System 6.0.5 and PrintMonitor 1.3
Mike McCann
I installed System 6.0.5 on my SE/30 w/8Mb and the new LaserWriter 6.0.1
print drivers. When trying to print a large file (about 256K) under
MultiFinder, an error would occur (PrintMonitor ran out of application
memory) and the document would fail to print. I increased the
application memory of PrintMonitor from 70K to 128K but it still didn't
work. When I reinstalled system 6.0.4, the document printed perfectly.
Is this a bug with system 6.0.5 or does it just not like the
LaserWriter 6.0.1 print drivers?
Thanks,
--
Mike McCann (803) 656-3714 Internet = mmc...@hubcap.clemson.edu
Poole Computer Center (Box P-21) Bitnet = mmc...@clemson.bitnet
Clemson University
Clemson, S.C. 29634-2803 DISCLAIMER = I speak only for myself.
Robert W Jr Cook
>I installed System 6.0.5 on my SE/30 w/8Mb and the new LaserWriter 6.0.1
>print drivers. When trying to print a large file (about 256K) under
Did you install the other files with 6.0.1? (It came with at least one
other file (Backgrounder or PrintMonitor, can't remember which)
If you did not, this could be your problem. I got my copy from
AppleLink, and it came with this other file.
>Thanks,
>
>--
>Mike McCann (803) 656-3714 Internet = mmc...@hubcap.clemson.edu
>Poole Computer Center (Box P-21) Bitnet = mmc...@clemson.bitnet
>Clemson University
>Clemson, S.C. 29634-2803 DISCLAIMER = I speak only for myself.
Robert Cook.
Michigan State University.
Steve Martin
>has...@prism.cs.orst.edu (Stephen Haase) writes:
>>I heard a rumour yesterday that Apple is not going to include some of the
>>features it had planned for system 7 because of problems. Included in the
>>delay were the Royal fonts. They are supposedly delaying the features until
>>they release system 8! Please tell me this isn't true!!!!Has anyone heard
>>of this?
>
>To the contrary, I read in Mac Week that Apple announced that it had
>delayed the release of sys 7 to ADD a few more features. I believe they
>mentioned something about a previously unannounced file server that runs
>in the background... Effectively TOPs in the system. Also, since lots of
>people have seen working demos of Royal fonts, there should not be any reason
>to worry.
>
>--Glenn
Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers complained
about not having their software ready. I know one of the items that Apple
said they would not release with 7.0 is the new layout tools which would
incorporate page layout software (ala PageMaker) in the System itself.
--
Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against
U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer!
(...!rutger!bellcore!uswat!uswmrg2!steve)
Stephen Haase
Glenn C. Brown
To the contrary, I read in Mac Week that Apple announced that it had
Nick Rothwell
>Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
>release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0.
Does anybody know if MIDI Manager gets bundled with System 7.0?
Apple announced this about 18 months ago, and MM1.1/1.2 is
available through APDA, but Apple have gone awfully quiet
about it.
Is it this Apple Records lawsuit?
>Steve Martin
Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
ni...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Ich weiss jetzt was kein Engel weiss
Larry Rosenstein
> about not having their software ready. I know one of the items that
Apple
> said they would not release with 7.0 is the new layout tools which would
> incorporate page layout software (ala PageMaker) in the System itself.
This is Line Layout software, not page layout software a la PageMaker.
The Line Layout Manager is a facility applications can use to construct
lines of text that take advantage of ligatures and contextual forms.
The original posting was correct in that the initial release of System 7
will not include some features that were announced a year ago. The most
notable things are the Line Layout Manager and the new Printing
Architecture. The outline fonts (which are now called True Type) will be
in the initial release of System 7.
Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist
Internet: l...@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr
AppleLink: Rosenstein1
William L Nussbaum
>has...@prism.cs.orst.edu (Stephen Haase) writes:
>>>I heard a rumour yesterday that Apple is not going to include some of the
>>>features it had planned for system 7 because of problems. Included in the
>>>delay were the Royal fonts. They are supposedly delaying the features until
>>>they release system 8! Please tell me this isn't true!!!!Has anyone heard
>>>of this?
>
>>To the contrary, I read in Mac Week that Apple announced that it had
>>delayed the release of sys 7 to ADD a few more features. I believe they
>>mentioned something about a previously unannounced file server that runs
>>in the background... Effectively TOPs in the system. Also, since lots of
>>people have seen working demos of Royal fonts, there should not be any reason
>>to worry.
>
>--Glenn
>Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
>release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
>reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers complained
>about not having their software ready. I know one of the items that Apple
>said they would not release with 7.0 is the new layout tools which would
>incorporate page layout software (ala PageMaker) in the System itself.
--
missing, such as line layout, have been missing since last fall, and have been
planned for 8.0 for 8.0 since then. Apple would NOT release Sys 7.0 without
the core technologies it has indicated will be available, those being NuFinder,
TrueType, vMem, IPC, [and I'm forgetting something]. Line layout
won't make it, nor will the new print architecture, but those have
been delayed to 8.0 for a while.
AThat's what I seem to have heard/read, anyway.
One other note: Line layout was never planned for page layout. Line
layout will do things like allow for much-improved control over
intercharacter spacing, as well as allow for 'flexible letterforms':
it will automatically put an 'fl' ligature into 'influence,' if the
font has said ligature available; it will use one form of a letter
within a word, and another at the end, if there are different style
options. A font like 'Adobe Garamond,' with its mutiple letterforms
and such, will be an excellent example of the line layout manager, as
will theill the version of Zapf Chancery that Apple demoed the line
layout manager with.
We'll see, sooner or later...
| William illiam Lee Nussbaum, Jr.
| >> InterNet: w...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
| >> CompuServe: 72401.3554 (@compuserve.com)
| <attach usual non-representation disclaimer>
MINICH ROBERT JOHN
>> [Stuff that you've seen a couple times before.]
| Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
| release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
| reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers complained
| about not having their software ready.
This, friends, strikes me as a "bad move" for Apple if the _real_
reason is developer complaints. Nobody said you have to use every
routine out there. (Hey, there are plenty of apps that don't even care
about Color QD!) Judging from the time scale between 6.0 and 7.0,
waiting for 8.0 just to get these nifty routines is going to take a long
time. (No complaints about Apple, here. Just a factoid of life.) I would
rather have the new routines in the system NOW and worry about working
them into my software later than get to the point where I wanted them in
my software, but had to wait for System 8. I can see the rags now...
"Why doesn't Apple release the LLM? Must be a like of forsight..."
Am I alone on this issue or does anyone else out there think cutting
the legs off a baby because he isn't ready to walk is NOT OK. If the
_real_ reason for the delays are more related to problems with the new
routines themselves, then I would condone the decision to an extent.
--
_ /| | Robert Minich | This message is the product of a
\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University | deranged mind. Resale without the
=(___)= | min...@a.cs.okstate.edu | author's permission is strictly
U | - Bill sez "Ackphtth" | probidden.
Philip Machanick
> It seems to me that the neatest thing about the Macintosh is that you can run
> programs that were originally designed to run under System 5.0 and put them
> in an environment running System 6.0.5 and (if the authors followed
the Inside
> Macintosh guidelines) the program will work. I seem to recall that
Apple said
> all applications that follow these rules will work with ALL new systems they
> release. So, if Apple is to release System 7.0 and Microsoft Word 4.0 (for
> example) doesn't work, that isn't good.
Good point, bad example. Microsoft is known for breaking the rules. I get the
impression a large part of Apple's effort in getting new system software to be
compatible with old apps is patching around Microsoft's mistakes. Could this be
Microsoft's subtle way of undermining Apple's OS development?
Philip Machanick
phi...@pescadero.stanford.edu
Geoff Allen
>Mac users aren't used to vapor-ware.
Oh? What about FullWrite? Word 4.0? (Those are two examples that come
immediately to mind.)
I'd say that the Mac community has it's share of vaporware. That
doesn't make it *right* of course....
--
Geoff Allen \ It's so fast, it can do an infinite loop
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ in 30 seconds.
bigtex!pmafire!geoff \ --Brian Bechtel on the new Mac IIfx
William L Nussbaum
>It seems to me that the neatest thing about the Macintosh is that you can run
>programs that were originally designed to run under System 5.0 and put them
>in an environment running System 6.0.5 and (if the authors followed the Inside
>release. So, if Apple is to release System 7.0 and Microsoft Word 4.0 (for
>example) doesn't work, that isn't good.
I agree, though I wouldn't use Word 4.0 as an example; Microsoft's notorious,
from what I've heard, for not adhering to Apple's guidelines.
Edward Joseph Bennett
>It seems to me that the neatest thing about the Macintosh is that you can run
>programs that were originally designed to run under System 5.0 and put them
>in an environment running System 6.0.5 and (if the authors followed the Inside
>all applications that follow these rules will work with ALL new systems they
>release. So, if Apple is to release System 7.0 and Microsoft Word 4.0 (for
>example) doesn't work, that isn't good.
Word 4.0 probably won't work because Micosoft is notorious for NOT
following the rules.
Ed
Carl Baltrunas
>Jim Gaynor <gay...@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>>Mac users aren't used to vapor-ware.
>
>Oh? What about FullWrite? Word 4.0? (Those are two examples that come
>immediately to mind.)
>
Not to start a flame war... but... stop and think about the two products
just referenced. WHO produces them? I seem to recall Ashton-Tate and
Microsoft tend to write programs for those other brand computers that are
known to have had their share of vaporware.
Jim is right... Mac users are NOT used to vaporware.
...and vaporware from vendors that produce the same for all brands should
not be considered as part of their "share" of the mac market.
-Carl
--
Carl A Baltrunas 408/922-6206| SMTP: ca...@doctor.TYMNET.COM, ca...@tymix.tymnet.com
BT Tymnet (Network Services) | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!doctor!carl
PO Box 49019, MS/C41 | PDP-10 support: 36-bits forever! well, awhile!
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | (insert cute Macintosh quote here)
Glenn C. Brown
>| Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
>| release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
>| reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers complained
>| about not having their software ready.
> This, friends, strikes me as a "bad move" for Apple if the _real_
Really bad move. If Windows 3 (for the MS DOS) comes out before System 7,
Apple will have mega image problems: I here that Windows 3 has outline fonts
& other features of sys 7. If Microsoft hits the market first... so much
for Apple's "industry leader" image.
When is Windows 3 due? Anybody know?
--Glenn
Jim Gaynor
>
>Really bad move. If Windows 3 (for the MS DOS) comes out before System 7,
>Apple will have mega image problems: I here that Windows 3 has outline fonts
>& other features of sys 7. If Microsoft hits the market first... so much
>for Apple's "industry leader" image.
>
>When is Windows 3 due? Anybody know?
>
>--Glenn
Windows 3.0 is due out soon. Very soon. May or June, if I'm
not mistaken. And Microsoft has given a definite date for the release
(I just can't remember it at the moment). Unlike Apple's nebulous
(and continually retreating) hints about Late Summer, Early Winter,
and other such bushwah. My last source - and a very good one - told
me Apple was pragmatically looking at Early 1991.
I hate to say it, but System 7 has been bobbled. Mac users
aren't used to vapor-ware, and they have little patience for "Real
Soon Now" producers. Apple has, in the past, not said word one to the
public on a product until they had something concrete. Now I keep
hearing, "System 7 will solve that."
I'm used to hearing that from DOS and Amiga users, with
Windows 3 and Workbench 1.4. I don't like hearing it in the Mac
world. <sigh>
-=-
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jim Gaynor - Graduating Macintosh Consultant - The Ohio State Univ. IRCC |
| Email at [gay...@cis.ohio.state.edu] or [gay...@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu] |
|_ "You, yes YOU, want to hire me! Send away for my amazing resume TODAY!" _|
Anant Kartik Mithal
>Really bad move. If Windows 3 (for the MS DOS) comes out before System 7,
>Apple will have mega image problems: I here that Windows 3 has outline fonts
>& other features of sys 7. If Microsoft hits the market first... so much
>for Apple's "industry leader" image.
>
>When is Windows 3 due? Anybody know?
According to the trade press (InfoWorld), Win3 is due May 22/23, when
MS will have a big promotion.
kartik
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anant Kartik Mithal a...@cs.uoregon.edu
Department of Computer Science a...@oregon.BITNET
University of Oregon
Adam Talcott
programs that were originally designed to run under System 5.0 and put them
in an environment running System 6.0.5 and (if the authors followed the Inside
Macintosh guidelines) the program will work. I seem to recall that Apple said
all applications that follow these rules will work with ALL new systems they
release. So, if Apple is to release System 7.0 and Microsoft Word 4.0 (for
example) doesn't work, that isn't good.
I wouldn't go as far as to compar the features Apple is delaying to the legs
of a baby. I'd compare it more to it's hair. It's a nice feature that I would
like to have but I'm willing to wait a bit...
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Adam Talcott | Who's more foolish? The fool |
| tal...@nunki.us.edu | or the fool who follows him? |
| Electrical Engineering (Computers) Major | |
| University of Southern California | Obi-Wan Kenobi |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Michael Peirce
The rumor I heard was not that the missing parts of system 7 would wait
until system 8, but rather that we would see a system 7.1 come out sometime
after system 7.0, but before system 8.0.
Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce
-------------+--------------------------------------
| 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4
| Box 58168
| Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168
| (408) 987-7319
| AppleLink: peirce1
| Internet: pei...@claris.com
| uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
dbar...@oiscola.columbia.ncr.com
>In article <1990Apr25....@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> gbr...@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes:
>>
>>Really bad move. If Windows 3 (for the MS DOS) comes out before System 7,
>>Apple will have mega image problems: I here that Windows 3 has outline fonts
>>& other features of sys 7. If Microsoft hits the market first... so much
>>for Apple's "industry leader" image.
>>
>>When is Windows 3 due? Anybody know?
>>
>>--Glenn
>
> Windows 3.0 is due out soon. Very soon. May or June, if I'm
>not mistaken. And Microsoft has given a definite date for the release
>(I just can't remember it at the moment). Unlike Apple's nebulous
>(and continually retreating) hints about Late Summer, Early Winter,
>and other such bushwah. My last source - and a very good one - told
>me Apple was pragmatically looking at Early 1991.
> I hate to say it, but System 7 has been bobbled. Mac users
>aren't used to vapor-ware, and they have little patience for "Real
>Soon Now" producers. Apple has, in the past, not said word one to the
>public on a product until they had something concrete. Now I keep
>hearing, "System 7 will solve that."
> I'm used to hearing that from DOS and Amiga users, with
>Windows 3 and Workbench 1.4. I don't like hearing it in the Mac
>world. <sigh>
>
>-=-
Don't get in too much of a huff over Windows 3.0. It certainly is an
improvement over old versions of windows, but it's really not (in my
opinion) going to be a Mac-killer. I have used it for a little while now
and it's OK, but I much prefer my Mac at home, and so will most other
users who are used to the Mac. It certainly has some nice features, but
the user interface just doesn't feel as nice or as solid as the Mac's.
Dave Barnhart
NCR Office Information Systems
3245 Platt Springs Rd.
West Columbia, SC 29169
Inews fodder below. Please press 'n' to skip . . .
Chandra Bajpai
For me:
NeXT-like icon dock
Multitasking
Other ideas?
-Chandra
Todd P. Whitesel
> Now I keep hearing, "System 7 will solve that."
> I'm used to hearing that from DOS and Amiga users, with
>Windows 3 and Workbench 1.4. I don't like hearing it in the Mac
>world. <sigh>
Count your blessings.
Apple IIGS users have had to say the same thing about GS/OS System 6.
Rumor numero uno is that QuickDraw II has finally been rewritten to give
the stock GS a reasonably fast desktop, meaning it actually uses the CPU's
block move instructions for everything... (What else can you do when
management forces you to live with hardware design mistakes made five
years ago? The GS would surprise a lot of people if Apple actually gave
it a REAL development budget.)
Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
David Fields
JOHN) writes:
|>st...@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin):
|>| Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
|>| release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
|>| reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers
complained
|>| about not having their software ready.
I take this to mean that Apple's system developers don't feel that
certain 7.0 features are ready.
|> This, friends, strikes me as a "bad move" for Apple if the _real_
|>reason is developer complaints. Nobody said you have to use every
|>routine out there.
If I'm right about the first statement, then this is an excelent
move which I applaud. That's the only sane way to manage a large software
release which has gotten gotten a little out of control. (I don't think
the dates would slip if it wasn't a little out of control. And, I
don't know of many large software projects that are in control.)
Dave Fields // Motorola MCD // uiucuxc!udc!dfields //
dfi...@urbana.mcd.mot.com
John Wichers
>What would you like to see in System 8 (Listen up Apple!)?
>
>For me:
> NeXT-like icon dock
Take a look at the INIT Black Box. It'll run on any mac, although it has
limited usefullness on small screen macs. It's shareware, and you should
be able to ftp it from either sumex-aim.stanford.edu or rascal.ics.utexas.
edu. As I have only have an SE, I couldn't tell you how good it is, but
a friend of mine who uses it on his IIcx says it's very handy and had a
number of worthwhile options.
--jjw
__
Hail to the sungod. || John Wichers || wic...@husc4.harvard.edu
He sure is a fun god. || 121 Museum St #2, Somerville Ma. 02143
Ra! Ra! Ra! || Anarchy - It's not a law, it's just a good idea.
|| Jesus saves sinners ... and redeems them for valuable cash prizes!!! ||
John Romkey
>In <93...@chaph.usc.edu>, tal...@nunki.usc.edu (Adam Talcott) writes:
>I agree, though I wouldn't use Word 4.0 as an example; Microsoft's notorious,
>from what I've heard, for not adhering to Apple's guidelines.
In the MS-DOS world, Microsoft doesn't even adhere to their own
guidelines.
--
- john romkey
USENET/UUCP: rom...@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: rom...@ftp.com
I could go on, but what's the use? You can't find them with songs. Joe
But think of this as a just another tiny blow against the empire. Jackson
Lars Kellogg-Stedman
>What would you like to see in System 8 (Listen up Apple!)?
>
>For me:
> NeXT-like icon dock
> Multitasking
>
Multitasking? But we already HAVE multitasking...
(Okay, so maybe its co-operative, rather than pre-emptive. This message
isn't worth replying to, so don't.)
Kent Sandvik
: I hate to say it, but System 7 has been bobbled. Mac users
: aren't used to vapor-ware, and they have little patience for "Real
: Soon Now" producers. Apple has, in the past, not said word one to the
: public on a product until they had something concrete. Now I keep
: hearing, "System 7 will solve that."
When Apple did not give a single hint of future system software,
developers and consumers complained about lack of information. When
Apple takes the move to officially publish the directions of systems
software, then people start to complain about waporvare tactics.
It seems that you can't ever please everyone at the same time. I
personally support the idea of informing the public about future
directions, because it gives both the developers and the public an idea
of what could be achieved with personal computing.
Kent
Waporware Support Engineer
Michael A. Libes
top...@chaos.cs.brand
eis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes:
> >What would you like to see in System 8 (Listen up Apple!)?
> >
> >For me:
> > NeXT-like icon dock
>
> Take a look at the INIT Black Box. It'll run on any mac, although it has
> limited usefullness on small screen macs. It's shareware, and you should
> be able to ftp it from either sumex-aim.stanford.edu or rascal.ics.utexas.
> edu. As I have only have an SE, I couldn't tell you how good it is, but
> a friend of mine who uses it on his IIcx says it's very handy and had a
> number of worthwhile options.
BlackBoxINIT crashes 99% of the time. There is a Shareware product
called _Launch which provides an icon dock. It runs on all Macs except
Pluses, IIci's, and IIfx's. Lots of people find it useful.
- Luni
Robert Minich
For myself:
o Protected Memory (ASAP, guys)
o Line Layout Manager & new print architecture (Bumped from 7.0)
o Security for public labs, so we don't have to have a bunch of
hacked inits to stay sane. Maybe network booting, as well.
o Virtual disks (one logical volume spread out over >1 real disk, so I
can boot the machine to restore my HD after it
crashes WITHOUT an old system file. Assuming 7.0 and
beyond can't boot off of a floppy, does this mean
backup software must be written for old systems?)
o Built in Timbuktu (Sort of an X-Windows client for Mac? Maybe even
real X-Windows. Run a Mac from a X-Term!!!)
o Distributed Processing (not sure how/why, but I suspect we ought to
thinking about it.)
Oh yeah,
o Half off CPU coupon in the box :-)
Vincent Schonau
>| What would you like to see in System 8 (Listen up Apple!)?
>For myself:
> o Protected Memory (ASAP, guys)
Obviously.
> o Security for public labs, so we don't have to have a bunch of
> hacked inits to stay sane. Maybe network booting, as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES YES YES YES PUHLEASE.
This is definitely a _must_ keeps people from screwing with your system
disks....
> o Built in Timbuktu (Sort of an X-Windows client for Mac? Maybe even
> real X-Windows. Run a Mac from a X-Term!!!)
now THAT would be really nice. but then again, with Big Brother.....
Also, the formatting of disks could be made a lot faster. And with protected
memory disk operations in the background...
___Vincent (and I don't even own one)
+ Vincent Schonau, Macintosh Consultant, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN +
+ -----------------------------++---------------------------------------------+
+ Bit: vschonau@iubacs, Inter: vsch...@amber.ucs.indiana.edu, sl198004@silver>
>.ucs.indiana.edu || I don't give my opinion. I sell it. +
Rick McCormack
will not have a Mac at home. They will compare Windows 3 to their current
character based interface, and then compare that impression with what they
think they remember of that demo of a Mac they attended 5 months ago. Magazine
reviewers and Mac users will be consulted, but I bet only a very few will
actually look at a Mac before deciding.
Greg Corson
for the Mac. I'm terriblly sick of having to write with only 32k of globals
and making everything fit in 32k segments. This makes a lot of software
that can be directly compiled on other machines very difficult to move to
the mac because all their globals have to be allocated off the heap.
This stupid 32k segment limit is a holdover from days of the 128k Mac...How
about giving us a programming model that allows programs to be written in
the traditional way...as one big lump...and let the operating system take
care of paging things in and out? It's terriblly inconvenient when you've
got a program that, for example, wants a 1024x1024 array of bytes, but you
can't just do a char array[1024][1024]; True, for efficiency you should
allocate big arrays with the memory manager but many programs are ALREADY
written. It would be nice to be able to run them without having to go throug
and fix up all the array references.
With the memory management units in most new Macs, you could setup a simple
virtual machine which would allow traditional programs to co-exist with the
new model ones. I guess it would be like running Mac applications under AUX.
Another thing that would be nice is a sound manager that can handle mixing
multiple sampled sounds to a single output channel. Something that would
be an analog to a sound mixing board...you could have multiple sound
sources...then mix them down to a single channel. Or does 7.0 already have
this?
A few other things that might be nice, a built in screen dimmer like the LISA
used to have (inits are nice but sometimes have compatability problems). An
option to have keyclick on the keyboard. And a way to checkpoint a running
so it could be brought up to EXACTLY the point where it was shut down. (you
could save the current program image, open filess & such, then restore them
when the program was uncheckpointed)
It would be VERY nice to be able to shut down a Mac and have it come back up
EXACTLY the way you left it, the same windows open, applications active and
such. Ideally, this could be tied into a username scheme so if more than one
person used the same machine, they could save and restore what they were
doing between sessions.
Greg Corson
19141 Summers Drive
South Bend, IN 46637
(219) 277-5306
{uunet, rutgers}!iuvax!ndmath!milo
milo@ndmath
GEnie: GCORSON
Tim Maroney
>In the MS-DOS world, Microsoft doesn't even adhere to their own
>guidelines.
Which puts them on an equal footing with Apple in the MacOS world....
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"As I was walking among the fires of Hell, delighted with the enjoyments of
Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity. I collected some of
their Proverbs..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University
"In the MS-DOS world, Microsoft doesn't even adhere to their own
guidelines."
Funny you should say that. One of the problems I fixed for one of
our users a few months ago involved DOS Excel on a 286 machine.
The symptom was that all calculations were returning the result "1"
(or something equally strange). Turned out the CMOS machine
configuration RAM said it had a 287 coprocessor installed, whereas
it actually hadn't.
How's that for a well-behaved program blithely believing the
result of an environment query?
Especially when you recall all the compatibility problems with
Mac Excel 1.x, *particularly* the one involving its brain-damaged
test for the presence of a 68881 coprocessor, which didn't work
with a 68882!
Just steams you up, doesn't it...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Computer Services Dept, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
fone: +64-71-562-889 fax: +64-71-384-066
electric mail: l...@waikato.ac.nz
Amid ongoing speculation about the future of rap, Redhead Kingpin
denies rumours that he is taking singing lessons.
Scott Hood
Sort of sounds just like the Commodore A3000 with AmigaDos 2.0. Please
see the latest issue of Byte magazine for more information on this way
cool machine! Don't get me wrong, I like the MacIIfx, but I want to
afford a house someday as well!
Scott (Please no flames)
Mark Interrante
> o Built in Timbuktu (Sort of an X-Windows client for Mac? Maybe even
> real X-Windows. Run a Mac from a X-Term!!!)
What is happening with the mac window system? I see a great amount of
change X and other window systems, yet the mac seems dormant. It is
obvous that Timbuktu sytle NETWORK extensions are one class of
features that the window system needs, what are others?
Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center
m...@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end
of everything we know." Marvin Minsky
Dan Connolly
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Keywords: Multifinder, ZTerm, Long
>In article 57415, top...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) said, in part...
>>What would you like to see in System 8 (Listen up Apple!)?
>>
>>For me:
>> NeXT-like icon dock
>> Multitasking
>>
>
>Multitasking? But we already HAVE multitasking...
Here Here!
I don't think this gets nearly enough attention.
[WARNING: mounting soapbox]
When using a graphically oriented machine like the mac, real-time
response is WONDERFUL: I use a Mac at home and an X-windows Unix
box at school. (I'm sure this is not rare) In the time-sliced X-windows
world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process
is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take
MacDraw EVERY day).
I like unix. I like X-windows. But I think for the kind of work folks
do on a Mac, cooperative multitasking is _better_ than preemptive.
I just want to be able to switch apps without relaunching -- y'know,
cut an paste etc. With a big screen, having several on the screen
at once is nifty too. Background Apps do just that--sit in the background
until I start staring at the screen, and then they do their thing.
But I agree with the folks who are screaming for protection. In my
kind of operating system, a program has some read-only memory for code
and constants, some read-write memory for data structures, and that's
it: it asks the operating system NICELY for access to anything else:
the screen, the disk drive, the time of day, etc.
Unfortunately, microcomputer software evolved from the anything-goes
world of computers with ROM Basic as their operating system and
has only recently been bothered by issues from the multi-user,
mutli-tasking world.
The Macintosh is plagued by software that outruns the hardware. Let's face
it: the 128k mac was nifty but useless. In the same way, Multifinder on
a 1 Meg Mac plus or SE is useless. The combination of low-quality software
and scarce memory made me more productive with single-finder.
But I went for 2.5MB of ram, and lo and behold, I boot my machine with
two apps just sitting in the background every day (Let's here it for the
"Set Aside App" feature of the new finder! Yeah!!!!)
What boggles me is the inconsistency in the design of the Mac OS. Parts
are ingeniously farsighted, and parts are cripplingly myopic. Quickdraw
is excellent: the oldest versions of MacPaint still work on the Mac II
with multiple color monitors. But an application isn't even guaranteed
that it's grafport will still be there after it lets a desk accessory
have an event.
Why Mac applications didn't run in user mode from day one is a mystery
to me. My previous computer was a Radio Shack color computer. (... Ok,
now that you've stopped laughing ...) I ran OS-9 level two, which
provided multi-tasking, multi-users, a unified file system (the printer
looked just like a disk file to the programmer), and paged memory
management. All that back in 1985 on a $200, 8-bit machine with 1/2 Meg
of memory. I'm not saying it was a nice machine! I'm just saying that
the software technology was readily available when Apple designed its O.S.
I heard the Mac OS is derived from S.O.S. (sophisticated operating system),
written in pascal for the Apple ///. Is this true? How can I show my
face in public? Oh well, I guess it's better than CP/M-derived stuff.
But why not a scaled down unix (OS-9, Minix, etc) in the first place?
[descending soapbox]
I'd like to say just two things to anybody who's bothered to read this far:
1. Let's here it for Apple's cooperative multitasking approach to
microcomputer software.
2. Let's here it for Zterm. This program provides vt100 or ANSI terminal
emulation, x-modem, y-modem, and z-modem transfer (NIFTY! but I'd like
kermit for those times you just can't get an 8-bit connection), and
a scrollback buffer as big as you like (limited by memory).
It has a resizeable window, background file-transfer, and can pick up
an interrupted transfer where you left off.
Above all, it's stable. It's never crashed, never lost a file, and in
the uncertain world of telecommunications, it's never been the faulty
link in a bad transfer.
I'm sending my shareware fee as soon as my tax return comes. (Sorry,
I'm a poor student who just found the money to go grocery shopping for
the first time in two months!)
I got it from sumex-aim.stanford.edu in the info-mac/comm directory.
In the Doc I see:
>Dave Alverson
>5635 Cross Creek Court
>Mason, OH 45040
>Latest version and support available from:
>GEnie Mac RT, Category 5, Topic 8
>CompuServe: Mac Productivity Forum / Telecom library
Dan
dan...@emx.utexas.edu
Avi Rappoport
>st...@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin):
>
>| Actually the first poster is right. Apple has decided to hold back on the
>| release of a number of items that were originally planned on for 7.0. The
>| reason for the delay to 7.0 release was because so many developers complained
>| about not having their software ready.
>
>reason is developer complaints. Nobody said you have to use every
Who says developers complained? Who says developers even got System 7 yet?
I want a little attribution here!
As far as I can tell, it's slipping because it's complicated. We're supposed
to get beta copies at the Developer Conference next week, and I expect that
the thousands of developers will find yet more bugs and design problems.
But so far, Apple's been pretty open about the process, and the alpha versions
looked nice.
[space added to keep mailer happy]
--
-- Help me justify my online bills: ask me EndNote questions, please! --
Avi Rappoport 2000 Hearst, Berkeley, CA 94709
nile...@well.sf.ca.us, 415-655-6666
Niles.Assoc on AppleLink fax: 415-649-8179
Chris Silverberg
CB>
CB> For me: NeXT-like icon dock
CB> Multitasking
I would certainly hope Apple does NOT include a next-like icon dock... it's
a waste of monitor space IMHO. For the few who would like that option, there
will surely be an author to write and support such a product. I on the other
hand, would much rather used something more useful like OnCue.
As far as multitasking, if you've been reading the messages, there's a
discussion on it, and from what I understand, it probably will be here with
system 8
- Chris
==============================================================================
== Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 ========= BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A. =====
== USENET: mac...@wpi.wpi.edu ============ 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 ========
== BITNET: mac...@wpi.bitnet ============= Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS ==
== GEnie: C.Silverberg ================== America Online: Silverberg ========
The Apathist
>In article <55...@okstate.UUCP> min...@a.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes:
>> o Security for public labs, so we don't have to have a bunch of
>> hacked inits to stay sane. Maybe network booting, as well.
>This is definitely a _must_ keeps people from screwing with your system
>disks....
While network booting would be real nice, it's not going to keep
people from screwing with tghe system disks. What is needed is a way
to boot from a read-only file system (currently the system folder must
be writable.) Then a local hard disk could have a read-only system
partition, which is safe against all users except those both cunning
and malicious.
System 7 lays the groundwork for read-only system space, by having the
system specify where temporary and preference files go, but I don't
know whether it carries through to allowing a read-only system folder.
--Tom Lippincott
lip...@math.berkeley.edu
"Thank you for observing all saftey precautions."
--Dark Star
James McCartney
> When using a graphically oriented machine like the mac, real-time
> response is WONDERFUL: I use a Mac at home and an X-windows Unix
> box at school. (I'm sure this is not rare) In the time-sliced X-windows
> world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process
> is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take
> MacDraw EVERY day).
Try starting a large print job in the bacground across Appletalk. You will
then find your Mac lagging seconds behind on Mouse clicks and Key presses,
JUST LIKE UNIX!!.
--- James McCartney
David Elliott
>edu> <69...@ur-cc.UUCP>
>>Multitasking? But we already HAVE multitasking...
>
>Here Here!
>I don't think this gets nearly enough attention.
Actually, this topic gets attention every 3 weeks, when someone who
ought to know better uses the meaningless term "true multitasking".
In general, what people are asking for is a better way to handle
program crashes, no matter how it works.
>When using a graphically oriented machine like the mac, real-time
>response is WONDERFUL: I use a Mac at home and an X-windows Unix
>box at school. (I'm sure this is not rare) In the time-sliced X-windows
>world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process
>is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take
>MacDraw EVERY day).
This is not a property of X, but a property of the window manager you
are using. The Motif window manager allows both click-to-type (like
the Mac) and focus-follows-pointer (like other X window managers). As
far as knowing what happens to each mouse click, that's a property of
the applications. Most Mac applications are nice enough to let you
know that something has happened. X applications can do this, but
since many applications are still written without standard widgets that
do this, there's no consistency.
In my case, I have no problem switching between the two. I started
with X, but the Mac model works just as well for me. They are very
different ways of accomplishing the same goals.
As far as idraw goes, it's simply an application you have available to
you (for a lot less than MacDraw costs, mind you). There are much
nicer drawing programs available under X, such as xfig and tgif. Also,
if you want to pay for it, FrameMaker has a drawing environment.
X is still a baby. As a result, the Mac folks have a chance to stay
ahead or to merge with X to create a superior interface. If no attempt
is made one way or the other, the Mac will eventually be surpassed by
other interfaces.
--
David Elliott
d...@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
(408)944-4073
"Nature hates both a vacuum and a vacuum cleaner too" -- The Residents
Steve Peltz
> .... What is needed is a way
>to boot from a read-only file system (currently the system folder must
>be writable.) Then a local hard disk could have a read-only system
>partition, which is safe against all users except those both cunning
>and malicious.
Huh? I boot from write-protected floppy disks all the time! The only thing
annoying is that the system won't let you even go into the Chooser if it is
locked (for instance, if you just want to look at the current settings).
--
Steve Peltz P-ASEL C-G
Internet: pe...@cerl.uiuc.edu PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
Ralph Seguin
>is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take
>MacDraw EVERY day).
Unix can hardly be called real time. There are very few real time Unix kernels
in existence. Real-time is, however, becoming more and more important.
A beautiful example of a real time kernel and preemption is Amiga Exec. Amiga
Exec has the fastest (least # of instructions) context switch of any OS. It
also has prioritized round robin scheduling (can be found in some UNIX kernels),
which performs quite well.
>I like unix. I like X-windows. But I think for the kind of work folks
>do on a Mac, cooperative multitasking is _better_ than preemptive.
>I just want to be able to switch apps without relaunching -- y'know,
>cut an paste etc. With a big screen, having several on the screen
>at once is nifty too. Background Apps do just that--sit in the background
>until I start staring at the screen, and then they do their thing.
Suppose you want to do a large ray trace? I wouldn't want to sit around for
several hours without being able to use my system for something else.
With preemption, you just shove the process in the background at a low
priority, and it gobbles up any CPU time that you do not use. Generally, when
you are doing something like word processing, there are tons of cycles to spare
since you appear to be moving about as fast as granite to a computer.
>I'd like to say just two things to anybody who's bothered to read this far:
>1. Let's here it for Apple's cooperative multitasking approach to
>microcomputer software.
How about: Cooperative is fine for somethings, but just doesn't cut it for others.
See ya, Ralph
gilg...@caen.engin.umich.edu gilg...@dip.eecs.umich.edu
gilg...@goliath.eecs.umich.edu Ralph_...@ub.cc.umich.edu
gilg...@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER...@UMICHUB.BITNET
Ralph Seguin | In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type
11010 Lighthouse Dr. #234 | something that actually makes sense, you need to
Belleville, MI 48111 | have infinitely many monkey editors as well.
(313) 697-1048
Ben Cranston
: o Security for public labs, so we don't have to have a bunch of
: hacked inits to stay sane. Maybe network booting, as well.
Recently sl19...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Vincent Schonau) wrote:
: This is definitely a _must_ keeps people from screwing with your system
: disks....
In <1990May2.0...@agate.berkeley.edu: lip...@math.berkeley.edu writes:
: While network booting would be real nice, it's not going to keep
: people from screwing with tghe system disks. What is needed is a way
: to boot from a read-only file system (currently the system folder must
: be writable.) Then a local hard disk could have a read-only system
: partition, which is safe against all users except those both cunning
: and malicious.
One possibility is to erect a local RAM disk and switchlaunch to a system
on that RAM disk. I don't think you need to write to the system folder
until after the boot, I believe in the scheme we are using the switchlaunch
is a startup application.
--
"It's all about Power, it's all about Control
All the rest is lies for the credulous"
-- Man-in-the-street interview in Romania one week after Ceaucescu execution.
Dave Caplinger
> In article <6...@victoria.cs.utexas.edu> s8...@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Connolly) writes:
>>world, I'm never quite sure where my key-strokes go or whether a process
>>is done with my mouse-click. (Try using idraw under Unix. I'll take
>>MacDraw EVERY day).
>
> several hours without being able to use my system for something else.
> With preemption, you just shove the process in the background at a low
> priority, and it gobbles up any CPU time that you do not use. Generally, when
> since you appear to be moving about as fast as granite to a computer.
> How about: Cooperative is fine for somethings, but just doesn't cut it for
> others.
I see what you're saying, but I think you gave the wrong reason. (Didn't you
read The Macintosh Way? :-)
Macintosh (non-preemptive) multitasking lets you do exactly what you just said
you wanted preemption for: starting up a task (for example a large ray trace),
and shoving it in the background at a low priority while you do something else.
In fact, the get the "low priority" part for free because the "front"
application will get a "high priority" simply by the nature of cooperative
multitasking. :-)
> See ya, Ralph
-/ Dave Caplinger /---------------------------------------------------------
President -- University of Nebraska at Omaha Student Chapter of ACM
de...@rsal.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent (BITNET? HA!)
-/ Dave Caplinger /---------------------------------------------------------
Microcomputer Specialist, Campus Computing, Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
de...@zeus.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent DENT@UNOMA1
Dan Kogai
>Actually, this topic gets attention every 3 weeks, when someone who
>ought to know better uses the meaningless term "true multitasking".
>In general, what people are asking for is a better way to handle
>program crashes, no matter how it works.
Thanks for speaking it out to us. I ought to have said the same thing.
In that respect UNIX is far better an OS--Core dump is better than Bomb
Alert or Macsbug screen which so often fails to "es" or "ea".
>This is not a property of X, but a property of the window manager you
>are using. The Motif window manager allows both click-to-type (like
>the Mac) and focus-follows-pointer (like other X window managers). As
>far as knowing what happens to each mouse click, that's a property of
>the applications. Most Mac applications are nice enough to let you
>know that something has happened. X applications can do this, but
>since many applications are still written without standard widgets that
>do this, there's no consistency.
Window Manager is exactly like INITs/CDEVs for Macs: Convenient and
troublesome. Since Window Manager screens out some of precious event
queues, some application is imcompatible with Window Manager (Just like
wrongly configured Quickey!).
Another Obnoxious property of Window Manager is it's configured
via text! No "Configure..." Menu item that pops up dialog to configure
itself (Well, it's quite flexible, tho). My .twmrc is above 25k! Who
said X window is GUI?
>In my case, I have no problem switching between the two. I started
>with X, but the Mac model works just as well for me. They are very
>different ways of accomplishing the same goals.
I like both but if I had to make a choice between the 2, I won't take
a single clock circle of IIfx to choose a Mac--no matter what X is still
too slow! And it takes obnoxious command line to set attributes and
xrdb format is even more obnoxious. X needs hell lot of KISS!
>As far as idraw goes, it's simply an application you have available to
>you (for a lot less than MacDraw costs, mind you). There are much
>nicer drawing programs available under X, such as xfig and tgif. Also,
>if you want to pay for it, FrameMaker has a drawing environment.
I never thought xfig is nice. X has terrible nature of implementing
graphics in text. I almost threw up when I took a look at xbm format
which all bitmap is converted to C structure! X is too text oriented
(Or unix in general). It needs more care for binary files.
>X is still a baby. As a result, the Mac folks have a chance to stay
>ahead or to merge with X to create a superior interface. If no attempt
>is made one way or the other, the Mac will eventually be surpassed by
>other interfaces.
Sometimes I'm in doubt if X folks are really trying to beat MacOS and
make Xwindow tomorrow's GUI. X is as old as a Mac and more programmers are
involved and more powerful hardware is assgined. But it's getting more
and more obnoxious every update. While Mac has become an attractive girl
X is still a crybaby whose size is twice as big as Miss Mac. X/OPEN and
Motif are split, still heavily text dependent, still weak event driving
(see it freezes like hell), and more. I agree with you that Mac will be
out of throne of King of GUI someday but I'd rather bet for NextStep than
X who will establish next dynasty of GUI...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
################## Dan The "Dosphobia but Unixphilia" Man
+ ____ __ __ + (Aka Dan Kogai)
+ ||__||__| + E-mail: da...@ocf.berkeley.edu
+ ____| ______ + Voice: 415-549-6111
+ | |__|__| + USnail: 1730 Laloma Berkeley, CA 94709
+ |___ |__|__| + U.S.A
+ |____|____ +
+ \_| | + #define circular(x) reference(x)
+ <- THE MAN -> + #define reference(x) circular(x)
################## printf("%s\n", circular(reference("All I say is false")));
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Connolly
>In article <1990May1....@smsc.sony.com> d...@Sony.COM (David Elliott) writes:
>>In my case, I have no problem switching between the two. I started
>>with X, but the Mac model works just as well for me. They are very
>>different ways of accomplishing the same goals.
>
> I like both but if I had to make a choice between the 2, I won't take
>a single clock circle of IIfx to choose a Mac--no matter what X is still
>too slow! And it takes obnoxious command line to set attributes and
>xrdb format is even more obnoxious. X needs hell lot of KISS!
>
Oh Nooooooooo!
I thought I could post my 2 cents worth without bashing, but
now I've started an X-vs-Mac thread.
I'll just say that given the state of Mac software before
Multifinder, I'm pleased with Apple's multi-tasking offering.
Originally I thought it was useless, but now that I have enough
memory and some good software, I find it very useful.
I'm outa here before I create another monster.
(did I at least spell everything right this time?)
Dan
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University
(Dan Kogai) says "UNIX is far better ... Core dump is better than Bomb
Alert or Macsbug screen..."
I say "Bleah!" to core dumps. I much prefer the VMS "traceback"
facility. Here's an example:
%RMS-F-SYN, file specification syntax error
%TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows
module name routine name line rel PC abs PC
DIRECTORY_STACK PARSE_DEFAULT 540 000000AD 00000E0D
DIRECTORY_STACK DO_PUSH 599 00000022 00001452
DIRECTORY_STACK DO_COMMAND 1062 0000003B 0000106F
DIRECTORY_STACK DIRECTORY_STACK 1099 0000003E 0000102E
Cryptic error messages aside, often that's all the information you need
to find a bug in your program. And the overhead? About 10% extra in the
size of the on-disk application file, *zero* in-memory space and run-time
overhead--until your program bombs. And this is the level of debugging you
get by default!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Computer Services Dept fone: +64-71-562-889
University of Waikato fax: +64-71-384-066
Hamilton, New Zealand electric mail: l...@waikato.ac.nz
I think, therefore I can't thwim.
Todd P. Whitesel
>I heard the Mac OS is derived from S.O.S. (sophisticated operating system),
>written in pascal for the Apple ///. Is this true?
God, I hope not. ProDOS was derived from S.O.S.'s low level interface, and
it's written entirely in assembly (like much of the Mac toolbox).
I thought the Mac OS was supposed to be a much cleaner break: S.O.S. was never
that bad, the Apple /// designers just bit off much more than they could chew
about a year too soon (64k DRAMs were still too expensive... wow) and by the
time the got the problems fixed the machine had a horrid reputation and nothing
could save it. The machine was a mistake, really: it really needed things which
didn't show up until the IIGS. (Of course, by that time the Mac OS was already
beginning to show some 20/20 hindsight, and that helped too...)
> Oh well, I guess it's better than CP/M-derived stuff.
>But why not a scaled down unix (OS-9, Minix, etc) in the first place?
I always wondered that. I heard the Lisa design team had worked from that
frame of mind, but the Mac team didn't borrow enough from them and the Mac OS
paid for it later (Multifinder tech notes, 32 bit clean, etc).
Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
Paul Campbell
>Who says developers complained? Who says developers even got System 7 yet?
>I want a little attribution here!
If anyone actually has it they wont be saying, they will be under
non-disclosure
>As far as I can tell, it's slipping because it's complicated. We're supposed
>to get beta copies at the Developer Conference next week, and I expect that
>the thousands of developers will find yet more bugs and design problems.
Of course ... that's one of the main reasons for shipping betas (lots
of free QA testing - by very expensive programmers). [The other reason
of course is so that applications will work with the new software and
potentially use some of the new features].
Paul
--
Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
"The current plan is to replace the flag with one with alternating vertical
black and white stripes of varying widths - this is thought to better represent
the country's system of government ..."
Ted Woodward
Ah, but the HP 9000/370 Dan was using to post that article, and the Sun
Sparcstation 1 I'm using to post this have a bit more horsepower than my SE
at home (I have no idea what Dan has).
I've been on a Sparcstation, with nobody else on, running Xwindows, with
3 windows open. I'm reading news on one, another is the console window
(for messages), and the third is doing nothing. I just LOVE hitting a mouse
button and waiting a full second for the menu to appear...and xload said the
system load was less than 1...
If Printmonitor had been written well, it would operate almost transparently...
It wouldn't take over the system for a few seconds at a time, more like about
1/4th of a second at a time...
The reason Unix boxes lag while in window environments is not lack of power,
but the fact that not enough priority is given to the user interface. Just
today, I was copying my directory (it was huge), and wanted to check out
it's status by doing a du on my console window. I'd move the mouse from
my rn window to the console window, the console window would highlight, and
THEN I'd hit !!. Unfortunately, the !! frequently came out on the rn window.
Time for a shell escape...and yes, this was AFTER the console window was
highlighted...and the Sparcstation is supposed to be optimized for windows!!!
(don't believe me? check out scrolling while on console and not using a window
system. It really sux bad...)
And, of course, I just love the way the damn machine locks up while doing an
xsetroot -bitmap...so much for time slicing...I'd much rather be able to do
something and wait a bit longer for my background than just sit around...
--
Ted Woodward (t...@cs.utexas.edu)
Someone shot the food...
Ted Woodward
>Suppose you want to do a large ray trace? I wouldn't want to sit around for
>several hours without being able to use my system for something else.
>With preemption, you just shove the process in the background at a low
>priority, and it gobbles up any CPU time that you do not use. Generally, when
>you are doing something like word processing, there are tons of cycles to spare
>since you appear to be moving about as fast as granite to a computer.
If I were writing a ray tracing program, I would call WaitNextEvent() every
so often (note C bias :-) ). This allows the background raytracer to give
control back to the foreground application. Then you could use the system for
whatever else you wanted. Designed correctly, applications like this work
very well in a cooperative multitasking environment. You just have to be
willing to give control back every so often; often enough that the user
has a minimum of frustration because the Mac does not respond (ie, NOT
Printmonitor...:-( )
David Lee Matuszek
This is rather mundane, but I would like to see better icons for
folders. I have a hard disk (two of them, actually), and all I ever
see on my desktop anymore are folders. When I open one, I typically
see a couple of meaningful icons, and several more folders.
I *like* icons. It's a lot easier, visually, to find the icon for
(say) MS Word than it is to find the Word Processors folder. All the
folders look the same, and at this point, everything is in a folder.
So I'm suggesting that, instead of the generic "blank folder" icon,
suppose we could have different icons for different folders.
It would be nice to have a visual indication that a given icon
represents a folder, so it would be logical to keep the generic folder
outline, and squeeze an icon into the area representing the front of
the folder (as on the system folder)--but there just isn't enough
room.
Suppose, instead, we expand the folder icon to be the largest possible
square--a black border and a white interior. Other icons could be
superimposed on this: the icon for the "most important" application in
the folder, or a "representative" icon, or we could roll our own. For
example, the icon for the Word Processors folder might consist of the
MS Word icon enclosed in a square.
If you think this is a poorly-thought-out idea, you're right. It's
nothing more than a first crude suggestion for getting rid of all
those uninformative blank folder icons.
[And yes, I do know about icon docks. A cool idea, and possibly of
some help; but it doesn't solve the problem of all those identical
folder icons.]
How does this sound? Any better ideas?
-- Dave Matuszek (da...@prc.unisys.com)
-- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301
-- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable.
<< "Next time, Jack, write a goddamned memo!" >>