Re: XGS/32 v1.4b Released!

[stevementzer@earthlink.net (Steven W. Mentzer)]

>
>Actually, if interface and feel were the criteria, I'd rate
>our old friend GS/OS above either Windows 95/98
>or MacOS.  I know that once I say this, I'm going to
>get flamed by supporters of both saying "that old
>thing with no built in multitasking, 200 lines of
>resolution" and all that.  But let's examine it another
>way.  GS/OS is the most modular OS I've ever used.
>More modular than OS/2 or Linux and certainly more
>modular than Windows 95/98 or MacOS.  Just look
>at the way file systems are handled.  Each FST is
>a separate file that you drop in a folder.  Each OS
>module is a separate file that confers an element
>of functionality that the user drops into place.  This
>is the essense of the GUI, in my opinion.  No
>registry.  No disappearing files that get thrown to
>the four corners of the hard drive.  No patching the
>operating system all over the place.
>

AMEN!

While I am an ardent Windows programmer, I admit that GS/OS was a well designed 
, robust, and extremely expandable OS that really should have been developed 
further.

The API set for GS/OS, while requiring a steep learning curve was quite 
powerful. It still amazes me how powerful it was, and it was running on a puny 
little 16 bit processor!


>But Windows and Mac supporters are going to
>flame me saying "but it is old" and so on.

Only the ones that don't have a clue. You cannot compare technologies that way.

>  Yes,
>GS/OS is old.  Yes, it runs on hardware that has
>be dead-ended by Apple.  Yes, the systems that
>MacOS and Windows 95/98 run on are much more
>powerful.  And yes, in many respects MacOS and
>Windows 95/98 have evolved far beyond GS/OS.
>But that's only because the GS has stopped
>evolving long ago.
>


With the right hardware, the GS/OS architecture could be quite powerful. But 
the most heavily upgraded IIgs system still isn't powerful enough these days. 


>But get down to the root of it, to the basic
>character of the OS and what do you get?  GS/OS
>is the most beautiful and intuitive OS ever
>designed and the GUI that Apple provides with
>it is absolutely a gem.
>

Aestetically, the GS/OS interface, while being revolutionary was kind of bad. 
Ok for it's day, but 200 lines of resolution is kind of limiting. With a good 
VGA/SVGA adapter (and full toolbox support for the interface) GS/OS would have 
been everything I wanted the Mac to be.


>>If those
>>biases are removed before a person tried Linux (or any OS)
>>and that OS became their choice then it would win the
>>contest.


No it wouldn't. It is still too hard to use, the apps aren't there, and it is 
mostly a hackers tool. I really wish the linux zealots would realize this.


>Linux is nice too, but believe it or not, my favorite
>OS of all time on the PC is GeoWorks.  That
>was such an efficient OS that was so small in
>footprint and yet so powerful.  It is too bad the
>folks from GeoWorks did not have the marketing
>power of Microsoft or even the hacker spirit of
>Linux.


Geoworks never had a chance. The API wasn't open enough to attract the 
developers, and apps make a platform, not good intentions.


>
>>I won't try to defend Linux, it has proved itself. Besides,
>>people will b*tch at me for cross posting. ;-)
>
>Actually, I think Apple II users who are used to
>hacking around would be quite happy with Linux.


Yes, the Apple II hackers will like it. The standard "appleworks/hypercard 
using" Apple II/IIgs user won't.

smentzer@pacbell.net