Re: GUI OSes

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

wizard@direct.ca (Astro) wrote:

>supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>>I've always thought GS/OS was a spectacular operating system.  It
>>is so modular and logical.  Components can be installed and removed
>>as individual files.  Windows 95, although pretty on the surface, is
>>a nightmare underneath.  Even MacOS is not as streamlined as
>>GS/OS, especially in the way it allocates memory for fonts, etc.,
>>and the way extensions and file systems are handled.
>
>Recently I got transferred at work to a different department, where
>there is a sorta old PowerMac used for general office grind stuff. In
>the spirit of the Mac, it is shared by many co-workers, including
>myself. It may be cranky [screen colours fritz out and the occasional
>mysterious data glitch] but it's a real focus of attention and I get
>the feeling we all love it in our own way.
>
>Anyways, until I had the chance to use this PowerMac and learn OS8, I
>had never known any other GUI OS but the various generations of MS
>Windows. I use Win98 now [even as I type].

I was the reverse.  The first GUI I came in contact with was on an
old black and white Mac.  I was frustrated by it because back then,
you had to swap floppy disks a lot.  I thought of GUI OSes, "why
bother?"

The next GUI OS and the one I became hooked on was the IIGS
System Software and the underlying OS, GS/OS.  The GUI was
so clean and GS/OS so modular (just look at the way it handles
drivers, fonts, and FSTs) that it became and still is my favorite OS.

Next came Windows 3.1.  I was not impressed AT ALL!

Finally, Windows 95.  Windows 95 is a good GUI.  As far as the
GUI goes, it is excellent.  I know it almost as well as I know
the IIGS GUI.  The problem is what's underneath.  When there
is a registry or ini file problem, it is a nightmare to sort through.
As most Windows 95/98 users, I've been forced to go in using
Safe Mode and try to sort out problems before and you know
what many users end up doing, rebuilding the registry which is
kind of sucks since that means reinstalling software.  It is nice
that there is a backup registry file, but that does not always solve
the problem.

Now GS/OS is different.  The FSTs, drivers, fonts, and extensions
are not stitched together in the same way as the Windows 95
registry and ini files.  Even the closest equivalent of the registry,
the Icon and Desktop files, are self repairing.  If something goes
wrong, just delete the files.  Next time you launch your
applications, the "registry" entry is re-entered (the info is copied
from the individual program's resource fork to the Desktop file).

>Now, I know a lot of people, especially serious Mac users, are very
>critical of Windows as an OS, but I don't mind it so much. In fact,
>with my knowledge of how to optimize it, I find it very configurable
>and more or less trouble-free. But this is a little beside the point.

As a GS/OS user, I can find fault in both the Mac and the Windows
system.  While the Mac does not have a registry, the way it
handles some tasks is less than efficient.  For example, the way
it allocates memory for fonts before hand.  On the IIGS using
Pointless, TrueType fonts are not loaded into memory until they
are needed.  In fact, I can have 1000 TrueType fonts on CD-ROM
all appearing under the Font menu of my IIGS and it would not
eat any memory at all, except to store the list of font names.  Only
when I actually use the font is it loaded into memory.

>...Then I bought an Apple IIGS and I recently got the GUI to load.
>Through working with GS/OS and the Mac as a support unit [for file
>transfer and processing] I find that my conceptualization of GUI has
>optimized... I find myself applying Apple OS technique to Windows
>which responds much in the same way that OS does. Things I never
>utilized in Windows, like drag-box icon selection and the desktop as a
>manipulation platform, I find I am now using regularly, and it
>increases my efficiency. 
>
>Neither Windows nor Mac OS is what I would conceptualize as a
>"perfect" contemporary GUI-OS [I think it would be a fusion of the
>best features of each] but GS/OS is about as straightforward as it
>gets. It's the most natural extension of the human in a computer that
>I have encountered yet, 8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit.

I think the NeXT OS is a good candidate.  OS/2 is pretty ok too,
except that it too is loaded with ini files.
 
>Hey when do get to see OSes evolve into 64-bit? Sooner or later the
>GUI paradigm is going to shift. What comes next??? Immersive
>virtual-reality experiences? Invisible voice-controlled platforms?
>Thought-controlled platforms? Mind/Machine merge?

A mind to machine interface would be neat.  In the meantime, did
you know that you can install Windows 98 on that PowerMac?
It can run Windows as well as its own OS.  Not optimally, maybe,
but it'll run.  ;-)