🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Mar 1996 16:24:53 GMT, hayesk@is.dal.ca (Kevin B. Hayes) wrote:

>Dan Pop (danpop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
>
>: MacOS 7.x -- Windows 3.x: no memory protection, no PMT
>: Copland   -- Win95:       limited memory protection and PMT, due to backward
>:                           compatibility requirements.
>: Gershwin  -- Win/NT:      full memory protection and PMT, limited backward
>:                           compatibility.
>
>First of all, you are saying OSes are "equivalent" based on memory 
>management. I'm sorry, but Win95 was matched in 1991 with 7.0 - if you count
>other features.

You mean in 1991, the Mac OS could dynamically allocate memory to apps
without the user "specifying" how much memory each apps needs by
him/herself?

It had a dynamic virtual memory swap file that resized according to
the needs of the system?

It had a dynamic ram cache that did the same?

It had none of those.  And still doesn't.


>That's your problem. If the memory model was the pinnacle of the 
>usefulness of an OS we'd all be using Unix. I wonder why we're not?

It's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it's a signifcant part.  Of
course, it's not significant to the Mac users, because they don't have
it.  And of course, once Copland arrives- whenever the hell that is-
Mac users will be trumpeting its superior (slightly) memory protection
over Win95.

>: It's clearly not my fault that the Mac equivalents of Win95 and Win/NT
>: are not here and nobody knows when they'll be.  This doesn't mean that
>: MacOS 7.x apps can be meaningfully compared to Win95 or Win/NT apps.
>: Power or 68k, MacOS 7.x apps can be compared only to Win 3.x apps.
>
>They're not here because we upgraded our macs' OSes long ago. Get a clue,
>there's more to an OS than memory management.

Get a clue, there's more to an OS than a GUI.