On 9 Jun 2003 at 22:35, Philip M. Aker wrote: > [...] > > However: > > >> So I'll stand corrected on when exactly DOS died but have to ask why > >> not? DOS was the Microsoft system at the time. > > > At *what* time? You haven't specified. > > According to Phil Daley, 1982 but I could live with 1984.
Yes, DOS was the only option then. And, yes, from 1984 to the release of Win3.0, there was no practical multi-tasking system for PCs from Microsoft. There was Desqview, though, for multi-tasking DOS, and it worked well. But it wasn't part of the base OS. I didn't know that this was our topic. I really couldn't give a rat's ass about the fact that the Mac offered multi-tasking for 6 years before Microsoft did, as when Microsoft finally offered it, what Microsoft offered worked better for a longer time. That is, MS had cooperative multi-tasking that worked very, very well from 1990 through the end of the Win9x kernel. They had true pre-emptive multi- tasking with Windows NT, starting in 1991, though that only became a practical desktop reality in 1996. The Mac didn't have real multi-tasking until OS X. So, my issue here is that you seem to be saying the Mac had it for ages when the PC didn't, but you want to define "real" multi-tasking as fully pre-emptive multi-tasking, which the Mac OS never really had, even if the later versions that vastly improved the multi- tasking (was that around system 8 or something like that?). > >> Secondly, I've previously explained to Jari that the keyword in my > >> phrase was "concept". The whole Macintosh concept was first realized > >> in 1984. I'm not sure of the date, but certainly before the end of > >> 1986, Apple released AUX (Apple Unix); which is multitasking by > >> definition and also supported a concurrently running MacOS that had > >> all GUI features of that period. So the statement: > > >>> Microsoft got it right long before Apple, by introducing decent > >>> multi-tasking by Windows 3.0 > > >> is very misleading because obviously Apple had a multitasking system > >> at their disposal years before Microsoft but for one reason or > >> another decided it was not advantageous to use it at the time. > >> Perhaps the Amiga fiasco scared them off a bit. I saw Windows 3.0 > >> many years ago. It was pathetic. > > > OK, I was trying to make sense of what you said, which to me was > > nonsensical. You said Windows programmers had to deal with > > multi-tasking and Mac programmers didn't. > > Nope. I said "Multitasking as an issue". That's simply a phrase that makes no sense to me. I don't have a clue what you mean by it. > > I took that to me that your remarks about the Mac messaging loop were > > not counted by you as multitasking. I didn't understand what you could > > possibly mean by that, but took you at what I understood to be your > > word. > > >> Finally, I have to question whether either you or Jari truly > >> understand that the (old) MacOS had it's way of arriving at solutions > >> that MS has to use multitasking for. > > > There you go -- I cannot make any logical sense out of what you've > > just said. First you say Mac has multitasking. Then you say it > doesn't. > > Nope, I didn't say that. I'm trying to convey that fact that > multitasking solved a lot of problems for Windows developers but really > wouldn't have done a lot for the MacOS of that era. That's why it > was/is only an issue for Windows folks (and their ad campaigns). ??? I still don't get it. The original Mac OS had cooperative multi-tasking back in 1984. Windows didn't become practical until 1990, so let's say it got multi- tasking only then (even though Windows, so far as I know, always offered cooperative multi-tasking, going back to 1987). So, from 1990 through the release of NT 3.1 (1991), MS offered only cooperative multi-tasking. In 1991, NT 3.1, with fully pre-emptive multi-tasking was released. Of course, no one used it except in servers until 3.51, which was 1993 or 1994. So let's say Windows users got practical fully pre-emptive multi-tasking in 1994. In 1995, Win95 offered the same thing for 32-bit applications, though 16-bit apps were still stuck with cooperative multi-tasking with each other (though the OS would treat the 16-bit virtual machine with all the 16-bit apps running in it as a 32-bit app that could be pre- emptively multi-tasked with other 32-bit apps; but in a practical sense, it didn't always work because of too much direct hardware addressing that could easily kill everything). In 1994, the Mac was still only cooperative multi-tasking. In 1996, NT 4 was released and brought a stable and robust version of Windows to everyone (it was the first NT with the Win95 UI). The Mac was still cooperative only. So, I just fail to understand your point here. You agree with Phil Daley that cooperative multi-tasking is not "real" multi-tasking, so by that definition the Mac didn't offer it until OS X. That was first released in a non-beta in what, 2000? Windows users had been benefiting incrementally from "real" multi- tasking since the release of Win95 (for their 32-bit apps), and as more of them moved to NT-based versions of Windows, they were getting even more than that. So, I just don't get your point. Microsoft got practical mult-tasking, even "real" multi-tasking, onto its desktops half a decade before Apple did. [] > [...] > > >> To attempt an analogy, I think that you and Jari have been deceived > >> by only being exposed to and only analyzing the B&H version of the > >> Mac score. And furthermore, don't understand that AppleEvents give > >> the Mac--and hence its event loop--an extra dimension that makes it > >> transcendent to Microsoft's notion. And prior to MacOS X, > >> transcendent to any unix as well. > > > Then why did Apple have to trash their whole OS and use a different > > one to implement real multitasking and virtual memory? > > Steve Jobs. ??? What about Copeland? They did tons of work on that, but they couldn't make it work (aside from the Mac in Independence Day). They spent years and years working on it, trying to make the old MacOS into a modern operating system, but they couldn't make it work. Are you saying that if they hadn't brought in Jobs they would have released a modern OS based on Copeland? Er, wasn't part of the reason the needed to bring Jobs back the fact that they *couldn't* make it happen? And they needed help? > > That is, if it was so great, why did it prevent Apple from creating a > > modern, stable, scalable OS out of it? > > They did have one in the works and the OpenDoc concept would have had a > major role. ??? What does *that* have to do with pre-emptive multi-tasking, virtual memory management and threading? And Microsoft had OLE in place at a very complex and useful level with Office 4.x, in 1993-94. > Adaption of the old MacOS to a pre-emptive multitasking system is > embodied in the Carbon layer. Carbon supports ~90% of the the old > toolbox APIs (including the event loop in question). So you see, the > Macintosh _concept_ gains only about 10% in OS X. Where OS X really > shines is in the area of blending MacOS, Cocoa (NeXT), and unix. For > instance a substantial portion of Cocoa is now interfaced/integrated > with AppleEvents and it's possible to make unix calls with our > AppleEvent-based scripting language (AppleScript) and vice versa. > Multitasking simply isn't an issue on the Mac. Get the point? > Multitasking is only an issue for Windows developers. I think you're fulla beans. You define your terms to suit yourself so that you can prove that it's not an issue for the Mac, but when it also suits you, it *is* an issue for the Mac. You're arguing dishonestly, picking and choosing from both sides of the argument where it pleases you. I'm done engaging you on this subject, as you aren't demonstrating good faith. You may have the last word. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
