> > 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
> 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has been replaced by Win95.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
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
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.
> 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