would NOT take so long.


: Would you apply the same logic to say, Intel?  When a friend asks you
: which chip is better, would you say "Well, the 604 beats the best
: Pentium out there.  But remember, Intel has a lot of legacy code to
: support, so it's a lot harder for them.  So I say give 'em a break.
: Buy a Pentium."

: (Comments about OS/2 being able to do it while remaining compatible
: don't apply, of course.)

Actually, OS/2 is interesting because it implements its own API. It just 
happens to accept programs written for a different API. 

: >I don't believe that I have ever "blasted" Windows 95. When asked, I say 
: >that I understand that it is quite good -better than the Mac's OS and 
: >interface in some ways.

: Sorry then, lumped you in with someone else.  

: >: The Macs multitasking is "poor" because virtually every other OS that
: >: reports to mulitask does it far better.

: >The Mac's multitasking is poor because it was a quick and dirty fix to an 
: >underlying design flaw that will require a rewrite of virtually all 
: >routines in the Mac toolbox, graphics API and OS to correct.

: >The Mac's multitasking is excellent because despite being such a kludge, 
: >it works with all Macs built since 1985, and broke almost no 
: >existing programs.

: >As I said, if Apple does such poor work that you can criticize them for 
: >everything that they've ever done, let's see you do better, given the 
: >constraints that the folks that did Multifinder had.

: We know the problems.  However, other manufacturers _have_ been able
: to provide semi-smooth multitasking without breaking a lot of older
: apps- OS/2 and Win95 for examples.  

OS/2 was a "from the ground up" solution. Windows 95 isn't all that great 
at multi-tasking if you are using 16-bit apps (can we say "P6"?) and 
COpland, the semi-smooth multitasking solution from Apple, will probably 
be out within 6 months of the current shipment projections (ie, Jan 
1997), whereas Windows 95 is how late?


: And no, I couldn't do better.  We're back to this again, are we?  That
: argument simply doesn't hold water due to the fact we all criticise
: things we can't do all the time- and likely, you have as well.  We
: critique them in _comparison_ to others.  I'm sure if the Mac's System
: 7 was the first incarnation of multitasking on the planet, we would be
: hailing it as a breakthrough.  But far older machines and OS's have
: done it far better, and modern OS's have been able to overcome the
: hurdles of their own lack of ingenuity in creating their
: single-tasking OS's. 

My reaction was in the attack on Apple for doing its "typically poor" (or 
words to that effect) job. I never said that MF was great, 
state-of-the-art, whatever, only that it didn't warrant the attack on Apple.

If you want attacks for "typically poor," try running Microsoft Works 4.0 
on an 8 meg PowerMac. It makes the original Word 6.0 fiasco look mild in 
comparison.


Picture: MS's OLE 2.0 on a Mac using the PCODE interpreter combined with 
Apple's addmittedly poor implementation of virtual memory....


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------