)
nospam wrote:
> In article <t2htp3$nv8$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
> <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Apple makes their own M1 chip it's
>>>>>> still a personal computer chip.
>>>>>> ie. it's not a multi-user system.
>>>>> it absolutely is a multi-user system
>>>>
>>>> Multi-user is a term used to describe a computer that more than one
>>>> person
>>>> can use at the
>>>> same time
>>>
>>> nope. it's a term used to describe a computer that more than one
>>> *user*, which is not necessarily a person.
>>
>> I think the proper definition would then be multi-tasking, or
>> multi-processing.
>>
>> Multi-user to me would mean simultaneous use by two or more people.
>
> maybe to you, but that's not the industry definition.
>
> unix systems by definition are multi-user, and that includes mac os.
>
> keep in mind that additional users can ssh into a mac at any time
> (assuming ssh is enabled, of course). which means two or more people
> can use it at the same time.

That's fair comment.

But my recollection of early Macs (OS6, 7, or 8) was that they were
single-user. Also, an iPad or iPhone is single-user.

And a PC running a Windows Professional OS might well allow a remote
user to log in, but that stops the local user from working. There are
third party programs which will allow multiple users to connect; or of
course a Windows Server is designed to be multi-user.

So it depends more on the OS rather than the hardware as to whether a
system can be described as multi-user.

--
Graham J

In article <t2i66t$jj7$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
<nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> >> I think the proper definition would then be multi-tasking, or
> >> multi-processing.
> >>
> >> Multi-user to me would mean simultaneous use by two or more people.
> >
> > maybe to you, but that's not the industry definition.
> >
> > unix systems by definition are multi-user, and that includes mac os.
> >
> > keep in mind that additional users can ssh into a mac at any time
> > (assuming ssh is enabled, of course). which means two or more people
> > can use it at the same time.
>
> That's fair comment.
>
> But my recollection of early Macs (OS6, 7, or 8) was that they were
> single-user.

you recall correctly.

classic mac os was single user, and in the very early days before
multifinder, a single app at a time.

although that's not entirely true, as there was very limited background
processing since day one, and with system 7 and later, it could respond
to remote apple events.

> Also, an iPad or iPhone is single-user.

yes and no.

an ipad and iphone are designed to be used by a single person at a
given time, making it a single user device, although ipads have the
ability for multiple user accounts (for educational settings).

however, they both run the same core os as a mac, just with a different
user interface, making it multi-user, exactly the same as a mac.

there are numerous background tasks running under different users, and
if the ipad or iphone is jailbroken, inbound ssd or http can be
enabled.

it's just the stock ios that doesn't offer the ability to enable things
like sshd and httpd since it doesn't make any sense to have that on
battery powered device.

> And a PC running a Windows Professional OS might well allow a remote
> user to log in, but that stops the local user from working.

that's a rather significant limitation.

> There are
> third party programs which will allow multiple users to connect; or of
> course a Windows Server is designed to be multi-user.
>
> So it depends more on the OS rather than the hardware as to whether a
> system can be described as multi-user.

the os is what matters.

a mac can boot into single-user mode, in which case it's single user.
however, that's not the norm.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 16:50:38 +0100, whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 05:10:44 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 17:01:55 +0100, whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 00:18:24 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:34:13 +0100, whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Adobe creative suite is now a sunscription packge Mac & PC.
>> >> Adobe is available on both, but it's overpriced shit.
>> >
>> > It works and lots seem to resonabley happy with it.
>> Not if they paid for it.
>
> Most do.

Some people have more money than sense.

>> A long time ago we used JASC Paintshop Pro instead of Adobe Photoshop.. A third of the price, several times faster, and easier to use. Then Corel bought JASC. Paintshop Pro now takes 30 SECONDS to load on a very fast computer. When I complained, their excuse was Photoshop was the same speed. 30 seconds, WTF?
>
> I use affinity photo, I prefer photoshop but for the amount of times I use it I find I don't actualy need it.
> I don;t feel teh need for lightroom or all the other things you get.

How long does it take to start Photoshop?

>> >> >> > But us technicains don;t get a choice we get what the lab uses.
>> >> >> > So I said well since ~1992 I was told I'm the Mac person and supported Mac users.
>> >> >> > Then the head of department said Apple are going out of business because their computers are crap.
>> >> >> > And we all know how badly their businness is going don't we.
>> >> >> It did go badly at one point, just before Jobs I believe. Then he conned everyone into thinking it was great.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because it was.
>> >> You sound like a religious nut.
>> >
>> > Nah, I just prefer the Mac OS
>> It's got an interface like Fischer Price toys.
>
> and windows keeps trying to copy it.

They shouldn't. Most Windows users complain and get freeware to turn that shit off.

>> > and the hardware that's all.
>> Same hardware identically. So identical that you can run Mac OS on a PC if you pick the right components, and it's free! Apple are too stupid to prevent copying.
>
> They don't need to whybother when teh software is free.

If everyone did it Apple would make no money.

> few waste their time and energy trying to make
> Mac OS run on crap hardware what's the point.

Agreed, Windows is far better and works on any hardware. Mac OS is very fussy.

> Mac clones have failed to get any market share.

It's illegal to make and sell them.

> I know peolpe that run Windows on a Mac because it runs better than it does on a standard PC.

Bullshit. The parts are the same.

>> >> >> > So I opted for any old Mac that was considered to be not usuable, so I was given this ex research student machine,
>> >> >> > complete with software from ~2015, of course after 3 years most PCs are considered worthless and spend most
>> >> >> > of their time being repaired or out of action like the 4 of the 92 PCs in the lab which will be 3 years old in August.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But this 2011 iMac still going, no replacement HD or graphics card or display, or mouse or anything else,
>> >> >> > not had to re-install OS or anything else, just updated the RAM and it's almost 11 years old.
>> >> >> > Given the choice I'd rather have a 11 year old Mac than a 3 year old PC.
>> >> >> As a technician you should have bought what you wanted. I had a £1800 PC. Nice fast graphics for games.... er research.
>> >> >
>> >> > Being a technician I can do things on either mac or PC.
>> >> > I just don;t like wondows much.
>> >> I can do things on both, I just use more swearwords on a Mac.
>> >> >> >> This is the big problem: PCs are made by thousands of different companies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > yes and a big problem for MS and a few students have come to me saying their PC that they bought just before covid hit can't run windows 11 because of some chip incompatability .
>> >> >> I have 7 PCs running it, up to 12 years old. I don't know what the fuck MS are playing at but it doesn't need the TPM security shit they claim. It's only checked during setup. Search for a free program called Rufus. It will create a bootable USB stick which will install or upgrade any Windows PC to windows 11.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not my problem . I'm not sure whether the software we have will run under W11 took a whiloe to get it all running under W10
>> >> It will. Windows 11 is really 10.0.2. Same drivers and software works precisely the same.
>> >> >> >> Macs are made by one. No competition
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A distinct advantage their own prosessor too making sure everything works together with dedicated software,
>> >> >> > one size doesn;t fit all does it.
>> >> >> PCs work together just fine. They use agreed standards.
>> >> >
>> >> > which aren't always followed. there's always differncies between which processor is used ITEL, AMD etc..
>> >> Intel and AMD actually have an agreement to keep the processor instructions compatible.
>> >
>> > yeah sure they do, think you're getting comfused with RISC and ARM.
>> No I'm not. Look it up. It's why only AMD and Intel make PC CPUs. Nobody else has the rights to the designs.
>
> Anyone can 'make' a PC. PC just means personal computer.
> samsung , epson used to , viglen too. Apple makes their own M1 chip it's still a personal computer chip.
> ie. it's not a multi-user system.
> And it can run windows.

Why are you confusing making a PC with making a CPU?

>> >> >> > Nothing wrong with making things people want to buy is there.
>> >> >> > Unless you're a woolworths shopper, suprised ASDA, Lidel, Adli still make a profit.
>> >> >> They don't make their own stuff, they're just resellers, just like every PC manufacturer is.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yep.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > I buy some of there stuff but some there's jusy no taste it's cheap stuff not worth buying unless you're really hard up.
>> >> >> > There veggie sausage rolls at £2 taste like cardboard compared to the same type in sainsbury at £2.60
>> >> >> > They may look the same have very similar packaging but.. just not worth it.
>> >> >> Agreed. I use Tesco. They're the only one that makes very tasty high fat cottage cheese. This modern low fat shit tastes like water.
>> >> >> >> your wallet is emptied.
>> >> >> > hardly emptied .
>> >> >> Double the price of a PC!
>> >> >
>> >> > Because they are worth twice as much.
>> >> > The displays on Macs are far better than the displays on most PC's it's why they are cheaper.
>> >> >
>> >> > Put them side by side watch a movie compare the skin tones and everything else
>> >> > some such as photograhers care about.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's like me after the pub a kebab is great best thing ever but I can't eat them unless drunk or at least tipsy.
>> >> A display is not the computer. I'm free to use an Apple display on a PC or a PC display on a Mac.
>> >
>> > But an imac is cheaper than getting a PC and a Mac quality monitor.
>> Bullshit.
>
> prove it .
> Link to a 5k screen of at least 24" and not one of those crap ones that are highb speed but the colours
> only sutable for gamers and those doing pie charts.

https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-27MD5KL
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/apple-studio-display

Similar price.

>> >> I did both quite often actually.
>> >> >> > But while I have this iMac all the PC's ahve been replaced twice now and they'll need replacing again soon.
>> >> >> Bullshit, they don't wear out any quicker, and they have the same specs as Apples when they're bought.
>> >> >
>> >> > They don't have the same specs, there's far more too it than the hight the GBs and GHz to it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Same with % alachol.
>> >> > 40% vodka and 40% whisky aren't the same.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can;lt tell me all whiskies are the same whether it's glenfiddich or jack daniels.
>> >> Why consider flavour and % together? Get lots of % then add flavour.
>> >
>> > you mean add orange juice to a single malt well no thanks.
>> Doesn't have to be orange juice.
>
> I perfer the flavour of whisky, although I do drink JD & cola.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:40:21 +0100, whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 13:40:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <c68ade47-910e-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
>> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Anyone can 'make' a PC. PC just means personal computer.
>> >samsung , epson used to , viglen too. Apple makes their own M1 chip
>> >it's still a personal computer chip.
>> >ie. it's not a multi-user system.
>> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.
>>
>> -- Richard
>
> Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.
>
> Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
> Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users. All mainframes and minicomputers are multi-user systems, but most personal computers and workstations are not. Another term for multi-user is time sharing.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiuser
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_computers
>
> Just because more than one person can log on it doesn't make it a multi-user computer.
>
> Here I'm talking about the computer NOT the software.

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

In article <de8cdc39-c872-425d-bf25-831c651ffa70n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.

> Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.

Some are. I wouldn't call an IBM mainframe a personal computer.

>Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
>Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.

Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
users logged in to a Mac. I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.

>All mainframes and minicomputers are multi-user systems, but most
>personal computers and workstations are not.

I imagine even Windows supports remote logins these days.

-- Richard

In article <t2l3j9$i8$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
<richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> >Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
> >Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
>
> Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
> users logged in to a Mac. I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.

it can't, at least not natively.

you could always install x-windows, but no sane person would willingly
do that to themselves.

nextstep/openstep, the ancestor of os x, supported nxhosting, which was
a way to remotely invoke a full graphical interface on a next computer,
however, that is not an option for mac os x.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:18:17 +0100, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> In article <de8cdc39-c872-425d-bf25-831c651ffa70n@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.
>
>> Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.
>
> Some are. I wouldn't call an IBM mainframe a personal computer.
>
>> Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
>> Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
>
> Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
> users logged in to a Mac. I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>
>> All mainframes and minicomputers are multi-user systems, but most
>> personal computers and workstations are not.
>
> I imagine even Windows supports remote logins these days.

Indeed, I'm doing it right now, I own 7 PCs. 6 of which aren't in my house.

On 06 Apr 2022 at 23:18:17 BST, Richard Tobin <Richard Tobin> wrote:

> In article <de8cdc39-c872-425d-bf25-831c651ffa70n@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.
>
>> Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.
>
> Some are. I wouldn't call an IBM mainframe a personal computer.
>
>> Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
>> Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
>
> Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
> users logged in to a Mac. I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.

Can't screen-sharing do that? I screen-share to my Mac Mini I have as a file
server, to avoid it having to have KVM attached.

--
Tim

Richard Tobin wrote:

[snip]

>
> I imagine even Windows supports remote logins these days.

Not the "Home" versions, only the "Professional" versions, and servers.
There are 3rd party programs which will allow a few users to log onto
a "Home" system simultaneously.

What you might see is VNC, which for Mac users would be described as
"screen sharing", so the local user and a remote user see the same
screen - useful for training or debugging. But that's really only one
user with two simultaneous connections.

--
Graham J

On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:17:40 +0100, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> I imagine even Windows supports remote logins these days.
>
> Not the "Home" versions, only the "Professional" versions, and servers.
> There are 3rd party programs which will allow a few users to log onto
> a "Home" system simultaneously.
>
> What you might see is VNC, which for Mac users would be described as
> "screen sharing", so the local user and a remote user see the same
> screen - useful for training or debugging. But that's really only one
> user with two simultaneous connections.

Very easy to change Home to Pro without paying.

In article <jb7i7eF160cU1@mid.individual.net>, TimS
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> >> Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
> >> Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
> >
> > Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
> > users logged in to a Mac. I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> > using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> > multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> > it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>
> Can't screen-sharing do that? I screen-share to my Mac Mini I have as a file
> server, to avoid it having to have KVM attached.

it can, but not as a secondary user.

screen sharing is just that, *sharing* the main screen. it is not a
secondary user login.

On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 23:20:02 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <de8cdc39-c872-425d...@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.
> > Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.
> Some are. I wouldn't call an IBM mainframe a personal computer.

Me neither but it depends on what they are designed for.
Yesterday I went up to one of our robotics engineering students who was using a screwdriver
handle to hammer a nail in a piece of plywood.

> >Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
> >Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
> Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
> users logged in to a Mac.

you can have dozens100s of watchers around an iMac screen but it doesn't make it a cinema.

> I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.

Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times.
A friend used to to remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand.
But mainframes which are true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and run
programs because that is what it was designed to do.

> >All mainframes and minicomputers are multi-user systems, but most
> >personal computers and workstations are not.
> I imagine even Windows supports remote logins these days.

Yes of the 3000 PCs here most (if working) can be logged into, to remotley install software
and configure them, it;s a bitt they can't seem to get them to show the correct time though.
>
> -- Richard

In article <f605f9df-4ac4-4032-9a93-62cacc2aea45n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> > using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> > multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> > it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>
> Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times.
> A friend used to to remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand.
> But mainframes which are true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and
> run
> programs because that is what it was designed to do.

so can a mac.

In article <f605f9df-4ac4-4032-9a93-62cacc2aea45n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
>> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
>> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
>> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.

>Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times. A friend used to to
>remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand. But mainframes which are
>true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and run programs
>because that is what it was designed to do.

Very few multi-user systems are mainframes. For example, the computer
servers we use here are just rack-mounted Linux boxes. Would you
suggest that they are not multi-user systems? You can do exactly the
same with a Mac.

-- Richard

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 14:05:20 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <f605f9df-4ac4-4032...@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
> >> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
> >> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
> >> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>
> >Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times. A friend used to to
> >remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand. But mainframes which are
> >true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and run programs
> >because that is what it was designed to do.
> Very few multi-user systems are mainframes.

Some are refered to as minis, but not many if any are micros.

>For example, the computer
> servers we use here are just rack-mounted Linux boxes.

Why do you call them servers why not just hard disc arrays.
or why not just use a PC or a Mac ?

>Would you
> suggest that they are not multi-user systems? You can do exactly the
> same with a Mac.

But not effectively, otherwise they'd be no need for mainframes or minis or anythng else .

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-single-user-and-multiuser-operating-system/#Single%20User%20vs%20Multiuser%20Operating%20System%20-%20Comparison%20of%20Key%20Differences

But we all know there's no difference between a screwdriver and a hammer.

Same with a bus and a car no differnce both carry people from point A to point B

>
> -- Richard

In article <6baefbfb-0f41-4d90-9260-936a4694af63n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://pediaa.com/difference-between-single-user-and-multiuser-operating-syst
> em/#Single%20User%20vs%20Multiuser%20Operating%20System%20-%20Comparison%20of%
> 20Key%20Differences

that reads as if it was written by a 5 year old.

it also incorrectly claims that mac os is a single user system, yet in
the very next sentence, states that unix is multi-user, oblivious to
the fact that mac os *is* a unix system which contradicts their earlier
claim.

> But we all know there's no difference between a screwdriver and a hammer.

oh yes there is. one is a drink and the other is a rapper.

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 14:55:14 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <6baefbfb-0f41-4d90...@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > https://pediaa.com/difference-between-single-user-and-multiuser-operating-syst
> > em/#Single%20User%20vs%20Multiuser%20Operating%20System%20-%20Comparison%20of%
> > 20Key%20Differences
>
> that reads as if it was written by a 5 year old.
>
> it also incorrectly claims that mac os is a single user system, yet in
> the very next sentence, states that unix is multi-user, oblivious to
> the fact that mac os *is* a unix system which contradicts their earlier
> claim.

Mac OS X is not linux or unix. There are differncies.

Years OK back in snow leapoard days I tried opening I think it was photoshop CS5 or 5.5
using the inbiult apple remote desktop but as me the users was using it on the Mac mini it said
application already in use and wouldn't open. I don't call that multi-user.

On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of people could have that running.
I used to run a minicomputer that was called codata and multi-user system well 8 on ours.
You'd have ONE text editor and all 8 workstations could use it at the same time.

Haven;t tried on a Mac since snowL but geussing if I tried to open an app (apple app)that was running
on one of my Mac from the other using whatever method it'd tell me it couldn't be opened
because it's already in use.
I'm even more confident that if I had photoshop on my iMac others couldn't log into my iMac and use
photoshop, I'm not sure even I could.
I'd be quite suprised if Adobe would allow this either , if tehy don't like users sharing apps
I doubt they'd allow a Mac to have PS installed and allow anyone to log in and use it.

> > But we all know there's no difference between a screwdriver and a hammer.
> oh yes there is. one is a drink and the other is a rapper.

Both are drinks Velvet hammer, last time I made it was with cherry brandy, apricot brandy, creme de cacao
and milk. :-)
Probbaly have it written in my olde on-line diary somewhere from around 1995-7

In article <596c9df2-1143-4e44-a5c9-98bda8612fb7n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of
>people could have that running. I used to run a minicomputer that
>was called codata and multi-user system well 8 on ours. You'd have
>ONE text editor and all 8 workstations could use it at the same time.

It's true, MacOS X is not a 1960s timesharing system.

-- Richard

In article <596c9df2-1143-4e44-a5c9-98bda8612fb7n@googlegroups.com>,
whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > https://pediaa.com/difference-between-single-user-and-multiuser-operating-
> > > syst
> > >
> > > em/#Single%20User%20vs%20Multiuser%20Operating%20System%20-%20Comparison%2
> > > 0of%
> > > 20Key%20Differences
> >
> > that reads as if it was written by a 5 year old.
> >
> > it also incorrectly claims that mac os is a single user system, yet in
> > the very next sentence, states that unix is multi-user, oblivious to
> > the fact that mac os *is* a unix system which contradicts their earlier
> > claim.
>
> Mac OS X is not linux or unix. There are differncies.

mac os x is very definitely unix, with a mac ui on top.

the mac ui can be ignored by ssh'ing into the mac, opening a terminal
window or logging in as console (which i haven't tried in years and
might not be an option anymore).

similarly, the unix ui can be ignored by only running mac os apps.

some people use a mix of both.

> Years OK back in snow leapoard days I tried opening I think it was photoshop
> CS5 or 5.5
> using the inbiult apple remote desktop but as me the users was using it on
> the Mac mini it said
> application already in use and wouldn't open. I don't call that multi-user.

i call that user error.

> On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of people
> could have that running.

just like on a mac.

some apps are designed to only be run for one user, but that's an *app*
limitation, not the underlying os.

In article <t2mud2$11gb$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
<richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> >On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of
> >people could have that running. I used to run a minicomputer that
> >was called codata and multi-user system well 8 on ours. You'd have
> >ONE text editor and all 8 workstations could use it at the same time.
>
> It's true, MacOS X is not a 1960s timesharing system.

given that unix began life in the 1960s, it is, still with a lot of the
limitations put in place due to 1960s era technology.

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 16:05:02 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <596c9df2-1143-4e44...@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of
> >people could have that running. I used to run a minicomputer that
> >was called codata and multi-user system well 8 on ours. You'd have
> >ONE text editor and all 8 workstations could use it at the same time.
> It's true, MacOS X is not a 1960s timesharing system.
>
> -- Richard

I'll never forget the rather heated argument between two geeky students in the lab early 80s as
to whether timesharing or time-slicing were the same or which was the best way to decribe it.
So they asked me and I said I don't give a fuck.

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 16:29:58 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <596c9df2-1143-4e44...@googlegroups.com>,
> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > https://pediaa.com/difference-between-single-user-and-multiuser-operating-
> > > > syst
> > > >
> > > > em/#Single%20User%20vs%20Multiuser%20Operating%20System%20-%20Comparison%2
> > > > 0of%
> > > > 20Key%20Differences
> > >
> > > that reads as if it was written by a 5 year old.
> > >
> > > it also incorrectly claims that mac os is a single user system, yet in
> > > the very next sentence, states that unix is multi-user, oblivious to
> > > the fact that mac os *is* a unix system which contradicts their earlier
> > > claim.
> >
> > Mac OS X is not linux or unix. There are differncies.
> mac os x is very definitely unix, with a mac ui on top.

it is an implemetntation of unix from some years ago.
There's some things missing it has an older version of GPL
at at some point Apple will need to decide whether to update it or not.
and the 'apps' will only work if you compile the source code using xcode which is not included
by default anyway.
And I very much doubt MS or Adobe wilol allow to to have their code to do it, or supply
an app that has been done.

>
> the mac ui can be ignored by ssh'ing into the mac, opening a terminal
> window or logging in as console (which i haven't tried in years and
> might not be an option anymore).

could you run Apple apps or adobe apps from it ?
How many users would be supported. ?

>
> similarly, the unix ui can be ignored by only running mac os apps.

Yep.
But of course the termology has changed too, we mostly use the term server
which are used to decide whether an app/program can run even if it is installed, based on
whatever critera the app has been purchsed under.

Here we have MS office installed on all the PCs and Macs if I log into any of them it checks my email
address to make sure I'm allowed to run the products and as we have brought a multi-user licence
I can run it on any computer here or at home. When it launches at home it verifies me as a valid users.

But there are some programs which are loaded on to every PC that we have a limited number of
licences for, the license server checks and if say we have 15 licences then it will only allow
15 PCs to run it. This can be quite annoying as sometime students log off without quiting the program
so this limits the number of users, to 15 whether or not it's beening used.
Then there's others that use a time approach we licence it for say 6 months of the year we tell them
the dates. Other licences are related to hardware we buy 100 pieces of hardware we get 100 licences to use the softwarre.
Some licences are free for educational usee only.
Some we have differnt versions and differnt costs depending whether it;s a reacher computer or a teaching computer.
, if they are on a MAc or PC them they are on the local HS/SSD.
Not on some computer oin another building.
At the moment our laser cutter can only be used on a few laptops and two PCS in the lab , we'd like to connect the laser cutter
to any PC in teh lab but iuntil it's loaded onto every PC in the lab we can't.

>
> some people use a mix of both.
> > Years OK back in snow leapoard days I tried opening I think it was photoshop
> > CS5 or 5.5
> > using the inbiult apple remote desktop but as me the users was using it on
> > the Mac mini it said
> > application already in use and wouldn't open. I don't call that multi-user.
> i call that user error.

So yuo think anyone can log onto a Mac (provideded the administartor gives them access
and any number can open PS and use it simultanously.

> > On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of people
> > could have that running.
> just like on a mac.

No not like on a Mac (unless you can aquire the source code, and re-combile it legally).

Why would offices just buy one copy of office and install it on a Mac and then
have all their staff remotley log on to it.
Same reason we've bought a site licenece rathe than just one copy , put it on a MAc and then
perhaps 15,000 studetns all use it from the one Mac.

>
> some apps are designed to only be run for one user, but that's an *app*
> limitation, not the underlying os.

and most of those apps in fact I;'d say all of them are meant to run on personal computers.

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 16:30:00 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <t2mud2$11gb$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
> <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > >On a mainframe you'd have just ONE copy of an application and 100s of
> > >people could have that running. I used to run a minicomputer that
> > >was called codata and multi-user system well 8 on ours. You'd have
> > >ONE text editor and all 8 workstations could use it at the same time.
> >
> > It's true, MacOS X is not a 1960s timesharing system.
> given that unix began life in the 1960s, it is, still with a lot of the
> limitations put in place due to 1960s era technology.

Unix has been updated I think the Unix that apple users is from 2008
Don't forget like linux they implement unix at a point in time and are
generally compatable up to a point.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:39:26 +0100, whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 23:20:02 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <de8cdc39-c872-425d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Personal computers have been multi-user systems for decades.
>> > Then multi-users computers are personal computers then.
>> Some are. I wouldn't call an IBM mainframe a personal computer.
>
> Me neither but it depends on what they are designed for.
> Yesterday I went up to one of our robotics engineering students who was using a screwdriver
> handle to hammer a nail in a piece of plywood.

Was he successfull?

>> >Or in the real world multi-user computers :-
>> >Refers to computer systems that support two or more simultaneous users.
>> Macs certainly fall into that category. You can easily have dozens of
>> users logged in to a Mac.
>
> you can have dozens100s of watchers around an iMac screen but it doesn't make it a cinema.
>
>> I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
>> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
>> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
>> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>
> Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times.
> A friend used to to remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand.
> But mainframes which are true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and run
> programs because that is what it was designed to do.

I can have 100s of users logging into a Windows PC on the network if I wish.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:38:55 +0100, whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 14:05:20 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <f605f9df-4ac4-4032...@googlegroups.com>,
>> whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I frequently log in to co-workers' Macs
>> >> using ssh. They're not set up to run the graphical interface for
>> >> multiple users on multiple screens (though I wouldn't be surprised if
>> >> it can be done), but nor are many other multi-user systems.
>>
>> >Yes I have used Timbuktu software a few times. A friend used to to
>> >remotly administer 6 Mac minis in thailand. But mainframes which are
>> >true multi-user systems where 100s can log on and run programs
>> >because that is what it was designed to do.
>> Very few multi-user systems are mainframes.
>
> Some are refered to as minis, but not many if any are micros.
>
>> For example, the computer
>> servers we use here are just rack-mounted Linux boxes.
>
> Why do you call them servers why not just hard disc arrays.

Because they have a processor.

> or why not just use a PC or a Mac ?

Because he's a geek?

>> Would you
>> suggest that they are not multi-user systems? You can do exactly the
>> same with a Mac.
>
> But not effectively, otherwise they'd be no need for mainframes or minis or anythng else .

They're just faster.

> But we all know there's no difference between a screwdriver and a hammer.

I often use the wrong tool if it happens to be to hand.

> Same with a bus and a car no differnce both carry people from point A to point B

I've used my car to carry one metric tonne of ballast. Was fun getting it to go over the speedbumps.