Linux-Advocacy Digest #152, Volume #26 Sun, 16 Apr 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Eric Bennett)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Jack Troughton)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Jack Troughton)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Eric Bennett)
backup in Linux ("Jerry Wong")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:09:51 GMT
In article <BkJI4.13980$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows will remain the dominant
> corporate operating system because it has
> some features/frameworks that would make
> it easier for enterprise wide
> computing.
This is a very interesting theory.
Note that it is UNIX that has provided the infrastructures and
frameworks that make it easier for enterprise wide computing and
inter-enterprise computing. This includes things like TCP/IP,
HTTP, HTML, remote procedure calls, DCE, and CORBA as well as
SGML (parent to HTML).
Linux was the child of UNIX, designed to bring the power and
capabilities of a huge enterprise based operating system
to small businesses, independent consultants, and individuals,
both as a server and as a desktop system.
> For instance, DAO, ADO and COM.
> These frameworks that to the best
> of my knowlede only exists on the
> Windows platform put them at an advantage
> over the competition.
Guess again. CORBA, RPC, GNOME/KDE, SGML, and XML
have all been developed LONG before their Microsoft
counterparts. Not only is UNIX supported, but also
Mainframes, and Windows. Microsoft merely attempted
to alter the Application Programmer Interfaces (to
prevent porting to other platforms), make minor
alterations to protocols (to prevent interoperation
with UNIX), and then attempt to force OEMs and
Corporate IT managers to OEM.
> For corporate IT managers what matters most in an OS
> is not its quality or performance.
> I wouldn't say that this doesn't matter,
> but its just not the most important.
Sad to say, but in this you are correct. What the top
IT managers are most concerned with is the system's
ability.
> What is the most important is whether
> or not its serves your enterprise needs
This is the most important factor. The enterprise
needs more than word processors, spreadsheets, and
presentation graphics. These are great for the marketing
people, but the real-world needs of an enterprise
go for beyond the following:
> for:
> database access,
Microsoft has pretty much alienated the Database vendors
with SQL Server. Even Sybase isn't happy with the way
they were locked out of the Windows market by Microsoft's
perversion of their own product.
DB2/UML, Sybase/ASE, Informix and Oracle have all thrown full support
behind UNIX, even so far as to support Linux. They figure
they have a better chance of being included in an enterpise
strategy that is based on Linux prototypes than they have
on an enterprise strategy prototyped on Windows.
Worse yet, most SQL Server implementations are prototyped in
Microsoft Excel, which generates totally unkosher SQL code,
tables. By the time this mishmash is worked over by the DBAs
a few times for more performance, it becomes painfully obvious
that it is unsuitable for Enterprise use - by the time the
big Database vendors get called in, they know that they have
to deal with Spaghetti code, hideously normalized databases,
and interfaces that may be based on Access forms.
> network support and
And where did the network support originate?
It was UNIX that provided TCP/IP, DNS, ARP and RARP (predecessors
to DHCP). It was Bill Joy of SUN that created Berkely Sockets
(the predecessor of Winsock) as a student at Berkely. PPP and Slip
developed first to let UNIX use dial-up lines to the ARPANET (replacing
the UUCP links).
E-mail, actually dates back to UUCP. MIME e-mail (multimedia e-mail)
originated with UNIX.
> distributed computing.
Remote procedure calls (RPC) was being used on UNIX systems
as early as 1984. And CICS had RPC even before UNIX. Clusters
for UNIX also dated back to the early 1980s (PERPOS), based on
a cluster designed for a custom version of RT-11 first deployed
by what is now a division of Nortel in 1978.
> ADO and DAO serves the purpose of making
> database access easy to accomplish in
> Windows systems.
UNIX had simplified database access - computer to computer access
to Windows databases back in the 1980s. The first Query by Example
system using a GUI interface was developed by Sun. Even before
that CHUI (Character based User Interfaces) using Curses and Termcap,
introduced the concepts of event driven forms back in the early 1980s.
IBM had SQL and DEC had RDM back when Microsoft was still trying
to get BASIC into ROM. UNIX used grep, vi, sed, and awk to generate
queries and create reports using simple text files. Even when
databases did become widely available for UNIX in the late 1980s,
it was ofter more effort to manage the SQL databases, schemas, and
system configurations.
> COM is Microsoft's model for interprocess
> communications and distributed computing.
If you want to talk about Interprocess communication,
let's talk about UNIX. IPC was a critical and essential
concept of UNIX. This was probably because one of the earliest
uses of UNIX was to emulate switching systems, and later
UNIX actually BECAME the switching system for telephones.
The earliest form of IPC was the simple pipe. Processes could
read from standard input and write to standard output. This
allowed a chain or "Pipeline" to be created using trivial
applications. Eventually, a simple grep, sed, and troff
sequence could produce a commercial quality report in 3
commands. In most cases, the entire command only took 1 line.
In other cases, you would need a command file. UNIX 1-liners
were fun. They were so easy to create that must of the hard
work could be built in a matter of hours.
When AT&T began commercializing UNIX, one of the key innovations
was a more structured version of IPC. AT&T introduced Message
Queues, semaphores (exploiting the test-and-set feature of the
Motorola 68000 processor), and a very efficient implementation
of the classic pipe. More important, AT&T introduced the named
pipe which enabled application developers to "close the loop".
UNIX even utilized the pipe with the graphical user interface.
This made it possible to run entire clusters with a single
monitor and keyboard.
IBM uses an abstracted version of Message Queues called MQSeries,
which enables applications to transparently access mainframes,
databases, and even UNIX pipelines with the same flexibility.
> ADO and DAO gives you an extra layer of
> abstraction when dealing with your database.
Gee - is that something like the Data Objects of CORBA.
Of course, CORBA is much faster. Of course, UNIX has
tools that make it really easy to connect between a web
server and a database. Tools like PERL, Java, and Python.
In some cases you can even generate copiled C-Code to
provide really fast performance.
This also solves a number of problems like security, access control,
and session management.
> This means that you don't have to worry
> that much about lower level details
> when making a program to manipulate your database.
Data Abstraction - that's a novel concept. First introduced in
DCE (Open Software Foundation), later CORBA introduced IDE. And
of course, IBM introduced NLS multilanguage support.
> Your data could be on a
> server in the next room or located
> in some little known server somewhere it
> Timbuktu in doesn't matter.
Too bad that only works for databases. With Linux and UNIX,
I can access the entire computer remotely (with proper authority).
This makes it possible for me to see the same graphical user interface
that is causing problems for a customer, running on the offending
machine. True, you can get similar capabilities from Citrix, if
your workstation also happens to be loaded with $7000 worth of
Citrix server software. With Linux and UNIX, it's part of the
package.
> You can access your data in the same fashion.
Funny, it seems that some databases are different from others.
It seems that this works really well on SQL Server databases
running on Windows. It doesn't work so well on DB2/UDB, Sybase/ASE,
and Oracle.
> Another advantage of DAO and ADO is the
> standardisation of data accessing.
Again, this sounds remarkably similar to CORBA.
The big difference being that with CORBA, I can access
UNIX databases, or even CICS transactions.
> This means similar programs which also
> uses DAO and ADO can talk to each
> other via COM.
One of the big problems with this is that you end up
having to compile in the ADO interface with the rest
of the EXE. This creates the same problems as any
other "thick client". You have the hard-coded user
interface that will have to be used even if the business
requirements change.
> This allows for rapid application
> development which also
> matters a lot in the corporate environment.
Creating a graphical user interface quickly is nice,
but most corporations are subject to a huge maze of
business requirements driven by Government Regulations,
contract requirements, and changes in corporate policies.
> From the above reasons, I think
> the enthusiasm over Linux and overly
> optimistic and overhyped.
Keep in mind that Linux combines the best features of UNIX,
including adherance to strict public standards used by not
only all UNIX systems, but also by systems such as Mainframes,
VMS, and implementable in Windows.
The corporate world gave Microsoft a very generous opportunity
to prove itself with NT 4.0, especially after Service Pack 3.
Unfortunately, in 1997 and 1998, a number of ambitious enterprise
server projects were not going well. Most Windows programmers,
especially VB programmers, didn't understand the complexities of
large enterprise applications. Worse yet, most of the windows
server programmer weren't familiar with the issues related to
handling hundreds of clients concurrently connected. The average
project was 800% over budget and 500% late. Many of the Project
Managers and IT managers discovered that you CAN get fired for
choosing Microsoft.
IT managers must first and formost be concerned with business
needs. This means being able to quickly adapt to frequently
changing requirements without giving competitors your entire
customer list.
> Microsoft,
> because of its better supporting frameworks
Ironically, IT managers have learned that simpler
is often better. When you have to connect numerous
departments, including many different IT platforms,
vendors, manufacturers, and you have to stay in
compliance with not only federal regulations, but
also the regulations of each state in which you
do business, AND you have to have real-time access
to back-end systems, you will have you hands full.
You need the flexibility of thin clients that don't need
to be redeployed every time some state legislature or
some executive beaurocrat decides you should do something
a little differently.
You need the flexibility of servers designed to handle
hundreds or thousands of concurrent connections and
multiple applications. You need to be able to connect
to vendors, suppliers, agents, and customers regardless
of the platform they are using.
> and protocols still has the
> upperhand as far as the big
> corporate guys are concerned.
Actually, the corporate guys are losing interest in NT as a
server. Windows 2000 might help the situation somewhat, but
for the most part, Windows currently has less than 20% of the
server market, and only a relatively small number of workstations
compared to Windows 95 and Windows 98.
According to a recent survey in Australia, 50 percent of all
corporations are already using Linux, with another 20% planning
deployments in the near future. About 13% are exploring the
possibility of using Linux as a desktop system.
Linux as a desktop is a relatively new development. While Linux
has spent 8 years working it's way into the server market, desktop
oriented Linux systems have only been around for about 9 months.
What is remarkable isn't that Linux only has 8% of the desktop
market, with 13% of all corporations considering it, but that Linux
has achieved most of that 8% and nearly all of that 13% in the last
6 months.
Linux still isn't for everybody. You probably won't see it on
Grandma's desktop, and you probably won't see many project managers
using Linux until a good project manager package is available.
On the other hand, the high school kids love Linux, and for customer
server people, secretaries, and executives who need to quickly react
to real-time information related to cash-flow, economic changes, and
supply chain management in an envirenment where inventory cycles have
dropped from 6 weeks to less than 48 hours.
Companies who have learned to exploit Linux and UNIX effectively
are nearly immune to interest rate changes, much less sensitive
to inflation, and can often manage multiple supply sources to
create a highly competitive environment.
The world of the Technologically ignorant manager is rapidly vanishing.
IT managers who rely on single-source vendor relationships for IT
solutions are discovering that you CAN get fired for choosing
Microsoft. The days of blindly choosing a proprietary standard
based on a proprietary standard are rapidly vanishing.
It may be that Windows will have a final transition - the Cignus
package that lets users run Linux software on Windows NT and
Windows 2000 systems. This is probably the least painful way
to get acquainted with UNIX and Linux without giving up your
Windows system. At the same time, as you get more comfortable
with Linux applications, making the transition should be much
easier.
It's likely that Microsoft will again try to prevent the
adoption of UNIX based APIs, Protocols, and file formats,
but this time the DOJ is watching - with a court Judgement
that give sweeping authority to prevent Microsoft from
blocking competition.
Bill Gates bet the farm on Windows 2000. He lost the bet.
Reports of incompatibililities, a revolt by applications
vendors, a court judgement, and a huge pre-sale have left
Microsoft with very little revenue, and lots of attention
going to Linux.
This is Microsoft's third strike. Windows NT 3.x was the first,
Windows NT 4.0 was the second, and Windows 2000 - followed by
the announcement of WindowsME is a symptom Linux.
> Joe
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:24:18 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >But that is a nuisance for the user, who then has to remember which
> >instance of the program is doing what, and keep switching between them.
>
> A trivial issue. Even if someone has such a poor memory that they
> can't remember such a simple thing while they're working with it all
> they have to do is try two more times.
Well, it sounds like more work to me than adjusting an application's
memory partition size *once*. And we know Wintrolls consider that to be
an undesirably complicated task.
> I find it very useful to run multiple instances of CAD programs. I can
> have different preferences set for each instance and switch between
> them as needed instead of having to change things each time.
How do the different instances know which prefs file they're supposed to
use? Or do you reset the prefs for each multiple instance every time
you load it?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
CBS News report on Fort Worth tornado damage:
"Eight major downtown buildings were severely damaged and 1,000 homes were
damaged, with 95 uninhabitable. Gov. George W. Bush declared Tarrant County
a disaster area. Federal Emergency Management Agency workers are expected
to arrive sometime next week after required paperwork is completed."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:12:39 GMT
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:36:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Stango) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
>wrote:
>
>> I've been _heavily_ using Win95/98 since the day Win95 was released
>> and have _yet_ to have to play with the registry. I'll tell you what's
>> _pathetic_ and that's the back-water Mac only being able to run one
>> instance of a program at a time. (This is year 2000 ??? ) I tap the
>> spacebar twice and my PC turns on, boots & connects to the net with
>> _3_ instances of IE running , one goes to my news site, one to web
>> mail, and one to my online broker. With as much web intensive work as
>> I do the Mac would be a REAL mill stone around my neck, But all is
>> not lost , I think with OS X the Mac will finally crawl out from
>> under the rock a bit.
>
>Hmm, at 7am every morning (I wake up at 7:30), my Mac powers *itself* on,
>checks for and downloads any OS updates, gets my mail, and loads eight
>different web pages in eight different windows of the same instance of IE,
>then starts chewing on SETI blocks until I sit down in front of it. Not
>having multiple app instances is not a big deal.
>
>You still have to actually *touch* your PC to power it up? This is year
>2000? <g> Hell, in another few weeks I'll be turning lights and things on
>and off by voice commands to my Mac (right now I have to hit buttons on a
>remote for that stuff).
Heh, you can do that _today_ with os/2. In fact, you've been able to
do that for about two years now with os2.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:22:17 GMT
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:23:06, Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 14 Apr 2000 23:50:38 GMT, a butterfly in Costa Rica flapped its wings,
>causing jansens_at_ibm_dot_net to write:
>
>| You should know better than to mock those poor Windows users. They can't
>| help being who they are. The more fortunate of us should be compassionate,
>| not haughty.
>
>Heh. An OS/2 user gloating over Windows users' fragile registries. Sure
>Karel, those OS2.INI and OS2SYS.INI files are rock-solid, aren't they? They
>*never* get corrupted or polluted, do they? No need for UniMaint, CHECKINI,
>or any of the other INI-file repair utilities, is there?
Yeah, but it's still way more robust than the registries are, and
since each app is quite capable of having it's own, you minimize the
risk of a badly written app toasting the system's ini files, instead
of just itself.
And let's face a little reality here; using checkini to fix warp's ini
files is a hell of a lot easier on the user than using regedit to fix
window's registry, despite the fact that it's a text mode application.
Of course, if you want to edit the ini files key by key in a gui,
there's regedit2 supplied with the system, plus several excellent
free- and pay- ware alternatives. Personally, I use mIni, which is
freeware, and can search and create a catalog of all the ini files on
the system. It's nice that the same interface is used for most apps
for storing app info, but kept in separate files; it makes the
specific thing you're looking for far easier to find, and minimizes
the risk to the system.
When it comes to the functions fulfilled by warp's ini files and the
windows registry, we're way ahead of you guys if there's a problem.
Take it easy;)
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:33:15 -0400
In article <cbaK4.42141$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you want it to? Once the OS supports multiple instances, this
> becomes the ideal solution for this type of problem. Multiple thread
> share
> memory and resources with the process, where multiple-processes are
> completely isolated. Having this isolation is a great advantage when one
> of
> them attempts something illegal (GPF).
Maybe your software is a lot less reliable than mine, but the only
things that I find crash are web browsers and games. I don't know
anyone who launches multiple instances of Quake, and I would still
rather have all my web pages open in one instance of a web browser. And
even browsers don't crash *that* often.
> > I don't deny it makes things easier for the programmer. I just think
> > that users can appreciate it if programmers go to the extra effort to
> > make their software able to do multiple things at once. I always hated
> > the old version of Eudora that wouldn't let me compose new mail while
> > the software was busy downloading a big attachment... why should I end
> > up loading two copies of Eudora?
>
> Don't confuse multiple instances with multiple threads. Multiple threads
> enable a single application to do many things at once. Multiple instances
> allow you to run isolated processes, but each process can still run many
> threads.
So long as you have multiple threads, why bother with multiple
instances? I don't buy your stability argument. I don't think the
minimal return is worth it. When I'm on a Unix box, I could fire up six
copies of Emacs, but I prefer instead to load my six text files into one
instance of Emacs and switch between them with the Buffers menu. I
can't remember Emacs ever crashing on me.
> Multiple instances are isolated from each other, a single instance that
> can
> do many things at once is not. Say I run Internet Explorer twice, and
> then
> spawn 5 other windows from the second copy. If the first instance
> crashes,
> it will leave the other instance intact. However, if the second instance
> crashes, it'll take all 6 windows with it. In the Windows world, this is
> the
> big difference. Hence, PMT and memory management allow for multiple
> instances and improve the reliability of the system.
You'd have to have pretty frequent app crashes to convince me that the
interface nuisance was worth the stability gain. My software doesn't
crash that often, and even so, I'd rather reload the three web browser
windows I lost than spend time switching between apps during the
majority of the time when the software *isn't* crashing.
This introduces an extra layer of effort. If I have a lot of windows
open, with a single instance, I go to the program's windows menu and
select my window. With multiple instances, I have to select the
instance and then the window. Or it introduces an extra submenu, or if
all windows system-wide are listed at once I have to scan through more
windows. I prefer the organization that comes from single instances.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
CBS News report on Fort Worth tornado damage:
"Eight major downtown buildings were severely damaged and 1,000 homes were
damaged, with 95 uninhabitable. Gov. George W. Bush declared Tarrant County
a disaster area. Federal Emergency Management Agency workers are expected
to arrive sometime next week after required paperwork is completed."
------------------------------
From: "Jerry Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: backup in Linux
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:39:55 +0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
=======_NextPart_000_0030_01BFA7B1.A1CD4EA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have win98 and Redhat 6.0 in my PC.
I use the ghost5 to backup my win98.
Is there any software in Linux that can perform backup the whole linux =
o/s.
--=20
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124
(In Chinese Big 5)
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm
(In English)
=======_NextPart_000_0030_01BFA7B1.A1CD4EA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dbig5 http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0c0c0>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I have win98 and Redhat 6.0 in my PC.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I use the ghost5 to backup my win98.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Is there any software in Linux that can perform =
backup the=20
whole linux o/s.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>-- <BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124">http://members.hknet.com/~wo=
ng63124</A><BR>(In=20
Chinese Big 5)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm">http://members.hkn=
et.com/~wong63124/linux.htm</A><BR>(In=20
English)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
=======_NextPart_000_0030_01BFA7B1.A1CD4EA0==
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:45:17 GMT
In article <oUbK4.42170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <TX9K4.42135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > I think it depends on the application, but isn't the idea of being
> > > document centric improved with the relationship of one-document for
> > > one-application instance?
> >
> > To some extent sure, and it makes more of a difference in Windows than
> > Mac OS because of MDI stupidity. But the system really _isn't_
> > document-centric, so why pretend it is?
>
> Isn't it?
Not really. Most document formats are still tied to a specific app.
> > > Odd, but I use it quite a bit. Mostly with IE, but then again
> > > selecting the icon is easier than selecting File-New.
> >
> > That's what keyboard shortcuts are for ;-)
>
> Oh, of course, I forgot about those? :-)
>
> > > The other big one is Visual C++, where I need to work on two projects
> > > simultaneously, where each project contains multiple documents.
> > > Notepad, Paint and Write also only support the SDI, and so need
> > > multiple instances to support multiple documents. After trying both
> > > MDI with single instances and SDI with multiple instances, the later
> > > is my choice.
> >
> > Most of this related to the way MDI works in Windows. Things are almost
> > completely different in Mac OS. You really can't look at this one issue
> > without looking at all the UI issues that surround it.
>
> At least in part. I think the other big advantages of multiple instances
> over multiple docs per instance are stability related.
That's true, but I can't say any apps I use regularly crash enough for
it to matter.
> > > > > > Guess we just have more advanced software than you guys do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that the key -- who needs memory manage and PMT anyway.
> > > >
> > > > This issue has little to do with either.
> > > >
> > >
> > > PMT and memory management both have a lot to due with multiple
> instances.
> >
> > They help to facilitate multiple instances (though Mac OS could deal
> > with the memory management stuff just fine if you put the executable
> > code in shared libs), but this is really a UI issue more than a
> > technical one, at least on single-user systems.
>
> So which multiple document interface is better? To me, Microsoft's is more
> consistent, although I prefer multiple instances. With Mac OS, creating
> multiple windows for a single instance is unintuitive.
I wouldn't call the Windows way more consistent. Sticking one window
inside another causes all sorts of confusion. And the Mac way makes
working between different windows in different apps much easier.
However, the Windows method does offer one advantage: it's immediately
obvious even to inexperienced users when a program is open, even if
there are no open documents. Many clueless people never seem to
understand that a Mac app (usually) keeps running even after you close
all its windows. It's something I'd never want to give up though.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
