🚀 go-pugleaf

>Henrik Wetterstr�閙��蒹鉉綫蔬�紿�鳫�捨昇�鞣癇�竚舮篠貯�柚家祇蜴纉祟頸宵�跟雪蒹續甌蜴纉祟頸�捕蜊舮戻鱚�吶矼跫�蜴���蜚纉捨
>    It was usual to teach to edit files with edlin. I like UNIX vi, and
>in fact I still use vi both in UNIX and DOS. :-) But edlin interface is
>to awkward even for me! You are not going to tell me that edlin is easier
>to learn and use than Teach Text, because it doesn't require a mouse, are
>you? :-)
>

I don't think anyone would argue such a thing.  (Then again, there are some real
crazy people lurking these newsgroups)  But I think the point is one of efficiency.
For short term (no time investment involved) work, Teach Text is great.  A baboon
could figure out how to use it! ;-)  For speed/efficiency for long term projects,
you are better off investing time into learning a more powerful interface think "vi".
This is completely beside the point of any OS.  Every OS I have seen has an equivolent
to "Teach Text", and every OS I have seen has "vi".  (I think there is a Mac version,
isn't there?)

>    A user suspects the disk is not OK. The MacOS comes with the Disk Aid
>app., with an appropriate icon. An unexperient DOS user may think if
>he should use CHCP, CHDIR, CHKDSK, CLS... For the experienced user, it's
>obvious that CHKDSK (check disk :-) is the thing to use, but for beginners
>the abbreviations are very confusing.
>

Sorry if this is off the subject a bit, but taking about Disk usage under the Mac...
First off, I don't think finding the "Disk Aid" app is truely that simple...  Perhaps
if you bought your macintosh and read through the whole manual, you would be allerted
to its existance, but I use Macintosh's only in the office.  When I had a disk problem
I didn't have the slighted idea what I could do.  I just got a picture of
"confused, crashed mac" on the screen.

I'm not advocating things like CHKDSK, I'm just pointing out that in either case,
I would have to read a manual to find out what to do.  I don't know, is there a
better way?  Perhaps. Neither system is flawless.

My favorite quirk in Apples concepts of the GUI is the trashcan!  Have you ever
tried to explain that concept to a beginner?  "Okay, If you want to throw away a
file, pick it up, and drop it into the trash..."  Simple, enough isn't it?  Then
it comes time to show them how to eject the disk.  "Okay, pick up the disk and
drop it in the trash..."   "NO!  I JUST SPENT HOURS ON THAT DOCUMENT SAVED TO THE
DISK!"

Is it just me, or did they screw up the concept of the trash can?  Hehe :-/


>: What I mean is that many people (mostly Mac fanatics) live in an illusion where
>: they believe multitasking is NOT essential for future evolution.
>
>    UNIX fanatics always lived in an illusion where multitasking is essential.
>But while DOS and MacOS and Windows have been selling alot, companies supporting
>VMS and UNIX and Amiga had severe problems.
>

This is not the fault of inclusion of Multitasking.  I also think it is unfair to say
the Mac fanatics live in an illusion that Multitasking is not essential.  I bet
almost everyone would like multitasking if it were offered! (Yes, Mac users would
also like it, honest.)  Its just a sad fact that there _IS_ multitasking in UNIX,
and there _IS NOT_ multitasking in MacOS, and people are so adamant that they have
comprimised any sense of objectivity.

I'm a UNIX users.  I would like a consistent GUI on the apps I work in--it would make
my work a little less tedious, and would probably make me a little more efficient.
The GUI of the MacOS is indeed a good GUI--I have a few problems with a few concepts
in it, but overall--it works fine!  When I use Macintosh at work, I often wish for
a little bit more robust on a multitasking environment because I log onto the Internet,
and work on spreadsheets and word processing at the same time...

To sum it up, UNIX is good, but it could incorporate some things from the MacOS.
MacOS is good, but it could incorportate some things from some of the UNIX OS's.
 

>    MacOS and Windows have multitasking for years, Windows NT has preemptive
>multitasking, and MacOS will have it too.
>

Yes MacOS will have preemptive multitasking.  Oh, yeah, and UNIX will have a
nice GUI.  (Caldera is offering a pretty damn good one now!  Things are only
getting better for every OS!)

>    Or the PowerPC can expand faster than P*, and the Hardware Reference
>Platform can take of, and the 80x86 family end up just like the Amiga,
>but with no one wanting to bring it alive again.
>

Marketing will put all sorts of things into peoples heads.  I'm not too interested
is x86 vs. PowerPC arguements.  It seems that very soon the underlying hardware
will be completely removed from the OS arguement.  Linux will soon work (knock on
wood!) on the new PowerPC-PCI boards.  OS/2 also works across these platforms.
How about the DEC-ALPHA?  266Mhz, and you can run WinNT or Linux.  (As I understand
it, the only real thing left to get running is X-Windows).  Hmm?  You say you want
to run MacOS on your x86?  I don't think that is too far off either!  Have you
heard about ARDI?  They have an exceedingly stable Macintosh/Motorolla chip
software emulation (that is very portable), and they currently run thier version
of MacOS on x86 Linux, x86 DOS, and NeXT machines.  There has recently been talk
about the possibility to make it so you can "drop-in" true MacOS7.5 for full
Macintosh compatibility.  My roommates P90 runs faster that the machine at work.
(granted the machine at work is a IIsi)...

What I would like to see would be an ALPHA version of that!  That would be the
fastest mac around for sure!


>    Whatever you buy now will be obsolete in a few years.

Not if you buy upgradable systems.

>    Strangely enough, several people that know alot about computers would/did
>advise me to sell my Mac and buy something and install some free UNIX. No
>mater the fact that then I wouldn't be able to run the software that is
>important to me. This means that I would use UNIX not to do something, but
>just to run PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING. That's absurd!

Yes.  It is truely absurd.
>
>    A friend of mine bought a PC years ago and installed a free UNIX. He said
>I should do the same. Recently he admitted that he has DOS too. He said that at
>home he doesn't have much patience to do the same kind of work he does at work,
>so he uses his computer almost only in DOS (no preemptive multitasking, no
>multitasking at all) for games. That's absurd!

Yes. This too is absurd.  But this sounds like a personal absurdity, and not a general
trend.  Most users of UNIX do run software on thier operating systems.  And most
users of UNIX do truely need their multitasking abilities.  --or at least I do.  I
hope it won't be long before the Macintoshes have it also.  Competition only leads to
good things! :-)
>
>
>    Cheers,
>    Jaime.

Jeff Halverson