Re: The Death of Carbon

Snit wrote:
"El Diablo con Queso" <queso.mal@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
slrnfmifcd.pdh.queso.mal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/19/07 8:49 AM:

On 2007-12-19, Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"El Diablo con Queso" <queso.mal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
13mhbgj9gpudo12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/18/07 10:37 PM:

Mac OS seriously outdated:
not really; it simply had emphasized designs that were not as technically
valued later. After all, it advanced many things well beyond what every
other OS had -- yet you dismiss the whole OS as outdated (ignoring how
awful that makes everything else!)

If you believe this you are deluded. The old Mac OS was behind the curve
in
the Mid 90s.

It was certainly lacking some of the buzzwords that were found in Windows,

They weren't buzzwords, they were the foundations of modern operating
systems.
You lose credibility if you really want to make this argument. The inability
of the operating system to protect apps from each other and the ability to
keep processes from encroaching on others memory were not buzzwords.
No doubt protected memory is important.

What is important for a user, however, is how much apps crash and, if they
do, if they take down the OS. Classic Mac and Pre-NT based Windows *both*
had problems with apps breaking OS stability (OS X and XP have that only to
a very small extent).

UNIX, OS/2, NT and others were way ahead of the MacOS in stability
features.

Agreed - but the general OS consumers used (Win9x) was comparable.

A GUI does not make an OS and a group of people willing to deal
with flaws doesn't somehow validate its presence.

And ducks fly south for the winter - but let's stay on topic, please.

but in practice it did not crash more than Win 98 (assuming you did not run
"bad" extension). If you did run "bad" extensions it could get flakey, and
that was a problem. It also did not manage memory very well. What it did
do, however, was provide a UI that was ahead of what Windows had and made
trouble shooting easy. Its extension manager, relatively well simple and
well organized file structure, and ability to have multiple system folders
on
one drive were all excellent.
Windows NT was much more stable than the MacOS. It also had features
that advanced users would want that the MacOS couldn't deliver. NT was
the first copy of Windows that I actually liked.
I was comparing Classic Mac to the consumer versions of Windows. NT, do
doubt, we more stable than Mac at the time.
I was a consumer using NT.

Trees have leaves... but, please, stick to the topic.

crude, slow, unstable co-operative multitasking
It had a multitasking algorithm which was not as effective as several
others used. That doesn't mean that multitasking was critically
important. It doesn't show that apps used it well, or that users needed
it to be so multi-task capable. Even today most people do not do more
than one thing at a time.
Your operating system does. Take a undergrad class on Operating Systems
to see why you are very ignorant.
He was, clearly, speaking from a user perspective. While an app might do
multi-threading or whatever, most users use one program at a time and do
little jumping back and forth.

He was speaking from an ignorant perspective. One non-responding app
can lock the whole operating system up in a cooperative scheme. He was
trying to justify using an operating system that was behind the curve.
No matter how you try to twist things or what side issues you bring up, it
is *still* true that most users do *one* thing at a time on their computers
(use one application at a time). Most people rarely jump back and forth
between application...

And the operating system is not just doing one thing so that computer is
not just doing one thing regardless of what the person is doing. Even
today a programmer can write a program that doesn't gracefully handle
interrupts but the operating system will say tough ***, I'm ripping
control from you. I never could understand how Mac users could defend the
Classic OS after the 96-97 time frame. Hell Apple knew they were in
trouble with all the work they were doing with regards to Copland, they
were very much in danger of becoming irrelevant. One of the heartening
things to me is that I personally know several people that have all bought
Macs in the last 12-18 months. All were Windows users and got tired of
Windows and didn't look back.

Lovely thoughts: but hardly related to the idea that people generally do one
thing at a time on a computer (run on program). You act like your comments
are in contention or are contrary to the comment:

Even today most people do not do more than one thing at a time.

They are not.


Their operating system does and so things like preemptive multitasking and memory protection do matter. I bet those people keep their apps open. At least I bet most people have an email client and a web browser open. If I walk around to a lot of american households I will find more than one app running, no matter if the person is only working in one.
.

Quantcast