HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:03:31 GMT
 <6114.2acc7f7e@hayes.com> <1992Oct3.205125.14328@news.th-darmstadt.de>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:

>In article <6114.2acc7f7e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>>But the experienced graphic user interface user has the same advantage.
>>He can anticipate results, plan ahead, and keep an accurate model of
>>the human-machine system in his head.
>I'd just argue that with the mouse, you can't pipeline commands to begin
>with, that the machine response time is larger than with a CLI and that
>time expended on physical motion is quite large.

and remember..I find the worst thing with using a mouse is that I have to keep
removing at least one hand from the keyboard to move the stupid rodent, and
this totally destroys my 'command flow', and GREATLY amplifies the required
effort, especially as my work desk is piled with approx 10 layers of coffee/
printouts/books/etc, and the mouse is usually at the BOTTOM.... and ever tried
using a mouse on you're lap when you need that extra little bit of room...

Yes folks...My editor of choice is VI, and I love it, it's the only editor in
which I can edit source code ( C, if it matters.. ) and talk on the 'phone
at the same time. It is also useable at 2400Baud, try that with a GUI..

>>(The user interface designer in me asks the question -- why the heck do you
>>have to press "esc"? Why not just match the command as you type, and erase
>>your match if the user types more -- I implemented an interface like this
>>for file name matching in Smartcom III and Smartcom Exec)
>The Symbolics does this too. I don't know whether it's the response time
>or what, but I always hated it.

>>Command completion doesn't seem to be very useful. The only thing I can
>>see is that is saves a few characters of typing. You still have to remember
>>the right command in the first place. It would make long command names
>>more palatable, however.
>BTW if you just remember the first letter[s] you can press [ctrl]-[d]
>in csh and it gives you the list of possible matches.

and I just love the csh commands such as !-8/s/foo/bar/ ...... try that with
a GUI..

and remember, a MicroVax(tm) will easily handle 20 or more CLI term's, but
imagine 1 Xstation.... B-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
epoo1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz

... just kidding....
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz


			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark
Organization: Lexington, KY
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 13:57:32 GMT

coolidge@apple.com writes:
> 				[...] Note that, at least at
>U. of Illinois, the $3851 price did not include a keyboard or
>NeXTStep (at all -- you HAD to buy it separately, or so the computer
>store people and their price sheet claimed).
>

     I don't think this is quite right. All Next hardware ships with 
NeXTSTEP installed. There is no added cost. Even if you get a limited 
distribution of NeXT OS delivered with your machine, you receive a 
license for the full OS. 

     The issue of NeXT or Mac becomes religious very quickly. It does 
not take long to go through the facts and be left with only opinions.
The machines are similiar enough to provide duplicate function but
each has strengths the other could never provide. The Mac has an
installed and application base that NeXT will never match. The market
is too mature for such growth. On the other hand, the NeXT establishes
a "lowest hardware base" the Mac will never benefit from. They are
simply different machines.

-Chris
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:36:32 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <derosa.718492104@marble>, derosa@rtsg.mot.com (John DeRosa) writes:
> Windows 3.1:
>
> Likes
> =====
> 1) Windows comes with some applications!!!  A Word
> processor!!!  A painting tool!!!  

Funny. Apple used to ship MacPaint and MacWrite with the Mac.

Apple really can't bundle anything on all machines, because third party
developers really beat them up about it. (Justifyably so) However, there
are some packages that Apple and Apple dealers sell that do bundle software.

> 2) Easy to use!!  IT was a real no brainer to start to use it.  

Of course, the Mac has had this all along....

> 3) Fast!! The price of the system is in line with a LCII
> with RGB monitor (after the price reductions) but it runs
> rings around the LCII in terms of apparent performance.

NOT.

> Dis-Likes
> =========
> 1) At least on this computer, Windows was not pre-installed
> and the manuals were very bad.  By comparison, Macintosh
> manuals are the picture of friendliness and "hold me by 
> my hand".  
> 
> 2) Things go BOOM in the night....

What good is fast if things keep dying on you?

> 3) The GUI, while it is very Mac like in some respects, really sucks.

QED.

> Last Note:  In the three applications that I tried to use in Windows,
> one used the delete key and the erase key for the same function,
> the second used the delete key to delete in front of the cursor and the
> erase key to delete behind the cursor and the third did just 
> the opposite.  Consistancy of interface???  No Way!!!

QED.

Thanks John.

-- 
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: af733@yfn.ysu.edu (Ryan James Smith)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:13:51 GMT


What happens when I am DLing something and access my HD?
Just what I expect it to do.  I regularly open my word processor
or CompactPro or Giffer or play .mods on Sound Trecker.....
on my LC.
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Ryan(Ryno) Smith    ||  There are some who call me...Tim.
af733@yfn.ysu.edu   ||
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:34:58 GMT

In <CKD.92Oct13005018@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>WS>   == Wolfgang Strobl <strobl@gmd.de> 
>Bill> == bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

> Bill> But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The
> Bill> USERs apps shouldn't crash. Period.

> WS> This is a very shortsightened reasoning. The users applications
> WS> SHOULD crash, IMHO, as long as they are buggy. Memory protection in
> WS> the end users system gives developers a strong incentive not to
> WS> release buggy applications.

>This seems odd to me.  I would think that lack of memory protection
>would present *more* of an incentive to developers to make sure their
>programs don't crash, rather than less, because it's more likely to piss
>off the users if the crash takes down the whole system, no?

No. Stray pointers and similar bugs often don't crash an application
immediately, on a system without memory protection, but cause other
applications or the whole system to fail. Often this doesn't occur
while the application is running, but later, because some system
data that has been overwritten is used, then. In fact, applications
on such systems are often tested just up to the point where it isn't
easy to make the connection between the application and some obscure
system behaviour, anymore.  

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.719166749
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <strobl.719068219@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>I didn't say that memory protection in a users system improves
>the quality of a buggy application. This would be ridiculous.

>But it can ensure that a buggy application can't crash other applications
>or the system - it only can crash itself. 

Small consolation.  Maybe you only lose a third of your work, 
instead of all of it, as result.  Murphy's law says that it
will probably be the most important third.

Wouldn't it be better not to lose anything at all, because the
program was written properly to begin with?


>Because of that, it's much easier for the user to find out which 
>application to blame, if something fails. 

Nonsense.  V1.0 of Harpoon for the Mac had to be one of the 
buggiest game programs ever written.  Crashed all the time.  
Everyone who bought the game seemed to complain about it.  
Funny, isn't it, that everyone knew *exactly* which application 
to blame, even without memory protection?


>And *this* gives developers a strong incentive - they
>don't get away with buggy applications as simple as they do on a system
>without protection. 

When Windows crashes a program, it puts up a dialog telling you
which application was responsible.  This doesn't seem to have
donw anything to encourage Windows developers to debug their
programs.


>Memory overwrite bugs are only one kind of bug, there are lots of others. 
>But they are an nasty soft of bug, because they are hard to track, 
>especially in a multitasking environment. In addition they are hard
>to explain, because users normally don't understand whats 
>going on - they don't think in terms of memory locations and
>adressing.

>Because of that, I think that good memory protection is essential
>for interactive multitasking systems for the common user.  

But memory overwrite (and maybe memory read) bugs are the *only* type 
that memory protection guards against!  Which is why I think *well-
written applications* is essential for interactive multitasking systems 
for the common user.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Mel Walker <mwalker@novell.com>
Subject: Re: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A701A7155F011E08@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:29:41 GMT
Organization: Society for Anarchic Totaltarianism
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.043554.23550@u.washington.edu> Tim Smith,
tzs@stein.u.washington.edu writes:
>>1) Windows comes with some applications!!!  A Word
>>processor!!!  A painting tool!!!  While they are not
>>exactly MS Word or MacDraw, they suffice and get the 
>>average user off the ground.  Apple...bundle something
>>already!
>
>Apple used to do this, but they stopped.  Before they stopped, there
weren't
>many writing or painting programs for the Mac.  Why write one when Apple
is
>giving them away?  Now there are many paint programs and many write
programs
>at many prices.

Apple does give away a simple word processor with the mac: TeachText.
MSWrite is more powerful, but anyone who wants a word processor buys Word
or Nisus or WordPerfect or something anyway. Apple realized that they
could (and should) sell MacWrite, and so stopped bundling it. Microsoft
realized they couldn't sell MSWrite, and so bundled it.

As for myself, have Microsoft call me when the start bundling QuickC with
Windows. :-)

--Mel Walker
mwalker@novell.com                                                       
    Disclaimer: My dog ate it.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:31:59 GMT

In article <jb2z4q#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185818.3475@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>
>|>  The fact is, the bicycle is a more contrived, more
>|> complex, harder to learn mode of transportation.
>
>Yep.
>
>|>  Nevertheless it is
>|> faster and more efficient by far than any natural mode of transportation. 
>
>Yep.
>
>|> Please drop all the arguments about which is easier to learn, because
>|> they are irrelevant.
>
>Nope. Quite relevant. Everyone can can walk; not everyone can bike.
>Wonder why. :) However, this is not hte point you seem to be
>arguing, so lets move on.

Exactly.  I admitted right from the start that the mouse is easier to
learn.  It's even better for highly experienced users for many things.
I wouldn't give it up if I had the choice, but I'd give it up before I'd
give up my keyboard.


>|>  Surely you agree that they
>|> keyboard is best for communicating written language (i.e. you don't use
>|> the mouse and Keycaps to type letters).
>
>No. I think the keyboard is better than the mouse for giving
>free form words (and such) to the computer. Id rather dictate
>tho. :)

I should have said "better of the two" rather than best.  Personally,
I'll take thought over dictation, but let's be realistic.  The keyboard
is still the best way to unambiguously communicate language (when I say
language here I mean spoken/written language) given current technology.

--
Steve Kanefsky
From: faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:43:40 GMT

In <mike_steiner-131092155722@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.034620.3505@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) wrote:


>> Speak for your own desktop.  I can safely say that an Amiga will dorn my
>> desktop for many...many....years to come!
>> I'd take the first Amiga (A1000) over the first IBM or Mac *ANYDAY*!!!!
>> At least it would be in color, multitask (pre-emptive, too), and play
>> some GREAT games.  Can either of the first IBMs or Macs do that?
>> HELL, can *ANY* of their most recent ones do that?????  Who's clueless?

>Well, if all you want is a game machine....

....then BUY A NINTENDO.

If you want an OS which supports <real> multitasking (read: pre-emptive), 
then buy an Amiga, NeXT, Sun, Unix box of some type, or...(snicker snicker...)
an IBM w/ OS2 (Baww ha hahahaha!!! yeah, right). If you want to do serious
video work with a more affordable budget, buy Amiga. If you want to do a lot
of work in DTP, buy Mac or NeXT. Different platforms have their own strengths
and weaknesses. It just happens that the lack of pre-emptive multitasking is
a weakness of Mac which has not been fully addressed (YET).

It is obvious to me that you have no clue about Amigas if you only think of
them as game machines.  That's as ridiculous as saying that a Mac is a game
machine. Just because Amigas have some graphics facilities which make it
relatively easy to make "killer" games does NOT make it a game machine. Does
a clone's ability to make a great boat anchor mean that it has no other 
purpose? err, well, this may be a bad example... 

Game machines do not appear in academia. Amigas do. Macs do. IBM's do. NeXT's
do. and, yes, unfortunately IBM PC's do as well. Nintendos do not. Why? Because
it IS a game machine. Period. We use Amigas here for multimedia. I know of
many other univeristies which also use Amigas. (And it's not so the profs can
sit around playing games! That's what xtank and nettrek are for) ;-)

>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
>|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

-bob
faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 17 Oct 92 04:17:06
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
	<92290.140550ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> <93465@netnews.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kivikkorastas.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu's message of 16 Oct 92 21:48:43 GMT

In article <93465@netnews.upenn.edu> green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Bradley Green ) writes:

   If you are so stupid as to leave one session to play a game or (particulary)
   use a *shareware* utility without pressing COMMAND-S to save your work
   first, you deserve to loose everything.

Especially so if you are doing it on a Mac?
-- 
         Tero Nieminen                      DANGER!
         ttn@cs.tut.fi                   Computer Bytes!
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:47:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct14.061530.5484@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>,
derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct14.044343.24767@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
> >In article <Bw38ss.3Lp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey) writes:
> >>Game machines do not appear in academia. Amigas do. Macs do. IBM's do. NeXT's
> >>do. and, yes, unfortunately IBM PC's do as well. Nintendos do not. Why? Because
> >>it IS a game machine. Period. We use Amigas here for multimedia. I know of
> >>many other univeristies which also use Amigas. (And it's not so the profs can
> >>sit around playing games! That's what xtank and nettrek are for) ;-)
> >
> >I'm sure that Amiga's appear SOMEWHERE in academia.  Among the college
> >campus's that I have been to, I have NEVER seen an Amiga anywhere but
> >in a student's room, where Nintendo's are equally likely to reside.
> 
> Where was that ????
> 
> In here you can see Amigas in the faculty rooms too.
> BTW. In the building I was working for the last two years were two computer labs.
> Mac lab - consisted of about 14 machines (mostly of the class of IIsi) and
> Amiga lab - consisted of about 16 Amigas 2000.
> Guess what? While in the Mac Lab one could barely see someone working (two - three students at
> the same time), in the Amiga Lab one could barely find a free machine. In fact there was about
> four people per machine. Amiga Lab was always full (except late night hours). 
> Draw your own conclusions,
> 
> >Jess Holle
> 
> Dariusz Bolski
> 
> Ps. Amiga 2000 is only a 7 MHz 68000 machine, yet most folks still
>    preferred it to IIsi. What do you say?

That they would rather play games than work. :-) <--NOTE THE SMILEY!

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: kempkec@fog.CS.ORST.EDU (Christopher Kempke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PDA's are a flop
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:47:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Oct08.084742.19445
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

In article <nazedgi-051092013656@stiles-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> nazedgi@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (ivan) writes:
>Pda's are the wave of the future and Apple is going to sell trillions of
>them.  Yeah, right.  I wonder how a computer is going to be able to
>recognize handwriting when people sometimes can't even recognize their own.

	With enough computing power behind it, handwriting recognition
	is not only possible, but it has been for some time.  Cursive
	may trip you up, but printing is pretty easy.

> And even if the software would be so great that it could recognize all
>types of handwriting, why in the world would anyone want to buy a $900
>notepad.  I don't know what John Sculley thinks, but this new Apple product
>sound like a Lemon to me.

	$900?  No prices released that I've heard.  And youdon't pay
	retail, do you?  In any case, *I* would love such a device.  My life
	is organized around 1000000 little pieces of paper with scribblings
	and notes on them; having a central place to keep them where
	they would't get lost and they'd even get CLEANED UP for me would
	be a dream come true.

	Isn't bashing a machine which doesn't even exist yet seem a little
	silly?  (no more silly than advocating it, I suppose).

	I'll reserve judgement until I see one.
From: jstc_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: trepidations of a longtime Mac user
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:52:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <81327@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:


>  The Dell 386-33 I have has only froze up on me a total
>of five times in the three months I had the thing.

I have a Mac IIci running system 7.1b7 right now and before that I had
it running system 7.0.1.  In all the time I have owned my machine,
roughly nine months, it has crashed on me twice.  

>  I like the Mac, and have been a Mac fan since 1984.  But
>when programs crash like cars in a Demolition Derby, it
>is time to move on.  I cannot trust the Mac for any work
>that is vital to me at all.  If I do anything that is
>vital, I use a sun or the NeXT.

I won't say anything about the NeXT, for I have not used them that often,
but as for sun's, I work on them all the time and I have locked up the
sun workstation that I work on more often than I have my Mac.  Still I use
both of them for vital work, and only once have I had a crash that affected
my work, and that was my own fault for not saving before I started to do
something else.

>This is probably one of the reasons that Macs are not
>used for vital work.

Reality check is needed here.

>Here my call:  The Mac needs an OS that has
>memory protection.

agreed.

>PS:  I have mentioned this OS memory protection before,
>but until the Mac has it, or something is fixed, it is not a viable
>platform for me anymore.

that is too bad you do not know what you are missing.

-justin m. collins <jstc_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>