HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.042710.11799@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.202130.27323@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
|> >NOT!!!
|> >Where have you been?  (this group is such a fun flame-fest!)  Have you
|> >not heard of the "Apple Menu" on a macintosh?  With System 7, which has
|> >only been out for a year now (maybe more...) it's trivial to add an
|> >application to the apple menu, and once you do, it's a single menu
|> >selection that's _always_ available.  Easier than setting up a path,
|> >too!  Because if you move the folder in which the application resides,
|> >you don't have to do _anything_.  The apple menu still works.  It'll
|> >work even if the application is on a volume mounted over the network.
|> 
|> I have something more than 700 commands in my PATH (programs, utilities,
|> scripts). 
|> How many commands can you add to a menu?
|> 
|> And yes, I added a few of them to the menu. But there is not enough many
|> spots for them all. 

Of course not. And they dont all belong in the Apple menu anyway-
some belong on the desktop (where you can drag and drop to them); Most
of the little utilities that do simple things should be extensions, which
change the behaviour of the finder (fer instance), so that they can
do all sorts of neat things. An obvious example is SpeedyFinder7,
which adds a "Get Info on Origional" command to the Finder. this
could be done w/ a drag&drop app (drop an alias on the app,
it sends an apple event to the finder telling it to display
the info window on the thing), but SpeedyFinder7 provides a neater
solution- when the option key is down, Get Info changes to Get Origional
Info and you can just use the menu (or do an option-command-I, if you
like)

Of course, you cant get to 700 things that way. but then, I doubt
very much you can remember 700 things anyway. You can get a lot
of things in very cleanly this way tho.
-- 
			- 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
Subject: Re: Amiga Vs. Mac Vs. NeXT
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:58:33 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <NIGEL.92Sep23101702@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>  writes:

>   Couuldn't agree with you more :-)
>   NeXT is the best, throw out the rest !
>
>Just make sure that if you buy the mono slab to get extra memory and a
>bigger drive.  We had a stripped slab and devlopment on it was
>annoying due to lack of diskspace.  

Well, don't buy bigger drives from NeXT.  If you just need more space, buy  
third-party SCSI drives.  NeXT's hard drives are expensive.

--

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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More info on system 7.1 and $$$
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:07:32 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 <gapdrr.717652084@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman) writes:
>Jess - 
>  Licensing, my dear boy, licensing. Apple is going to make a bundle off of
>system extensions because they're going to sell standard plug-ins to 
>developers to bundle with the DEVELOPER's product. That way you only buy
>what you need, and you get what you need when you get the thing you need it
>for. 

Well, if that's the idea, it sucks rotten eggs.  The software companies 
are just going to pass the cost on to the user.  So what happens to the
user when he buys three different programs using Quickdraw GX?  It gets
to pay for it three times!

>and apple makes a bundle.

Rubbish.  No computer company makes a bundle of software.  Apple makes
most of its moeny off hardware and always will.  It's in Apple's interest
to have the machines it sells running the most advanced operating system
possible, so that third parties will develop neat new things for it and Apple
will sell even *more* machines.  This idea is stupid.
From: patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:36:53 GMT

In <ewright.718053902@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>For barely over the $3000 you say  
>>you're about to spend on a mac you would have a much more powerful  
>>system in every way except for the lack of color.  

>Barely over $3000?  Only if you can get an academic discount.

The original poster did have a Harvard account. I'd say it'd be
pretty easy to get a NeXT in CAmbridge in that price range. True?

Pat Breitenbach		patb@mcl.ucsb.edu
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:50:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep23.165553.14466@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
>In article <Bv1A6G.L9z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> chris1@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Steven Eric Fuller writes
>>     >> NeXtstation turbo (33MHz 68040) 8/250 (incl 17" display) $3851
>>     
>>     Don't forget to add ~$500 for the required CD-ROM drive for the Next.
>>
>>What do you mean? The newer NeXT Turbos will come with NeXTSTEP 3.0 on them,
>>therefore you don't need the CD-ROM to install it. (Assuming, of course, you
>>don't want to update for bug fixes). 
>
>I think this statement speaks for itself. You will either need a CD-ROM or
>reliable access to one.

  This is not a valid comparison.  NeXT is running a GUI, an object
oriented platform and UNIX.  For A/UX, you need a CD-ROM.  Do not
compare System 7 with a UNIX OS without looking at what takes
up the space.

-- 
ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd)

MS-Windows NT:             (Insert standard disclaimer here)
                           
Another reason to leave
your computer turned off.
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:24:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4enIed200WBKI_SDhi
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 3-Oct-92 Re: What's Easier
To Use (r.. by Ishir Bhan@husc8.harvard 
> I read something about that.  It said basically what you are saying.  That
> even though menus inside windows and floating menubars (like the NeXT has)
> may seem convenient and nifty, they reduce your speed by requiring more
> accuracy.  I would prefer it if Apple just made the Finder look better. 
> No, there are no practical uses for it, but it would be a nice bonus.  The
> NeXT LOOKS COOL.  How about getting rid of that ugly Chicago font.  Give
> us some standard 3D stuff.  Shading.  Cool stuff like that.  Or at least
> make it an option.  What do you people think?

First, I should say I am an avid user of OS/2 2.0.  With that said, I
should also say that I like the floating menus of the NeXT and Mac. 
However, I haven't seen any reason why the windowed menus of Windows,
Motif, X, OS/2, Openlook, Solaris, etc should slow you down.  It's never
slowed me down.  I don't find accuracy to be a problem at all.

Second, I know there's some app out there which does what you want (ie
the 3d stuff etc)  It lets you change basically everything, giving stuff
like proportional scroll bars (a la NeXT and OS/2) 3D windows etc.  My
roommate had it last year, and it didn't look like a Mac anymore...

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:14:41 GMT

In <1992Sep29.215724.3453@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:

>In article: <strobl.717792329@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: 


>> Anyway, I only questioned the validity of the argument: the Mac
>> is better, because it can understand PC disks, but the PC cant
>> understand Mac disks. 

>> Both systems are only able to process a subset of the disks which
>> are in use on the other side, and need additional hardware
>> support to read all the other ones.

>You seem to forget that the Mac can read/write both MS-DOS and Apple II ProDos disks
>without the need for EXTRA HARDWARE or SOFTWARE. 

Doesn't qualify a 5.25" drive as hardware?


>> Well, then a PC can read/write all Macintosh disks, too.

>> Central Point, for example, sells an "Option Board" which has
>> to be put between the drive and the disk controller, plus optional
>> software which allows reading and writing the old, low density
>> Macintosh disks. 

>An "Option Board"?  You mean this isn't standard PC equipment?  I'd have to buy
>something extra to get where a Mac already is?

No. The Macintosh has moved from old, proprietary floppy technology to
something more standard. In order to read that old, outdated format, 
which Apple only supports for compatibility purposes within their
own line of computers, you need additional hardware on PCs. This
hardware is available, but nobody with a brain would put it into
new PCs as a standard feature. Do new Macs come with a standard
5.25" drive, just to be able to read old PC floppies? Of course, not!


>  I'd have to spend some of my
>big PC savings to get basic cross system functionality?  What about just within the
>PC line: can you format both low and high density disks within a single drive?

Of course, you can. But you have to do it one after another. 

>Will other drives reliably read what has been produced?  A lot of the PC'S that
>I've used end up requireing both a low and high density 3.5 & 5.25" drive just to
>insure that every disk can be read/written properly.

Well, this isn't completely true. If you want to be able to reliably
read and write old CP/M floppies, you'll have to add at least an 8"
floppy on top of that.

>OK, here's the test:  One user has a 3.5" Mac disk and would like to get a PC to read
>a text file, and another user has a 3.5" MS-DOS disk and would like to get a Mac
>to read it.  Go!  Within a short time span the Mac user is done, and the PC user
>is trying to search for third party solutions.

Well, you have the choice between a 2.88MB and a 20.8 MB floppy. Which 
do you prefer? Both are "Stackered", btw, to make it a bit more
interesting.

If you like, you can try two more disks, both from true MSDOS
computers. One is from a Nixdorf PC from 1985, the other
from a Sirius computer. Both are 800K, if memory serves me right.

Satisfied? :-)

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau)
Subject: comp.sys.mac.advocacy <- Hey! Important word here...
Keywords: fnord
Organization: Fredonian Computer Network
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:11:40 GMT

        Sheesh.  I must kill fifty posts a day on why IBM MS-DOS/Windoze/OS2
is better than the Macintosh.  Really, I don't have any complaints.  If we,
the Mac community, can't honestly prove our platforms and OS to be superior
to those available in the IBM world, then we'll just have to beat them to
a bloody pulp. :)  First off, I'd like to say that I agree with virtually
every comment made about Mac goodness here : Assured hardware and software
compatibility (well, almost, but we're a lot closer than the IBM fools),
the wonders of the Mac GUI, and the speed with which the Mac handles this
(especially relative to Windoze.  OS/2 isn't really comparable because of
the extreme hardware required to use it.).  Second, I'd like to agree with
virtually every comment made about IBM "badness" : CLIs (sure, they're nice,
they're potentially more powerful than a GUI, etc., but they should be an
option for using your computer, not the rule.), wretched compatibility,
and family values. :)
        Finally, I'm now going to select Restart in the Special menu.
Hopefully, this will purge all IBM fools from this newsgroup and allow us
to get back to the real business of mindlessly reveling in our GUI world.
Hey!  Does anyone else realize that with NowMenus you can dump an alias of
your entire _harddrive_ in the apple menu and have it easily accessible
from _anywhere_?  It goes without saying, of course, that an IBM can't do
this...

                - Drau

The first rule, grasshopper, in dealing with the universe, is the realization
that there are absolutely no absolutes.  All opinions are subject to dissent,
all facts are subject to learning.
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Interesting Performa specs
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:21:18 GMT

Just saw an Office Depot ad featuring the Performa 200 in the SF  
Chronicle.  $1199 for a 4/80 system; not bad.

The interesting part was in the list of specs, right among '80MB hard  
disk' and the like was the entry 'MS-DOS compatible.'

And they said the mac couldn't run other OSs...  :-)

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:05:17 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Mac
	<6050.2ac3a80f@hayes.com>

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> I believe the original poster meant that this tenuous quality of user 
> interaction via a graphics display comes off better in an architecture
> where every element has been designed toward that goal, from the processor
> on through the display hardware and the OS. OS/2 does not share this
> quality.

I love os/2, but I'd have to agree with Bill on this one.  OS/2 can
look nice, but It doesn't interact as nicely as the Mac

> That remains to be seen. The NeXT was in the same boat a few years ago, and
> we're still waiting for applications. And the NeXT has much nicer OS
> technology than OS/2.

There are apps (good ones - many better than the mac's) out there, but
you never hear about them because no-one has NeXT's
OS/2 2.0 shouldn't have this problem because It already has a larger user
base than NeXT does, and everyone but MS is writing for it.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:47:05 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 <1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:

>>normal meaning of the word, so there is no mental association.
>>(BTW, you misspelled "remembered," which is a real word and, therefore,
>>"much harder to misspell.")
>Desoxyribonukleinsaeure (German) is also a real word and there-
>fore much harder to misspell than 'ls' ? How about (instead of pulling
>wild theories out of your hat and presenting them as facts) reading
>a book on the subject for once (and not one from Apple.).

Your German is excellent.  Your English stinks.  I wasn't the one
who said that real words are "harder to misspell," I was *quoting*
someone.  Do you see those little "" marks?  They mean quotes in
English.

>>>It assumes that users need to go through a
>>>relatively long length of time to remember a command, which is true
>>>for new users, but not experienced ones
>>
>>No, it does not.  Every time someone sits down with a stopwatch
>>and times someone, they find that this is not true.  Regardless of
>>how experienced the user is.
>That is complete bullshit!

Ah, now we see the quality of the research and thinking that
leads to the conclusion that CLIs are faster.  Well, you've
convinced me completely.

>Snide remark: The apparent lack of understanding of some  Mac users that
>there is something like proceduralization which allows the user to
>interact (after exercise) with the system using very little 'attention',
>seems to indicate that the Mac GUI is severely lacking in some
>respects.

Snide remark right back at you: Maybe that's because there is no
such word as "proceduralization" in English.  What did you *think*
you were saying, dear?

>Nat!
>P.S.  Stuff a GUI can't do 

>Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)
Wrong again.  The Journal utility has been around for years.
  
>Command name completion (not filename) (possible, but not implemented)
And again.  It's implemented in System 7.
From: jyen@Apple.COM (John Yen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where to write to Apple
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:52:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) writes:
>Because complaining via 800 numbers isn't very productive.  If a lot of
>people are complaining, you'll have to sit on the phone for a long time to
>get to talk to anyone.  Once you do talk to someone, there's a good chance
>that they'll tell you "Oh, Really?  Gee, no one else has complained about
>that problem".  Then you'll go to the nearest Mac User's group meeting and
>find out that *EVERYONE* has been complaining to them.

>NOTE:  The above is a general observation, based on calling 800 numbers
>other than those of Apple.  I'm just explaining why some people might find
>it useful to complain via some other mechanism than an 800 number.  For all
>I know the person at Apple's 800 number is dutifully counting the number of
>people who call and voice their opinions on this matter.

Well...I haven't sat in on the 800 lines since January, but from reports by
other people (like my roommate last week), Apple's 800 line people still have
a database to record all problems they hear about.

Some of my work directly depends on the periodic reports they make, so I
hope they continue to do what I saw: put problems mentioned into the database
during and after each call.

If you're as precise as possible and don't flame, they'll probably be
perfectly happy to pass on what they hear.  Standard advice, 1 each, no
rebate.

John Yen  jyen@apple.com
yet another end user (well, not really)
#include <usual_boring_but_necessary_disclaimer>
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Executor: Running Mac Programs on a NeXT
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:19:02 GMT
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <6066.2ac71e5c@hayes.com>  writes:
>> Detractors will be happy to know that currently Executor has many  
limitations
>> including: No Color, No Sound, No AppleTalk, No Desk Accessories and no
>> Script Manager Support.  In addition, some programs run very well
>> some have quirks and some don't run at all.
>
>No Mac.

[Munch]

>As it stands, your emulator, while a rich technological acheivement,  
isn't
>even a Mac Plus yet. And those were discontinued, what, two years ago?


Hang on, here.  Executor is NOT a mac emulator in the strict sense of the  
term.  It is a shell that lets *programs* like Microsoft Word, Excel,  
etc., run cleanly on the NeXT.  Everyone I know who has gone from Mac to  
NeXT approves whole-heartedly of the NeXT interface.  If they wanted a  
Mac, they'd stick with a Mac.  But what they really want is a NeXT that  
can still run some old programs that they'd like to still use.  And that's  
exactly what Executor supplies.

I've used Executor too.  It's *really* good.

--

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: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:30:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.cenYZ__00iUx84mlAL
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 3-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by scott boyd@apple.com 
> No.  That's not how Macintosh works.  When you open a document from Finder,
> Finder can find the application (if it's available) anywhere on your disks.
> You never have to configure a "path" to be able to connect your documents
> to your applications.

I know that.  It's the same in OS/2 and in Windows.  What if you're
gonna run a disk utility, or a communications thing, or something which
doesn't have a file?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!Read/New/Followup
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:28:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep29.051039.24799@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
> There ARE things for which a CLI is preferable to a GUI.  
> As a Mac and UNIX fan, I must agree with this.

The former has not been shown. The use of "*" wildcards has been much
repeated, but the preference has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Are there any OTHER qualities which would make a CLI preferable to a
graphic user interface?

-- 
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: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:20:21 GMT

David Vandeven writes
> Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of the basic 
> features that define a REAL operating system.  Where is Memory
> protection?  A system level scripting language that isn't third
> party?  Preemptive multitasking?  Command-line shells?  All
> these are things that Apple has been promising us for years.
> 
> OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to
> workable GUIs.

NeXT has all these features and an _excellent_ GUI.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:08:29 GMT

In article: <1992Sep30.034753.10155@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

  [original author deleted]

  > >Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of
  > > the basic features that define a REAL operating system.
  > >Where is Memory protection?  A system level scripting
  > > language that isn't third party?  Preemptive multitasking?
  > >  Command-line shells?  All these are things that Apple has
  > > been promising us for years.

  [agreement deleted]
  
>Why wait?  You can already get that combination in a NeXT.

Why Wait?  You seem to forget that the real reason to get a computer
isn't for Preemptive multitasking, or system level scripting.  Sure
these are nice features to have, but you need to have a large
sofware base that supports the things you want a computer to do.


The NeXT is still a little short in this area, and some people
just don't WANT TO WAIT for the NeXT application market to 
improve.

[MGM]