WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Deathstalke » Wed, 22 May 1996 04:00:00






>  Did you get your medication today?

   He probably didn't.

Quote:>* MacInTrash had its GUI before win1.0.

   Ah, yes, but they bought most of the code from AT&T. So did M$. The reason
OS/2 (the best operating system) exists is because of the cross-licensing
agreement and PC power users.

Quote:>  Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity.

   How true.
 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Dan Mahon » Mon, 27 May 1996 04:00:00






> >* MacInTrash had its GUI before win1.0.
>    Ah, yes, but they bought most of the code from AT&T. So did M$. The reason
> OS/2 (the best operating system) exists is because of the cross-licensing
> agreement and PC power users.

Really?  I thought Apple got it's concepts, such as the Mouse, the GUI,
and even the new trackpad, from Xerox.

At one time, I was an advocate of "Which machine is better".  Now that the
main features (Intuitive GUI, Plug-N-Play, Cross-Platform Architecture)
are available on all machines, the chasms that separated users is
shortened.  Within five years, (my own guess), all machines will be able
to run all the OSes, and then these stupid debates will be no more.

Anyway, these OSes all lack one thing:Preemptive Multitasking.  When that
comes out, and with enough editing:(Hacking), you will be able to make any
OS run and look like any other, probably (with enough machinepwer)
including emulation of non-native OSes,

Just my .02, but I don't read this group much and appreciate any and all
E-mail feedback.

PS:I use a mac (no flames please), for one reason.  It's what my school
(and my chosen Graphic Arts profession uses.  I am proficient at all the
major OSes, and have yet to meet many other people who are.  If they were,
maybe they wouldn't be making obnoxious posts like RE:MACS SUX, APPLE OUT
OF BUSINESS!.

Any decision that is not informed is not a decision but a forced choice.

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Nathan Tenni » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00




>>* MacInTrash had its GUI before win1.0.
>    Ah, yes, but they bought most of the code from AT&T. So did M$. The reason
> OS/2 (the best operating system) exists is because of the cross-licensing
> agreement and PC power users.

Get your facts straight.  Apple didn't buy any code to the create the
Macintosh, just as Microsoft didn't buy any code to create Windows.  Apple
was influenced by and licensed some human interface designs created at
Xerox PARC, as did - I believe - Microsoft.  Microsoft also licensed
aspects of the Macintosh HI.  AT&T didn't have anything to do with it.

Nathan Tennies
Bootstrap Enterprises Inc

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Jay R. Ashwor » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00




: >  Did you get your medication today?
:    He probably didn't.

_You_ _certainly_ didn't.

: >* MacInTrash had its GUI before win1.0.
:    Ah, yes, but they bought most of the code from AT&T. So did M$. The reason
: OS/2 (the best operating system) exists is because of the cross-licensing
: agreement and PC power users.

Hmmm. ... I bet Atkinson, Poskanzer, Wozniak et al would be really
interested to hear that those 18 or so months of work they did
constituted "buying the Mac interface code from AT&T".

: >  Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity.
:    How true.

You bet.

Cheers,
-- jr 'will correct the uninformed for food' a
--

Member of the Technical Staff
The Suncoast Freenet     "The world will remain dangerously unstable
Tampa Bay, Florida        as long as it is populated."  --me   +1 813 790 7592

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by James M. Curr » Thu, 30 May 1996 04:00:00




>Anyway, these OSes all lack one thing:Preemptive Multitasking.  When that
>comes out, and with enough editing:(Hacking), you will be able to make any
>OS run and look like any other, probably (with enough machinepwer)
>including emulation of non-native OSes,
>PS:I use a mac (no flames please), for one reason.  

        Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.

       Truth,
       James

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Rainer Scheichelbau » Thu, 30 May 1996 04:00:00



:       Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
: and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
: desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.

Pre-emptive/cooparative multitasking: Can somebody explain these terms to me?

Thanx in advance,
Eric

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Howard P Billso » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00





>>Anyway, these OSes all lack one thing:Preemptive Multitasking.  When that
>>comes out, and with enough editing:(Hacking), you will be able to make any
>>OS run and look like any other, probably (with enough machinepwer)
>    Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
>and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
>desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.

Who cares, as long as it gets the job done??
 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Joe Ragos » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>         Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
> and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
> desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.

Actually, you're wrong.

Win3.1 uses (a poor) cooperative multitasking model. Last I checked, there
were lots more Win3.1 users than Win95. In fact, it's probably still true
that there are more desktop computers using cooperative multitasking than
preemptive.

Win95 also reverts to cooperative multitasking under some conditions when
using 16 bit software.

Of course, that's not counting the millions of DOS users out there.

Finally, who cares? My Mac multitasks just fine (certainly better than any
Win3.1 installation and many WIn95 installations). Who cares what model
they use?

--
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Benjamin Smit » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00





> >         Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
> > and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
> > desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.

> Actually, you're wrong.

> Win3.1 uses (a poor) cooperative multitasking model. Last I checked, there
> were lots more Win3.1 users than Win95. In fact, it's probably still true
> that there are more desktop computers using cooperative multitasking than
> preemptive.

> Win95 also reverts to cooperative multitasking under some conditions when
> using 16 bit software.

> Of course, that's not counting the millions of DOS users out there.

> Finally, who cares? My Mac multitasks just fine (certainly better than any
> Win3.1 installation and many WIn95 installations). Who cares what model
> they use?

I think he meant the only desktop OS that is still sold today. Win 3.x
has been replaced by Win95.

I don't think that the Mac OS is where it should be. I don't like Win95,
think that its multitasking is on the surface, and OS/2 is the real
solid, OS. I don't think that Mac users, advocates, should make excuses
for Apple in terms of how the OS deals with "*" code. I think that
the Mac, overall, does a poor job of handling simultaneous tasks, and
even opening sometimes, large files. Its loading time for opening apps
is also only fair.

But, its OS does a great job at being more seamlessly bound to use than
does the others. It's technical sophistication, besides the drawbacks
mentioned, is a part of the user experience, making computing enjoyable
and not so intimidating for the computer phobic or the casual user. No
way are the computer phobic going to go near Linux. And Windows is a
scary thing to deal with for many people. OS/2 is serious,
sophisticated, a much underused, underrepresented system, but the
learning curve is higher and users are more aware of the OS beneath this
capable OS.

WinNT is good, came out in 1993 or so. Win95 came out last year and is
completely buggy, underwhelming, dirivative, nothing special. Win 3.1 is
used still by many and multitasks pretty miserably. Amiga was very
sophisticated, from what I understand, in its multitasking. The new Be
is a fully multitasking OS. So, yes, I will accept, as a Mac advocate,
that Apple has done an unacceptable job in stability, memory protection
and multitasking because I hold Apple to the highest of standards. That
being said it is not as bad as so many people are saying and I find them
fairly stable for most work. I think their problems with the OS are
balanced out with their GUI being the standard, still the standard, that
other GUI's are judged by, the same for their Plug and Play, excellent
AppleScript, excellent Quick technologies, their role in PowerPC,
OpenDoc, multimedia. Compare Microsoft, what do we have? OLE, WinNT
(good OS bad GUI going to so-so Win95 GUI), what else? Apple will
continue to e* in the computer industry, Bebox, IBM, even Microsoft
have great respect for the innovative user solutions that Apple has
either created on their own or are an essential joint part in bringing
to users.

Copland is coming, early reports are very positive, it's late, it's
bringing the robust character to the OS late. Ok, that's the situation,
I wish that it wasn't the case, but it is. But to say that Apple is
somehow backwards because it is not as robust as it should be is to
overstate the importance of multitasking in a desktop. Yes, now as files
become bigger, processors become faster, storage and RAM is huge,
multitasking matters. Apple should have saw that. But, I very much
expect no less than a very solid reliable well designed implementation
of memory management/protection and preemptive multitasking in Copland
and its successor Gershwin. And I don't want to see it on the market
until it is tested thouroughly and meets stringent qualifications,
unlike Win 95.

Ben S.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> --
> Regards,       Joe Ragosta

> Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
> license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
> except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
> posting.

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Kevin Dav » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00





>>         Actually, the fact that you use a Mac shows.... Because Win95, WinNT,
>> and OS/2 all have Pre-emptive Multitasking.   The Mac is the only
>> desktop OS still around that uses cooperative multitasking.
>Actually, you're wrong.
>Win3.1 uses (a poor) cooperative multitasking model.

Tell me how Win 3.1 multi-tasks DOS applications?

Quote:>Last I checked, there
>were lots more Win3.1 users than Win95. In fact, it's probably still true
>that there are more desktop computers using cooperative multitasking than
>preemptive.

True, but aren't the Mac users always the ones how say numbers do not
mean that it is the best choice?

Quote:>Win95 also reverts to cooperative multitasking under some conditions when
>using 16 bit software.

Only for those 16 bit apps, not for the entire system.

Quote:>Finally, who cares? My Mac multitasks just fine (certainly better than any
>Win3.1 installation and many WIn95 installations). Who cares what model
>they use?

Personally I found Win 3.1 did just fine for most of my multitasking.
Of course it took a bit of tweaking to get it there.  I suspect that
you are comparing an unoptimized Win 3.1 system to a Mac.
 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Sidath Jayawarden » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00



> Of course, that's not counting the millions of DOS users out there.

> Finally, who cares? My Mac multitasks just fine (certainly better than any
> Win3.1 installation and many WIn95 installations). Who cares what model
> they use?

        All right, Mr. Ragosta. I have a problem. Right now, I occasionally
burn CDs and I use Toaster Pro 3.0 on a PowerMac. Problem: when burning
CDs, I can't do anything else. Is there any other software I might use
so that I can write a CD in the background? Thanks,

                        Jaliya

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Joe Ragos » Thu, 06 Jun 1996 04:00:00





> > Of course, that's not counting the millions of DOS users out there.

> > Finally, who cares? My Mac multitasks just fine (certainly better than any
> > Win3.1 installation and many WIn95 installations). Who cares what model
> > they use?

>         All right, Mr. Ragosta. I have a problem. Right now, I occasionally
> burn CDs and I use Toaster Pro 3.0 on a PowerMac. Problem: when burning
> CDs, I can't do anything else. Is there any other software I might use
> so that I can write a CD in the background? Thanks,

Sorry. I can't help you. I've never burned a CD nor have a used Toaster
Pro. Maybe if you post to comp.sys.mac.apps someone who has done it can
help. Or, call the software vendor to find out what's happening. If it is
true, it's an example of crappy software.

--
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.

 
 
 

WINDOWS...TRYING TO EMULATE MAC FROM THE START -- & MAC stole idea from C-64

Post by Dik T. Wint » Mon, 10 Jun 1996 04:00:00


 > >         All right, Mr. Ragosta. I have a problem. Right now, I occasionally
 > > burn CDs and I use Toaster Pro 3.0 on a PowerMac. Problem: when burning
 > > CDs, I can't do anything else. Is there any other software I might use
 > > so that I can write a CD in the background? Thanks,
 >
 > Sorry. I can't help you. I've never burned a CD nor have a used Toaster
 > Pro. Maybe if you post to comp.sys.mac.apps someone who has done it can
 > help. Or, call the software vendor to find out what's happening. If it is
 > true, it's an example of crappy software.

I never used Toaster but it is my understanding that burning a CD is a
real time accomplishment and something you really do not want to do in the
background.  As soon as some of the data does not get in time to the CD
burner you have wasted the CD you are burning.  That is why, for instance,
Gear software wishes to use two buses, one for the burner and one for the
HD containing the data; and it really grabs the burner bus.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

 
 
 

1. comp.sys.mac.misc comp.sys.mac.system comp.sys.mac.apps

We're looking for input on a decent Mac with ethernet to Unix file transfer
utility.  At present we're using the gatorbox, but the Appletalk speed is
clearly unsuited for our pruposes, that is transferring large sounds files
from the Mac to our Unix servers.  We have some Macs with Ethernet Cards,
and have tried uShare and InterCon's Mac NFS.  A quick summary of these two:

uShare runs on the Sun 4, and fires up some atp daemons that allow the Macs
on Ethernet to mount Unix disks.  However, it seems pretty buggy, prone to
crash and isn't all that easy to configure or use. But it's just one piece
of costly software that runs on the Sun.  

Mac NFS lives on the mac, takes a bit of configuring to get running, but once
in place it seems to work.  However, it's over $200/pop, and that could get
pretty pricey, given the number of Mac at our site.  

Does anybody have any experience with these products or their competitors?

this is YOUR CHANCE to contribute your wisdom for the good of all.  Your
responses are very much appreciated.

Rick Kleffel

2. SLIP Setup Help For Yggdrasil Dist.

3. Read C-64 disks?

4. help needed - AEC6710U/UW PCI SCSI-3 with linux ?

5. can mac emulate a terminal on unix system

6. convert +gdk_imlib

7. How do I mount a Mac volume or export a partition to a Mac?

8. someone with integrity weighs in on the merger

9. MAC OS 9, MAC OS X and linuxppc 2000

10. Mac/Unix shell needed (no, I dont have a mac...)

11. ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! )

12. NetBSD/Mac or other Mac PD UNIX

13. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac)