HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:11:18 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1g0ooeINN86o@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
> [lots deleted]
> 
>>Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. Having the mouse in the right area to
>>use the menu system is trivial -- you can see it with your eyes. 
> 
> Okay, you don't understand. I'll try again:
> 
> BC:Having the mouse in the right area to use the menu system is trivial --
> BC:you can see it with your eyes.
> 
> ME:Using the right mouse button is trivial --
> ME:its right in front of your eyes.

The action that results from the pressing of the right mouse button is not.
(At least, it isn't before you press the button) 

-- 
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: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:15:19 GMT

The word I heard was that is wasn't difficult to build a OOP system...
Just an increadible AMOUNT of code needs to be written and that of course
takes TIME, TIME, and more TIME....

TED

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:01:52 GMT

In article 1572@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.074448.12678@athena.mit.edu> zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>>>(b) The NeXT was not designed so from teh ground up, as one of its major
>>>    components (Mach) was just not designed for the NeXT; NeXT built
>>>    on a pre-existing foundation. However well they did it it, your
>>>    assertion isn't right. Interestingly, the MacOS ->was<- designed
>>>    from the ground up. (solidly is annother thing); does this help
>>
>>Wrong.
>>Carnegie Mellon University developed Mach with the aid of NeXT.  Carnegie
>>Mellon now owns around 5% of NeXT computer.
>
>Even so, Mach's principal architect, Avie Tevanian, is director of
>Sysetm Software or some such at NeXT.  NeXT has made many
>modifications to mach.
>
>However, regardless of what mach was designed for, it remains a really
>killer kernel.  It is without question one of the best kernels out
>there.  Mach is in no way a disadvantage to NeXTSTEP, and is one of
>it's greatest strengths.
>

I know this, but it is simply not the case that the NeXT was made
"from the ground up" as Eric asserted.

I never meant to imply that having Mach was inferior somehow, merely
that trying to say the NeXT was spiffy BECAUSE it was from the ground
up makes no sence, as wasn't.

Whether Mach is really good, whether NeXT had a hand it making Mach,
whether NeXT has modified Mach, make no difference.

---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: MAC VS ?????
Summary: MAc's a winner
Keywords: mac ibm unix performance
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:19:12 GMT

One of my college professors and I were talking about the Mac's
performance compared to just about anything... and we came to the 
conclusion that while speed is a very important asset to have when 
performing highly intensive complex calculations (and granted more
and more of us are doing just that).
BUT, of even greater importance is ease of use and flexibility.
 
Let me explain:
 
This very same professor was preparing his masters thesis which 
involved, of course, the gathering of large amounts of data which 
were then analyzed, converted to graphs and incorporated into the 
thesis.
Sounds simple enough, right the kind of thing that you do every day.
Well... the gathering and analysis of the data was fairly straight
forward, however the process bogged down after that.
At least it did for the non-Mac-users.
 
Those who were using UNIX grafix stations couldn't seem to edit the
graph with ease and had to go back to the program they wrote to
generate the graph and edit it to get the results they wanted.
Those who were using IBM machines also got to the stage where they
had the graph but then that couldn't edit it with ease or incorporate
it into their word processor and print it out easily.
 
Now I know that everyone has something to say about this program or
that program on their favorite HW does this or that and It Beats a Mac..
blah, blah, blah...
 
My point is this, speed isn't everything, its very, very nice, and in
some cases its necessary BUT IT ISN'T EVERYTHING...
You have to be able to spend most of you time DOING instead of trying 
to convince to computer that yes this is what you what to do... now do it!
 
YES and while the are other machines out there that can DO these thing as
seamlessly as the MAC (the NEXT comes to mind) the visible advancement 
taking place with MACs will have my vote for many years to come...
 
TED

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:17:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.151826.14639@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes:
>
>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.
>

That's odd. I do all those things on my NeXT using NeXTSTEP. I just use
all the NetInfo tools and Edit. I rarely open a Terminal window (except
for Kermit). I don't even know enough Unix to do most of those things
the command line way. I think you'll find that people that know Unix
tend to use it more. Those of us who don't know Unix use the GUI tools.
The Unix interface makes the job easier for Unix types, but isn't an
obstacle for the rest of us.

>By contrast, the NeXT user experience is at its best a refinement of the  
>Mac; it might be faster, there are new wrinkles in the visual display (3-D  
>buttons, proportional scroll bars) and there are new behaviors (i.e. drag  
>and drop), but there is no fundemental change.  For that you should look  
>at PenPoint or Newton, or perhaps virtual reality systems; *those* are  
>amazing.  The NeXT is just neat.
>
>Jim Matthews
>Dartmouth Software Development
>

The NeXT's interface is not the revolutionary part of the machine.
The integration is. The NeXT manages to take all those 'neat' things
scattered across multiple OS's and put them together in an integrated
package.

As for Newton, we'll see how amazing it is when it ships. Every time I
hear about it, it has fewer features.

Terry Wilcox


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dbourass@scott.skidmore.edu (darlene bourassa)
Subject: Re: MAC Harddrive space
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:43:21 GMT

Yeah, I've noticed that Mac Application sizes are smaller than PC
sizes, simply because they don't need as much built into them. By
splitting up the applications into a variety of resources, and putting
those in a special file fork, size is reduced considerably and more
things are easily editable(with resedit, of course).

Anyway, I have an 80 meg HD on my LC here and I only have 75 percent
of it filled. I do in fact have tons of .GIFs and lots of other
disk-space munching items(QT mooVs), but most things are compressed by
the system or autodoubler. I'd reccomend you get autodoubler or
timesx2, which do work. QT movies are already Jpeg'd so they are fine.
I know people who have gotten by easily with 40 or less megs, and they
have many apps.		
		dbourass@skidmore.edu
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Mac Color was Re: Mac & IBM Info (added info)
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:58:27 GMT

rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>Not exactly.  All 68020+ Macs have the 32-bit color quickdraw routines in 
>ROM.  So they are capable of handling 32-bit graphics routines EVEN IF THE
>MONITOR DOES NOT DISPLAY THEM.  It will be dithered to whatever pixel depth
>you are using, I believe.   I don't think PCs have there graphics codes in
>ROM, do they?

>This built-in quickdraw becomes important with games like Lemmings and 
>Out of this World, some color printers, and quicktime.
Somebody deleated the information
that I posted on 32-bit color quickdraw early on in this thread
and convinced me that a reposting of Mac & IBM Info was needed
{Due to posting error the version should read Mac & IBM Info-Version .9 
instead of Version 1.0 That is january 1993(Yes this I plan this to be monthly}

Here is how 32-bit color quickdraw will be delt with in 
Mac & IBM Info-Version 1.0:
Hardware 
Color Support/Display
Mac:  Using 32-bit color QuickDraw, which is in ROM, all present Macs except 
the Classic and Powerbook 100 support 24(32)-bit color; older machines that 
supported color (SE/30, II, IIX, and IIcx) had only 8-bit color in ROM and 
needed a software patch to use 32-bit color. (MacUser Special 1993: 28-29)
32-bit color QuickDraw allows an almost transparent capability to display and 
edit 1, 2, 4, 8, and 32-bit images in 1, 2, 4, 8, and 32-bit color reguardless 
of monitor resolution {63 dpi (12" color) to 80 dpi (full page grey)}. This 
consistent interface also allows for the use of multiple monitors in a -plug 
and play- system on machines with more than one Nubus slot.
Display:
To keep costs down and speed up most Macs display only 8-bits at a time of the 
32-bits; this means that all 16,777,216 colors are there but you can use only 
256 of them at a time without improving your Mac with more VRAM or a NuBus 
card. (This is the reason for CLUTS, so the program knows which 256 colors to 
use with a picture.)  With expandsion some Macs can display up to 16-bit color 
with the Quatra and the older 8%24 NuBus Card models able to display 24-bit on 
some monitors.

As always comments and corrections are welcome {Need more article sitations
though!}
From: ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh a
Date: 11 Dec 1992 23:55:25 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

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.

ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:07:51 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec8.001114.15330@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>
>>On a mac, I can just flick my wrist to send the pointer to the top of the
>>screen and I'm at the menu bar.  On the NeXT or Windows, I'd have to aim
>>more carefully.  On the Mac, it doesn't matter how much I drive the cursor
>>upwards, as long as it's far enough.
> 
> 	  But you are _still_ off...  The NeXT menus _are_ at the top
> 	  of the screen.  Top-left by default.  

I think you missed the point. Since Mac menus are at the top of the screen,
and the cursor STOPS at the top of the screen, you don't have to "aim" as
much to hit the mac menu bar. All you have to do is get the cursor at least
to the bar -- it isn't possible to overshoot.

> 	  I just flick my mouse
> 	  in a slightly different derection.  Furthermore, I can take
> 	  a menu that I use often (say the Tools menu) and drag it to
> 	  the top center or far right, or whever the hell I want.

So, if the NeXT menus are at the top left, you are bounded by the left
side of the screen. THis would make it easier to hit them.

However, once you move the menus, you are screwed. You now have to hit
the tiny menu targets -- there's no screen edge to convey infinite
screen size to the menu items.

Windows has the same problem.

-- 
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: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:11:17 GMT

In article <ibhan.724007001@husc10> ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
>
>>In article <ibhan.723682046@husc10> ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>
>>So what's the word on the price of Pink? When is it going to be available?
>>What machines will it run on? What interface will it use? Will it run
>>Mac software?
>
>It will run on at least PowerPC's, and I believe 680X0 Macs as well.  What
>interface will it use?  The Pink interface, I assume!  I think that Pink
>will run Mac software.  No word on the price.  

Right now it only runs on VCRs and overhead projectors....


sorry, couldn't resist, but it irks me that people keep talking about
something that doesn't exist as if it's almost done and will hit the
market any week now...


andrew
(but you can get NeXTSTEP today!)
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: PowerPC
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:33:44 GMT

>> What stops a PC from driving multiple graphics cards?  
>
>Hardware. Two graphics cards will try to occupy the same address space.
>This isn't good
>
>> I admit I am not as familiar with
>> the PC hardware, but I don't see anything beyond the Windows
>> drivers that would stop this.
>
>Any monitor card with a different hardware memory address could
>conceivably
>work with a special driver, but it would otherwise be incompatable with
>DOS,
>OS/2, Xenix, etc. (Although drivers might help for OS/2 and Xenix)
>
>So far, no one has gone out on that limb for the PC environment.
>

This is pretty much symptomatic of the whole PC environment. No-one will go
out ob a limb to do anything because no-one is spending any research funds
to come up with new ideas. The major breakthrough in PC hardware in the
last three years is local bus. Yeah right---my SE came with that. 

Check out that Everex is about to collapse. Dell and Northstar and such
probably couldn't survive is they plowed any cash into real research. The
only PC company even capable of that sort of thing is IBM, and they have
such a sad attitude towards licenses and marketing they have no chance of
affecting things.

Maynard
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:49:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.041314.23634@squid9.cuc.ab.ca>,
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox) wrote:
> 
> I'd be curious to find out how NeXT was developed at Apple when the  
> OS (Mach) wasn't selected until after NeXT was formed. As well, NeXT  

You are correct and the original comment was wrong.  Certainly, the people
who left Apple to form NeXT took some of their general experience with
them, but nothing specific to NeXT was done at Apple.

> I find it unlikely that Apple wouldn't go after Jobs if he took  
> useful information with him when he left.

Apple did go after the people who left.  Part of the settlement gave Apple
the right to inspect the NeXT work to make sure it wasn't using any of
Apple's proprietary information (which apparently it didn't).

> As for matching OS's when it becomes available, who knows what will  
> be available in 1994? From what I've heard of Pink, it's nothing I  
> don't have now.

That's definitely true since there has been no concrete information about
what Pink includes.  In my opinion we do have things to offer that NeXT
does not at the present time.  Whether that will be true in the future I
don't know.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com
From: maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: PowerPC
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:45:40 GMT

In article <92351.173603ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>, ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.073344.10939@msc.cornell.edu>,
>maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) says:
>>
>>to come up with new ideas. The major breakthrough in PC hardware in the
>>last three years is local bus. Yeah right---my SE came with that.
>
>You don't understand the difference between PCs and Macs. For a Mac PDS
>(or local bus as you call it) is a good thing (though more slots would be
>better). For PCs local bus is major bullshit. PCs don't come from one
>company
>(we call that an advantage most of the time). If you buy a local bus
>mainboard
>from company A and a local bus video board from company B you have to
>either
>sell one or build up 2 computers. They won't be compatible, esp. if there
>is
>some distance in time between the buys.
>
>Michael Bode.

I don't understand local bus. You have the audacity to claim that I don't
understand local bus. Have you ever heard of VESA? How about PCI? 
For a simple article on these issues (since clearly anything complex would
give you brain seizure) check out this week's InfoWorld on page 75. When
you are ready to move beyond trainer wheels check out any recent issue of
Byte or any PC magazine.

So aspects of local-bus suck on PCs---that's no surprise. Come on, you can
get ISA boards from different vendors that conflict with each other. You
people have to use a local bus for video at least cause ISA bandwidth is so
pathetic and EISA has been so screwed up by marketing. When you start to
want to use frame-grabbers and such you'll need it more. Pity this aspect
of PCs is as poorly thought out and executed as everything else.

Maynard Handley
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: RE: More on mouse buttons
From: goblec@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 12 Dec 92 10:16:37 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

Bill Coleman wrote:

> The NeXT, however, allows you to move the menus anywhere you want, 
> so  there is no edge to confer that infinite dimension.     

Not true.  I prefer the Mac menus, but this can be done on the Next.
I have mine appear on the upper left corner.  I fly the cursor over
there and a combination of the upper and left sides provide 
infinite height and width.  My complaint with the Next menus are
that they use hierarchal menus too much, and that the menus are
not always consistent as they are on the Mac.  (this is due to the
applications though and not the Next GUI)

To others complaining about the Mac's single button

The Mac cna use multi-button mice.  It leaves it as an option.
Were the OS to use the second button it couldn't be optional.
Thus there are modifier keys.  It find that cmd-button is just
as easy to do as using a second button.  In many instances it
is easier.  The modifier buttons are pretty much standardized.
For instance shift limits an object.  ie. lines only are in
45 degree increments.  Usually there is a cursor change to
show the modification which makes things VERY nice.  I use
consistently about 12 major programs.  Some don't get used
as often and I forget their commands.  On DOS and X when I
do this I have to dig up the manual.  I never have to do this
on the Mac.  There is visual feedback that makes such things
obvious.  For those who don't care you *can* do it the 
other way on the Mac.  For those of us that do care, we get
the visual feedback we need.

__________________________________________________________________

Clark Goble                      Logic merely sanctions the 
goblec@theory.byu.edu            the conquests of intuition.
__________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac Flaws
From: goblec@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:02:06 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

> In general, this is well thought out, and accurate, in contrast 
> to many of the articles posted here.

Thank you.  I aim to please.  Actually I just keep hoping people
from Apple and Taligent are listening.  (-:

> If you want user accounting on a Mac, the best thing to do is 
> run A/UX.

Sometimes A/UX is overkill and accounting is still wanted.  Many
student labs have Macintoshes.  These are usually used for 
printing etc.  Of course what many places do is hook the 
machines up to a server for software.  Passwords are required
on both AppleServe and Novell networks.  Unfortunately these
passwords don't protect the System or software on the hard
drives.  It also doesn't keep unauthorized users off.  AtEase
does take care of this somewhat.  But it costs extra which
can add up if you have quite a few Macs.

> 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.

A little off topic, but can't you multitask copies of system 7
under Unix?  Admittedly not the most efficient way to get true
multitasking, but available if the need arises.

__________________________________________________________________

Clark Goble                      Logic merely sanctions the 
goblec@theory.byu.edu            the conquests of intuition.
__________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy