HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mflafeer@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:32:34 GMT

A couple of points about this discussion:

Isn't "accurately" converting a hand-drawn 72dpi picture to 300dpi sort of 
like taking a digital recording done at 22kHz and converting it to 44kHz?
In other words, if the drawing is hand-drawn how can you add more detail
to the picture? Doesn't that mean making arbitrary decisions. The example
that Eric gives just shows that Apple and NeXT make different arbitrary
decisions.

The conversion from screen res to printer res only works well for mathematical
constructs. Lines drawn on the Mac at 72dpi print smoothly at 300dpi.
Same for Circles. And it you define a true tangent in Claris CAD for instance,
it will print correctly at 300dpi. The fact that you can go up to a NeXT and
eyeball a tangent at 90dpi and have it be a tangent at 400dpi means nothing
to me. 

In short, device resolution independent imaging only makes sense with
mathematical constructs. 

Furthermore, who cares? In practice, the conversion between quickdraw and
postscript isn't a problem. 

Oh, and by the way, the price of the NeXT printer was a big deal two years
ago. It really isn't any more in the age of cheap Postscript II RISC powered
laser printers.

Remember, Mac OS may not be the most sophisticated OS around, but it has 
grown quite well maintaining compatibility with 4 generations of Motorola
processors, eight years of development from thousands of developers, and 
millions of Macs, many of which are quite affordable. These features are
at least as important as the implementation details we nerds argue about on
the net.

-M.Firoze Lafeer
mflafeer@athena.mit.edu
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 11 Dec 92 09:58:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wf_D=9200iV483mhw2
Distribution: na
Organization: Sophomore, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 11-Dec-92 Re: Mac
multitasking? by Mark Munson@animal.es.co 
> You've got a monochome display computer that is running a B&W paint program.
> Suddenly to decide to get color capabilities and a color monitor.  How do
> you get your current B&W paint program to support color?  Do you have to
> upgrade your software to take full advantage of the upgrade?

No.  If it was written with objects, then possibly there's an object
that controls color selection.  Assuming that, then you can get a new
color selection object, for example, one that controls 24-bit color
instead of 2-bit.

Carl
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac Flaws
From: goblec@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:12:47 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

> This is what IAC and AppleEvents do. It's been there since 
> System 7.0 was introduced.  AppleScript uses IAC and 
> AppleEvents  send messages to applications, and will only 
> work with applications that uses IAC and AppleEvents.        

Somehow in practice the things the NeXT does never quite
reached the Mac.  I gave a few examples of how they could
admittedly this is mainly the fault of the application 
writers.  However a OS is eventually judged by how users are
able to run apps, not potentials.

Things are changing, but the promises remain unmet.

> This also exists (but not from Apple). Buy a Radius Rocket 
> and RocketShare, and you have what you ask for. It's a 
> logical step for Apple to do this when the PowerPC Macs 
> arrive. I'm sure it is in the works!

I hope it is in the works.  The RocketShare program is very
neat, but is rather a kludge when you really look at it.
Why must I run a whole new system/finder to run an other
program in parallel?  This is a big flaw to the Mac in my
opinion.  Windows NS supposedly will allow multi-threading,
so Apple or Taligent had better hurry up on this one.

> Wasn't this the main idea behind the Xerox Star? With IAC 
> and AppleEvents at least part of this could be done today.

It is possible in theory.  I think the Finder would have to
be modified somewhat to make the whole document idea core.
I guess the idea of stationary is close to the idea when
combined with MS-Word.  I'm afraid I find the MS-Word 
approach rather clumsy though.  Some of the multi-program
apps like Claris works try this a bit.  Someone mentioned
that the Newton does do this.  I guess we'll have to wait
to see if Claris brings us any surprises.

__________________________________________________________________

Clark Goble                      Logic merely sanctions the 
goblec@theory.byu.edu            the conquests of intuition.
__________________________________________________________________
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:08:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Andrew Loewenstern writes
> In fact, what does Apple have to do with the PowerPC beyond using
> it in future Apple boxes anyway?  It's a IBM-Motorola deal.

Providing a potential 3+ million/year market for a RISC processor is a  
very big deal -- Apple sells more machines than all the current RISC  
vendors combined, and there is good reason to believe that PowerPC will be  
the most widely used RISC computer CPU in two or three years.  In addition  
Apple has had a lot of input into the design of the PowerPC chips (the  
co-architect of DEC's Alpha is now an Apple employee on the PowerPC  
project), and provided the motivation for the IBM-Motorola collaboration.

> I have no doubt that PowerPC will be a sucessful processor, and both
> Apple and IBM, among other manufacturers will make very nice
> workstations around it.  It's this OO-OS joint venture that stinks to
> me.  

What stinks about it, other than the fact that it gets a lot of attention  
while not being available for sale?  I'd agree that it's silly for  
customers to hold their breaths waiting, and it's silly to say things like  
"Pink will blow NeXTSTEP away" when you haven't seen Pink (and often  
haven't seen NeXTSTEP :-)).  But having used NeXTSTEP it's pretty clear to  
me that a group of engineers with a clean slate and a lot of time, money,  
and talent *could* come up with something much better.  We won't know for  
a while whether they will, but no one who appreciates high-quality  
software should be hoping for them to fail.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:53:18 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <c3g503ATc19m00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, alan@xserver.uts.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
> With great hesitation I respond.  From my perspective
> The Mac does not multitask.  I run MacX and several 
> applications.  WHen I send Excell off to compute or
> my Hypertext work processor off to print, I cannot
> check my mail (or read news) on my mainframe because
> even system 7 does not multitask.  

You are incorrect. System 7 does multitask. Alas, Excel
does not multitask during recalculations.

It is not the fault of the system software that certain applications aren't
written according to guidelines. It is the fault of the application developer.

Moral: blame Microsoft, not Apple.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.151826.14639@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes:
>Eric M Hermanson writes
>> From a design standpoint, in what ways is Mac better than NeXT?  
>
>The Mac has a standard user interface, and software is expected to use it;  
>the NeXT has two interfaces (NeXTStep and your favorite Unix shell) and  
>has software split between the two.  On my Mac I can configure network  
>services, schedule background tasks, restore crashed disks, or whatever  
>else using the same visual interface that everything else uses; on my NeXT  
>I have to use text editors, command line shells, syntax-laden batch files,  
>and utilities written a decade or more ago.

I think you have it wrong on the NeXT.  On the NeXT, you have a
standard user interface, and software is expected to use it.  This is
Steve Jobs we are talking about.  I just got the new NeXTconnection
catalogue today, and of all the software in it, not a single one does
not use NeXTSTEP.  If you never double click Terminal.app, you will
never see unix.  It is just there as a core OS service and if you want
to use it.  It is possible to do everything via NeXTSTEP.  You never
need to use emacs, command line shells, syntax-laden "batch files", or
utilities written a decade or more ago.  They sure are there though,
and it's really an advantage.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: Mac Flaws
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:31:53 GMT

In article <Bz891G.3A6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>goblec@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>> 4) SECURITY
>
>>    The security that is available for file serving should be
>>    put on the Mac itself.  It would be very nice to have a
>>    password on the Mac as an option with the same interface I
>>    use when publishing folders.  ie. have an optional password
>>    with the same users as those in my network CDEV.  If a
>>    guest logs on directly he may not be able to see everything
>>    on the disk.  Here too there are 3rd party products that
>>    do the job, but it would be nice if it were standard on
>>    all Macs.
>
>The Mac is a personal computer, not a workstation.  If you want user
>accounting on a Mac, the best thing to do is run A/UX.  A mac running
>A/UX is much more comparable to a NeXT anyway, since it gains things
>like premptive multitasking (sadly, not between Mac applications, 
>however) that stem from the NeXT's UNIX roots.
>

Any computer used in business should have built-in security. There are
few things as irritating as having co-workers read your office email
because there's no security. The system I worked on (an IBM mainframe)
required people to log in, but put no security on the mail folder. It was
possible to read any email.

The Mac needs built-in security. If it's going to be used as a business
computer, it needs some way of protecting the business' data.

Terry Wilcox
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac Flaws
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:28:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gf=0pFS00iUy84lNNP
Organization: Sophomore, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 14-Dec-92 Re: Mac Flaws by
Thomas Aaron Insel@uiuc. 
> > 4) SECURITY
>  
> >    The security that is available for file serving should be
> >    put on the Mac itself.  It would be very nice to have a
> >    password on the Mac as an option with the same interface I
> >    use when publishing folders.  ie. have an optional password
> >    with the same users as those in my network CDEV.  If a
> >    guest logs on directly he may not be able to see everything
> >    on the disk.  Here too there are 3rd party products that
> >    do the job, but it would be nice if it were standard on
> >    all Macs.
>  
> The Mac is a personal computer, not a workstation.  If you want user
> accounting on a Mac, the best thing to do is run A/UX.  A mac running
> A/UX is much more comparable to a NeXT anyway, since it gains things
> like premptive multitasking (sadly, not between Mac applications, 
> however) that stem from the NeXT's UNIX roots.

Yes, but for many people, the requirements for A/UX are too high for
many people.  For example, if you have a Mac cluster setup on an
Appletalk network, it would be nice to have local login to each system. 
Upon local login, it could automatically login to a central server, or
something like that.  For many people only using Word or MacWrite, they
don't need preemptive multitasking, memory protection etc. (No, please
don't bring up the that argument again!)
Having local security isn't something just for workstations today.  Many
smaller computers are being added to networking setups, as people are
starting to find that networks aren't just for Unix anymore.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh a
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:22:46 GMT

In article 1gbusdINN9uo@matt.ksu.ksu.edu, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
>johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>However, it mystifies me that you think that, if tear-offs WERE
>>implemented fully, somehow this would detract from having a backstop
>>on your menubar.
>
>The point being that if a backstoped menu *really* was so much better,
>no one would ever have bothered making tear off menus.
>

That's a rather dubious assertion. They help a lot if you do not have
a backstop, and they are really nice if you have a deeply heirarchical
menu; (its better not to HAVE such a menu, but if you do tear-offs
are much faster. Then again, what isn't? :) )

And they are also nice you are basically using the menu as a place
to shove palettes or toolbars, which normally should be visible
so you can see what mode you are in. Sometimes this is done to save
screen space, but people who want to (perhaps because they have
big monitors?) can put them back on screen, Where They Were Meant
To Be.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:47:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

andrew@cubetech.com writes
>  It is possible to do everything via NeXTSTEP.  You never
> need to use emacs, command line shells, syntax-laden "batch files", or
> utilities written a decade or more ago.

What if my disk crashes and I need to recover it -- there is no Norton  
Disk Doctor for the NeXT, just fsck.

If I want to run Usenet News on my NeXT I have to ftp, compile, and  
configure C-News or INN; there is no uAccess for the NeXT (uAccess is a  
Mac point-and-click news implementation).

If I want to configure the way my NeXT acts as an FTP server I have to  
muck with various configuration files; there is no FTPd for the Mac (FTPd  
is a Mac FTP server).

If I want to automatically mount a file server every time I boot my NeXT I  
have to edit some configuration files, not just check a box.

If I want to tell my NeXT about a new network printer I have to edit a  
configuration file, not just open the Chooser and click on it.

Unix provides a lot of power, and access to lots of software; but it also  
provides an excuse not to write NeXTSTEP programs where command-line Unix  
tools already exist.  The result is that there are many things that can  
only be done from the Unix command line, or by editing configuration  
files, and that makes the NeXT less useful for a large class of users.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:20:22 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec8.094654.24575@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, cmurphy@cae.wisc.edu (Christopher Murphy) writes:
> 
> I just have one more question. Do Macs have a way to multitask? Or is 
> that what system 7 is all about. I'm about to buy a Mac because 
> it's more useful to me at this point, but it is kind of a 
> concern that the Mac doesn't appear to multitask. My roommate is
> usually compiling a program while he's downloading something on his 486 
> or running some other application. From what I understand, with the Mac
> you can open as many applications in the background as you want, but 
> they won't be running at the same time.

Well, you are working under a misconception. Those appliations in the
background ARE running, and you can certainly download, compiler and do
something else in the foreground all the same time.

The Mac has been able to do this since 1987 with MultiFinder. System 7 merely
integrated MultiFinder technology.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:53:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.053234.7041@athena.mit.edu> mflafeer@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer) writes:
>Oh, and by the way, the price of the NeXT printer was a big deal two years
>ago. It really isn't any more in the age of cheap Postscript II RISC powered
>laser printers.

and my NeXT laser printer is _still_ considerably faster than those
laser printers.  It's 400 dpi too.  And it still costs less.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:18:18 GMT

In article <lyk2gy+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 5904@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>Mach is plenty object-oriented.  Mach provides most of it's services
>>through user-level programs accessible by a consistent system of
>>message passing.  That's as object-oriented as you need or want your
>>kernel to be.
>
>Doesn't sound terribly object-oriented.
>
>>>I think to say that the NeXT was "designed from the ground up" is pretty
>>>silly, even if NeXT went ahead and payed for the entirety of the development
>>>of Mach; I rather doubt they did, tho. If so, why not make it object
>>>oriented like everything else?
>>
>>It is object-oriented, see above.
>
>Perhaps I don't quite follow what you mean by "object oriented"; in
>what way is Mach object oriented?

The kernel is as single object.  Following me so far?  You request
services by sending messages containing other objects (mainly mach
ports and threads).  When you request something from mach, say create
a new thread, you aren't just invoking a function call.  You are
creating a mach message and sending it to the kernel along with your
task object and the thread object you want to represent the new
thread.  The kernel creates the new thread and puts it into the thread
object.

This isn't like objects in the AppKit.  Objective-C objects are very
different from mach objects, and Objective-C messages are very
different from mach messages.

Additionally, you can augment the kernel with "loadable kernel
servers" that provide additional kernel services.  Again, you access
the services by sending messages to the kernel object.

mach really kicks ass.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Mac & NeXT camp
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:59:42 GMT

dbourass@scott.skidmore.edu (darlene bourassa) writes:


>I'm sure you showed ML all of the manuals that come standard with
>next's unix? How about the ones with the next.
You get paper manuals, as well as every bit of documentation ON LINE
with the NeXT. (On CD-ROM if you don't buy a NeXT with a large
enough hard drive to start out)


>And all the wonderful colors that you can get for a next for under
>7000? 16.7 million of them?
Truly, it is hard to come up for a reason for more than 4096 colors,
especially when you can display all of them at once.

>Maybe even the low price of Next programs, especially framemaker for
>under 1000 bucks, and Wingz for under 1500...

Since you say you are a student, you may be interested to know about
most NeXT developers' educational pricing.  Frame is around $300,
Mesa (a spreadsheet gobs better than Wingz, with an included API) is
under $200, WordPerfect is around $150, etc. etc. etc.

>I'm sorry, but mac is just a better deal for a student. I can do so
>much more with my IIci and Plaze NT than I have seen done on a next
>for the price I paid(4200 bucks)

For many standalone student users, I do agree: sometimes a Mac is a
better choice, economy wise.  If you don't have a need for a
powerful UNIX machine that has a 28 MIPS processor and has built-in
networking features, then a low-end Mac is probably a better bet.
(The above describes more than 80% of the students I see come into
our university's computer bookstore who purchase a Mac - they keep
it in their apartments, write papers, etc.  An LCII and a
StyleWriter is great for them)
However, if you are a mathematical/scientific user, a NeXT can show
its advantage there over a comparable Mac even without considering
the networking bundled with the NeXT.
Of course, cases could be made for using PasteUp on the NeXT vs.
Pagemaker on the Mac, etc.
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy