HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! (and AutoCAD too)
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:57:31 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <UelOGFC00VAt0Dqqcw@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>more (find me a better cad package on the mac than autocad for dos)

AutoCAD is not a CAD package that I would hold up as a shining example on
any platform, much less DOS.

AutoCAD for DOS virtually requires the extra expenditure of a large customized
digitizing tablet with frequently used commands on it.  This may be fine and
dandy for dedicated CAD stations that are used 8 hours a day for CAD, but it
is ridiculous otherwise.  Floating, on-screen pallettes are the norm on most
other CAD packages, in addition to support for digitizing tablets.  AutoCAD
for DOS requires that NUMEROUS commands be TYPED in to get ANYTHING done.
This is stone age material.  You could always write an AutoLISP macro, but 
this takes extra time that should be used actually accomplishing things.

I would agree that AutoCAD is a powerful package.  It is also, very 
inefficient for small 2D jobs.  Also, it is not nearly as powerful or
innovative as other CAD packages.  AutoCAD simply happens to be the
ubiquitous standard.  Other packages include intelligent cursors that
obviate the need for entering snaps most of the time.  Others include
geometric tolerancing symbols which are NOT included with AutoCAD.  Others
include built in full database links to all parts used in a drawing.  You 
can get this for AutoCAD by paying an arm and a leg.  There are other
examples of things that AutoCAD is behind in, but I only have so much time
to type this.

As one Mac package that I would say beats AutoCAD in terms of absolute power,
I would suggest:

  MacBravo    (intelligent cursors --I think--, built in database, full 3D,
               on-screen pallettes, and many features which I forget, but
               will be reminded of when Schlumberger comes to campus Tuesday)

by Shlumberger.

Other Mac packages that beat AutoCAD in various aspects are:

  Claris CAD  (very simple, cannot compare in power, but produces simple
               2D drawing with unparalled speed, includes database links,
               smart cursor, floating palletes, etc)
  VersaCAD Mac  (I am not terribly familiar with this, but it is supposed
                 to be competitive with AutoCAD)
  MiniCAD  (like Claris CAD, MiniCAD cannot compare in absolute power to
            AutoCAD, but it does have 3D, intelligent cursors, and a Pascal
            like macro language)
  Vellum  (much like MiniCAD, generally more powerful, but no macro language,
           but with animation and parametric modeling)

As far as prices:
  MacBravo    $1000's
  VersaCAD    $1000's
  Claris CAD  $600    ($170 educational discount)
  Vellum      $1000
  MiniCAD     $700
Most of these are VERY approximate from memory.

Jess Holle

P.S.  As far as packages which beat AutoCAD period, there are NUMEROUS
      entries in the workstation arena that I won't bother to detail.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:09:53 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1657@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
> Devil writes:
> 
>>I have tried IBM machines and compatibles before buying my mac, and
>>now I know the truth; DOS machines, Windows, Microsucks are all brown
>>stuff...
> 
> Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  

Name *ONE*.

> It's a lot easier to develop PC applications and maintain PC hardware than 
> Macs.  Not to mention cheaper.

RE: PC Applications. If you develop for Windows, it ain't any easier. If you
develop for DOS, your applications are easier because they do less. Hence, you
aren't comparing equivalent things.

RE: Maintainence. Perhaps you ought to look up a few studies that were done
a few years ago (some were sponsered by Apple, others were independant) that
showed that while PCs had lower hardware investment, when you added in the
additional costs of maintainence and training, Macs were actually cheaper!

And that was a few years ago, before the introduction of lower cost Macs.
While PC hardware has gotten even cheaper, those maintainence and training
costs haven't!

-- 
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.
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:30:56 GMT

In article <meharg.716925402@sfu.ca> meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg) writes:
>Ive just read a message where another person has said that a CLI
>is faster than the Mac Interface for some things.
>What things?

On my PC, I can type 'move .txt ..' to move ALL the .txt files up a level.
FAST, too!

How fast is it to move doens of files around like that via GUI/mouse?


--
*Dan Stephenson   das9674@usl.edu  
*
* "To conquer death, you only have to die,..."                   
*                             -Jesus , from _Jesus Christ Superstar_
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:43:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.213031.19854@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
|> In article <5bpzyk_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct3.035134.11426@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
|> >[deletia- some hacks]
|> >|> >
[deletia- various opinions]
|> >|> 
|> >|> This is my humble opinion.
|> >
|> >I wouldn't say it was warranted by the fact the Apple's GUI is
|> >not perfect, although it may be correct anyway.
|> >
|> >Several points:
|> >
|> >Nobody is praying about anything here.
|> 
|> I guess I was misled by the numerous posts of the superiority of Apple GUI
|> over another GUI or CLI. (???)

Apparently. I can just see us praying now:

"Oh Mighty Apple Desktop Interface, Grant Us Insignificant Users
a Boon! For thine is the keyboard and the mouse..."

etc.

:)

|> >If you mean by:
|> >	"They let do some work better, some worse"
|> >
|> >that some let you work better, some worse, I agree. If you mean
|> >They let you do some  work better, some worse, I'd say this may
|> >be true but you haven't convinced me. I'll reserve judgement
|> >until you do. :)
|> 
|> Yes, I meant what I said.

<grin> Oh, good. :)

|> It is not that working is better in one over
|> another. I meant that each one of them helps best a particular types of
|> jobs. That's why many people like to have systems which provide most
|> functionality or most flexibility (see emulators).

Oh, ok. Ill grant you this (rather general) point. Seems kinda
inevitable, actually (now that I think about it)

Of course, if you would like to argue some more, you could get
more specific. :)

|> >I do agree that there's lots of room for improvement in them ALL,
|> >however.
|> 
|> Good to agree on something,

Indeed.
No flames even (in this part of the thread)

-- 
			- 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: jwa@vipunen.hut.fi (Jyrki J Wahlstedt)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:26:36

  I just digged an old conference proceeding (from 1986), where a finnish
  physicist describes control systems in CERN. There is a picture of a
  Mac (connected to VMEbus) and in the text he writes (in free translation)
  that the experiments were mostly controlled using Macs.

  You know CERN? (It has built and manages huge particle accelerators in
  Switzerland and France.) I'd say they are a major something...

--
!
!	Jyrki Wahlstedt
!		Jyrki.Wahlstedt@hut.fi
!
!  Our life is no dream, but it should and will perhaps become one.
!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:59:51 GMT
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 <1992Oct05.031819.26841@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> A bit of a hack. The system should just _know_, without having
>> to be asked politely to go figure it out. I wouldn't
>> call this a feature.

>Yes, the system should know. The Mac doesn't... it just knows what the
>application that created it was. This is *similar*, but not the same.

No, the system *does* know.  Every Macintosh file has both a CREATOR
and a TYPE associated with it.

I have an idea.  Why doesn't your side just get together and paint
a really big, really colorful billboard sign saying, "We haven't the
slightest idea what we're talking about."  It would save you so much
time. :-)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: eakaftan@isluga.puc.cl (Eduardo Kaftanski Arancibia)
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:34:19 GMT


		Karl: How can you say handles are horrible. I program macs
on a serious base and find handles are one of it's strongest points.
Handles make memory management in macs a very powerful feature, letting
the os take care of object relocation to free space that in PCs get 
scattered in holes around the heap.
		If you want my opinion add handles to the list of given
reasons to prefer macintosh. Macs have a REAL OS, MS-DOS does just what
it name says: Disk management. Nothing more.

	If you want good info read Scott Knaster's books (Apple press).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo Kaftanski Arancibia

eakaftan@isluga.puc.cl
ekaftan@ing.puc.cl

Usual disclaimer applies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important wo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:19:44 GMT
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 <1992Oct02.051843.16218@CS.ORST.EDU> pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne) writes:

>Actually the increase in Apple market share has not been that great.  In the
>October issue of UNIX World they have an article in the Industry News
>section on page 16.  A market research firm, Infocorp, surveyed 4,100 
>VARs in the US and asked what OSs the sold and supported.  
 ^^^^

Most people buy their computers from computer stores. mail-order
houses, or consumer merchandisers, not VARs.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steve Fuller)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:39:28 GMT

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct4193442@wpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.045258.27262@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
>
>   Name *ONE* OS that you can buy that is completely hardware independant.
>
>Well, I can name *three* os's for which I can buy the hardware from literally
>*thousands* of vendors around the world ...  Hell, and that's without even

Well, I am assuming you are talking PC's here. All PCs are based on an Intel
80x86 processor. While there are a couple of sources for 80x86-compatibles,
this hardly counts as 'hardware independant'

>thinking about it for long ... How many work-station os's are there which
>run on more than one company's product?

None that I can think of.
Ever seen HP-UX running on a Cray? SunOS on a DECStation?

>
>   Macs can run: MacOS, A/UX, Minix, MachTen, MacMach, OS/9. 
>		 (also DOS and Windows if you are desperate)
>
>Well, then.  Jesus, do I have to name *all* the os's you can run on
>a pc?  If you want, give me a week and I'll mail you a list.  I won't
>post one because I really don't think many people wish to hear about
>all of them.

Please do. I'll start you out:
CP/M   <snort>
MSDOS,PCDOS,DRDOS        (all the same IMHO)
OS/2
unix

and someday: WinNT, Solaris, NextStep486.... but not yet.

/s Steve Fuller        sfuller@tamu.edu        Texas A&M's UNIX Helpdesk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:27:06 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <strobl.717369208@gmd.de>  writes:

>>Some GUI's and nearly all DOS applications don't have a good standard  
for this.  2: If your
>
>Untrue. Nearly all Windows apps and many, many DOS character applications
>(those using the CUA rules) are standardized in a very similar way.

Baloney.  Windows apps are good, but far from the Mac's (or NeXT's)  
standardization claims.  (...say, what *do* the other Windows mouse  
buttons do?  Seems every program uses them differently... :)

DOS can lay no claim to standardization.  Shift-F7 to quit from WP.  /x  
(is that right?) to quit from 1-2-3.  Alt-X to quit from Procom.   
Control-C to quit from batch files.  Escape to quit from Norton Utilities.   
This is standardization?  And this is just for *quitting*.  Just don't get  
me going on, say, printer drivers.  :)


--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! !(.NOT.)
Organization: Netcom 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.045111.25819@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> straka@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (richard.j.straka) writes:
>And then, there's my neighbor who just bought a new PC clone and couldn't
>figure out how to format a disk.  Let's see, the manual says (amongst a
>dozen or two permutations): format a: /f=720k (or whatever).  I was the
>only one out of 3 in the room who could figure it out (the other was a IBM
>mainframe-type consultant).
>Richard Straka      AT&T Bell Laboratories


Richard,

If it took 3 of you to format a 720K DOS diskette (which by the way is
a pretty rare format these days) I would have to wonder what you were
smoking!

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)
From: krl@alpha.sunquest.com (ken r. lauver)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Macs being used at a Nuclear Power Plant.
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:05:00 GMT
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Tucson AZ
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

I know for a fact that at one Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S. they 
use Macs to keep track of the fuel assemblies and scheduling downtime 
procedures.  While that may not be controling the events in the nuclear
core, it is just as important.

Ken Lauver
Sunquest Information Systems
KRL@ALPHA.SUNQUEST.COM
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 717703702@convex.convex.com, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <TOMSTER.92Sep27210027@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>
>>A non-ASCII .txt file?  Whoever created that should be shot!  
>
>Well, we could start with IBM, then.  Have you ever heard of EBSDIC?
>
>>For those of you who have never used a DOS
>>machine but are lamely attempting to hack on it anyway, '.TXT' means
>>text.  '.DOC' means document (formatted for the printer).  These
>>are conventions.  Live with them.
>
>Why should the *user* be responsible for telling the *operating system* 
>what the file type is?  A decent OS should be able to figure that out 
>for itself.  Even UNIX doesn't require me to call a textfile "FOO.TXT".  
>This is even more of a limitation considering the ridiculously short 
>file names DOS allows and the prohibition on mixed-case, punctuation 
>marks, etc. in DOS file names.  (I've heard that OS2 no longer does these
>things, so even IBM must recognize that these "conventions" are ridiculous.)

Well, there is no "requirement". DOS, like UNIX, doesn't really care about file
types - the use of extensions is for people, not the operating system.
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:45:05 GMT


In article <strobl.717290109@gmd.de> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In the MS OS world, however, things aren't so rosey. Indeed, wasn't there
>some scuttlebutt about MS using undocumented calls in their Windows 
>applications that weren't available to other developers?


I developed software for a company that was writing optical disk drivers for
use under DOS.  You wouldn't believe the number of undocumented "features"
that were present under certain versions of DOS.  We couldn't just follow
the rules and assume that MicroSoft would do the same.  MicroSoft turned out
to be it's own worst offender.

Even with all of the best and most in-depth documentation of DOS, we would
still run across undocumented calls withing DOS.  After a while, we got to
become experts at disassembling DOS utilities.

You can imagine the problems we ran into when testing with several versions
of DOS when we discovered that we also had to test each utility within the
DOS package.  Unfortunately, our customers ended up performing beta testing
that they shouldn't of had to.

Talk about a closed system...

[MGM]
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:04:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.718387469
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.

> I disagree.  I think it's more of a hack to use filename extensions
> than to judge the actual content of the file.  The file type that
> the Mac uses is really just a different flavor of filename
> extension. You often have to hack the file type to get a program to
> recognize that it can open the file, even though the content of the
> file is of the correct type. 

No, not even close.  The Macintosh's file type is not a filename
extension.  It's a separate resource.  The VAX, I believe, recognizes 
file types in much the same way.  So does UNIX, except it calls them
"magic numbers" instead.  I don't know what this mythical system that
judges the content of a file might be.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:21:35 GMT

In article <6048.2ac3a4e5@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> Further, there may be interfaces which infringe, but other Apple actions
> have prevented them from convincing the court. Indeed, this is what
> has happened with Microsoft, where an ill-conceived licensing agreement
> from 1985 is being interpreted by the courts has handing over Macintosh
> interface technology, lock, stock, and barrel, in perpetunum.

Um, Microsoft Windows is not now, and never has been, a rip-off of the Mac.
The Windows GUI is significantly better designed than Apple's, though the
implementation and program interface suck dead gerbils through a dirty garden
hose. The Windows GUI is about the only Microsoft designed software that's
worth using. Most of it is only suitable for compost... nope, not even that.
It's not biodegradable.

As for licensing agreements, if you're upset about Apple-versus-Microsoft you
should be REALLY pissed about Xerox-versus-Apple. There's no way Apple could
possibly win both suits simultaneously.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`
From: taihou@chromium.iss.nus.sg (Tng Tai Hou)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Why Apple sued?
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:21:59 GMT
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Originator: taihou@chromium

For some misunderstood reasons, Apple seems to be always on the
bad-end of anything. Take the lawsuit with MS for eg.

There is one and only one reason that Apple sued MS - breach
of contract. Of course, perhaps I am being a bit naive here,
but the way MS Windows is going, it is clear that it is being
advertised and even evangelised as the Mac for the rest of us.

For whatever else you might hate Apple, this fact no one can deny.
Did MS ever innovate anything? They just happened to be there at
the right time. It's just the stupidity of Apple's marketing for
failing to understand the software market, maret share, etc,
which MS is very good for.

I hope Richard Stallman will change his mind soon. He is even
more naive than I am, despite the fact that I like his gnu
stuff.

Tai Hou
Singapore
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. NeXT
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:58:11 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Oct3.004940.851@cubetech.com>  writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.145543.981@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
writes:
>>NeXT gives its customers full rights to all NeXTSTEP software, including
>>the development tools.  What actually comes with your machine is 
>>entirely dependent on the size of your hard drive (i.e., how much stuff 
>>NeXT could put onto it).
>
>This is true for NeXT computers but not with NeXTSTEP 486...


Thanks.  I should have mentioned that.  Then again, NS/486 is a  
non-product, so my statement is true but soon to be outdated.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Oct3.135526.993@yvax.byu.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:31:59 GMT

Sean> == Sean Luke <feijai@endor.byu.edu> 

 Sean> Do you use NeXTs?  It really does sound like you've had limited
 Sean> experience with them.  You say DPS has a "tremendous speed
 Sean> penalty".  This sounds like you've only seen old '030s or
 Sean> machines without much memory.

Well, if people are going to compare an 8/105 NeXT to a IIci (or P600),
then we *are* talking about (NeXT) machines without much memory.  Let's
face it, that's like saying that a 3/40 IIsi is underpowered and
unsuitable for System 7.  Yeah, it is, and?

--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy