Re: OS For IIGS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Randy Shackelford wrote:
>Matt Portune (mportune@telerama.com) wrote:
>
>: I call 'em how I see 'em.  It's not personal, I just think MacOS is the
>: all-time lame OS of the century.  Coming from the same folks who brought
>: us GS/OS, it makes no sense.  It would be like id software doing a chess
>: game after Quake II.
>
>FWIW, anyone who claims to like Win95's user interface (well make that any
>version of windows) has about zero credibility when it comes to what is a
>good OS in my book. I use that piece of crap more than Mac OS on a daily
>basis and it makes me want to retch.


Randy, you two exemplify all that's wrong with this picture.  Why do
you guys feel so strongly that either OS is so superior?

I happen to think both OS have their strengths and I like both of them.
Does that make me lame to Matt because I think MacOS is easier to set
up and use and that the PowerPC is a faster processor?  Does that make
me have no credibility to Randy because I think that Win 95 has a
great (and unique) interface and that in some areas, such as
multitasking, it has even surpassed MacOS?

The very reason that Apple is so set on Rhapsody is that there _are_
drawbacks in the current MacOS.  I see it this way: PowerPC has
more powerful processing hardware, but less variety in sound expansion,
etc. (it has PCI slots, but like the GS with SCSI, someone has to
write the software and drivers).  The PC has the better performance
to price ratio and the Win 95 OS has surpassed MacOS in _some_ areas
such as pre-emptive multitasking (again, if it were not important,
Apple would not be basing Rhapsody on NeXT).

I am a PC user as well as an Apple IIGS user, but I do not blindly
follow Microsoft.  Why do you, as a Mac user, seem to blindly follow
Apple?  This is what gives many Mac users a bad name.  I used both
PowerPC clones and 80x86 PCs and I find both are very good at what
they do.  Why is it that you, as a Mac user, _have_ to crap on PC
users _and_ think that your own platform has no faults?

Both platforms have strengths and both platforms have faults.  If
this were not true, then (1) Apple would not be planning to build
80x86 hardware [obviously acknowledging that the 80x86 market has
a greater performance to price ratio] and introduce an 80x86
version of Rhapsody and (2) the current Win 95/80x86 PC also has
weaknesses otherwise a fast PowerPC would not be able to _run_
Win 95 as fast as a fast PC and MacOS is still easier to set up
and use.

Rather than talk over each other's heads, I'm going to say this:
yes, to _some_ people Win 95 may be more difficult to use.  But
understand this: I and many others find it a cinch.  It is not
hard for me to write autoexec.bat, config.sys, and various ini
files or know where to put .DLL's or how to solve IRQ conflicts.
_You_ may find it a weakness in the OS because you don't understand
it and have never bothered to learn.  Otherwise, 99.99% of the
problems you have with Win 95 and that make you think "Wintel"
is so hard to use will dissappear.  I've never been stumped by
Win 95 when adding new hardware.

MacOS has a strength in its ease of use and set up.  PowerPC
has a strengh in speed and power.  80x86 has a strength in
numbers, acceptance, price, expandability, and the power you
get for each dollar spent.  Win 95 has the advantage over MacOS
in multitasking and that which you percieve as a weakness
(the need to write to the various files sometimes) can also
be a strength (more flexibility).  Of course good GUI's on
UNIX such as NeXT for the PC and soon to be Rhapsody for both
PowerPC and PC brings both MacOS and Win 95 to shame.  Anyone
who has used a UNIX variant knows this.

>I guess you're talking about Mac system 5 or something. GS/OS
>resembles Mac system 6 with no Multifinder installed, with a few
>up to date things such as keyboard navigation tacked on. But it did
>have some good technical features which made it into Mac system 7,
>like different folders for the different types of extensions.

There are some more differences.  With Mac System 6, you had to
preset the number of files the system could have open.  Set the
number too high and you waste memory.  Set the number too low
and you might not have enough to open the necessary files.  GS/OS,
on the other hand, is smart enough to have virtually unlimited
number of possible files open and uses memory only as files are
opened.  Also, to install Fonts and DAs in Mac System 6, you
needed to use a stupid "Font/DA Mover" program and ended up with
a System file that grew and grew and grew, slowing down the
System.  On the GS, each file remains separate and you can
deactivate them from the Finder as needed.  Even under Mac System 7,
all fonts get preloaded into memory at boot.  What a waste of
memory.  On the GS, fonts remain separate files and only a _list_
of them is loaded into memory.  Each font is loaded as needed.
If you have Pointless, you can even use Truetypes off a CD-ROM
directly without pre-installing them.  I have hundreds of fonts
on the GS (Truetypes) installed and it dosn't take up hogs of
memory at all.  But I have the entire font list under the font
menu, ready to be used as needed.  On a Mac under System 6 or
System 7, you'd waste much memory.  Then there is the concept
of modular FST's.  The Mac system software still does not support
modular FST's.  This is one concept that Linux, OS/2, and other
UNIXes as well as the Amiga share with GS/OS but MacOS and Win95
lacks.  Sure, you could install a program like MacOpener in Win95
or that clunky PC Exchange in MacOS, but that's not the same.
That's more like Peter Watson's MUG! DA, which works but is not
as elegant.

Then there's the fact that GS/OS and the GS System are separate
layers.  You can add GNO/ME onto GS/OS and get pre-emtive MT.
The Mac is much more bolted to its System.  This may change with
Rhapsody, though.  Another thing is, from a programmers point
of view, the GS Toolbox and GS/OS is much cleaner, from what I
understand.  For example, Taskmask (?) automates system event
handling for things such as sensing the user interaction with
the mouse, menubar, GUI, and other system events.  On a Mac, you
have to program each little thing ("Now the user has pressed the
mouse at this coordinate, etc.").  Finally the Mac System still
multitasks much like Multifinder did, a functionality you can
add with The Manager on the GS.  While I agree that the PowerPC
is much more powerful than the same level 80x86, this is one
true weakness of MacOS.  And it is a weakness, which is the
reason Rhapsody will be based on NeXT, a UNIX based OS with
pre-emtive MT in its blood.

-Scott G.