HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:39:55 GMT

In <strobl.717865111@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>There is nothing inconsistent about this state. Its a perfectly
>>good state. :) Nothing strange about it at all. If you do
>>a cut, it is part of what you want (ie, the selected stuff
>>goes away)

>:-)

>But you don't *want* it to go away. Most of the time, you just
>want to move it to another place. 

I think by definition, cutting is removing. If you don't want it
to go away, you ought to copy it.

>>|> Its all done in one,
>>|> single, atomic operation: the source cells become empty, and at the
>>|> same time their contents appear at the destination.

>>This is SPECIFICALLY what Cut+Paste was origionally devised
>>to avoid. After you "cut", the worksheet is in a special mode.

>If Excel would implement it the way you suggest, the mode that it
>would be in,  between cut and paste,  would be much more special, 
>because all cells which point into the cut out area would
>be dangling during that time. 

What?

>>This conversion, incidentally, is only done when the app is switched
>>into the background.

>This proves that the Mac OS wasn't designed for running multiple
>applications concurrently, from the very beginning, but for 
>application swapping, with only one visible, running application.

Granted. It was proved 9 years ago.

>I have nothing against simplicity, but it's my impression that
>the simple minded clipboard implementation on the Mac is a 
>bug (a short-sighted design) sold as a feature. Same for the
>single menu bar at the top of the screen. 

You guys just don't get it. It has clearly been shown that the
Macs menus are infinitely easier to access than those on any other
paltform. I don't see how you can call this a bug or short-sighted.
What is short sighted is interface designers designing an entire
interface with such an inferior design for one of the most fundamental
aspects. It makes you wonder how little Windows was designed with the
user mind.

About this cut and paste thing: cutting and pasting in Excel sucks.
I used Excel 8 hours a day this summer and still never got the hang
of having to perform the paste before doing anything else. How in the
world can the clipboard be empty after cutting or copying something
to it. This makes no sense. I couldn't even figure out a decent way
to get out of the stupid cut/copy mode. I hate to use the word intuitive,
but this implementation of cut/copy/paste is most definitely not.
If one needs to paste in different formats or to different apps (as
couldn't the clipboard just include some instructions on how the cut
or copy was made. If this is how cut/copy/paste works in all of Windows
(which I'd be surpirsed if it did) I'd puke if I'd have to use it.

>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>

Pat Breitenbach		patb@mcl.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:25:16 GMT

In article <ibhan.718038875@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>>In article <qdkzdx#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>> This conversion, incidentally, is only done when the app is switched
>>> into the background.
>
>>Why is there such a thing as the "background"?
>
>Because humans are usually only able to deal with one application at a time.

Tell that to any manager who needs to talk to five people at the same time
sometimes.

Regards,

Dariusz Bolski
-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 25 Sep 92 23:49:17 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep23.162447.16331@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 890139w@dragon.acadiau.ca (John Weatherbie) writes:
> 
> I have a similar story.  I really fast high end computer with a large hard drive
> and lotsa memory, a good sized screen, and a nice color video card and I only paid 2000 dollars.  When I told this to one of the mac people here at work, they
> said "wow, where did you find a great deal like that".  I said "Oh ,it wasn't 
> a mac it was something expandable, configurable and not overpriced" :)

To which I return to my theory that PC types are excited by hardware, whereas
Mac folks are more concerned with software issues.

Your message proves my point. All that hardware you bought for $2000 is going
to be one very expensive silicon space heater.

Students, note that John has neglected to include software with his computer.

QED.

-- 
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: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 03:05:48 GMT

In article <zcpzw8_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> |> OK, the one in 221-A is clean, but the regular secretary is on vacation
> |> and it's got Folgers instead of fresh-ground. My subordinate doesn't know
> |> Folgers from Hills Bros.

> Well, on the Macintosh, you subordinate DOES.

I *own* a Macintosh, and use them pretty much, and in my experience he
*doesn't*. I have to explain things in as much detail as I would in Swahili,
and it takes longer because I have to draw pictures instead of just talk
pidgin.

Maybe it's because the last guy to work with the subordinate thought I was
an idiot, or what, but I really hate having to repeat a sequence of mouse
motions. And don't tell me to use a mouse action journalling program, because
it screws up when I move a window.

> That's what I was
> saying before. Creating more details of this sort wont help. Even
> if your subordinate didnt, you can explicitly tell it what to do-
> in GUIland, that means drag the document onto the application,
> or launch the app and use a standard file box to do it.

That's just drawing another picture. What I want to do is (say) have
MacDraw (or the latest equivalent) save a document in a Postscript file.
How do you automate that, pray tell?

> |> It's less awkward than pictures and charades. And certainly less limited.

> Don't forget you can mix words into the charades (commands into the
> direct manipulation).

If you're putting commands in, you're using a CLI. Which is my whole point:
a CLI plus a GUI is better than either. Sheesh... all this to prove we agree?

> |> > 		this seems to be what you hve done.

> |> Yep. The learning curve is steeper, but you only have to climb it once.

> one per app.

Hey, all the apps provide the same basic interfaces. Most of them work fine
in a pipeline. That's the point.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:794 comp.sys.mac.misc:17150
From: bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Marketing Survey (Help me with a class)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:31:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.


I'm posting this for a friend who can't post to any of the comp.sys.mac.*
groups directly.  Please send any replies to larry@lablues.UUCP, _not_
to me (bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu or bazyar@csn.org).
--
>>From: lablues!larry@mother.bates.edu (Lawrance A. Schneider)

Could you help me????  Please place this on the equivelent of c.s.a2
for the Mac.  I've tried, but have had no sucess.  I do not know the
name of the Mac version of c.s.a2, so please fill it in for me.

Thanks              Larry

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

I am doing a project for my _Marketing_ class.  I'd like you to answer
the following questions.  The answers will be on a sliding scale of 0
- 9 with "0" being STRONGLY DISAGREE and "9" being in TOTAL AGREEMENT.
  PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT the questions; simply answer like this via. 
E-mail:

                    "
                    A)  ?
                    A1) ?
                    C)
                    etc."

If a question does not apply, DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!  If you'd
like to make a comment, please do so at the end of the questionnaire. 
The idea is to keep bandwidth to a minimum.

I'd like to thank you in advance!                 Larry


A)  I think Apple Computer supports the Mac to a sufficient degree.

A1) I think Apple Computer supports the Apple II to a sufficient
degree.

A2) I think Apple Computer will do to the Mac the same thing it did to
the Apple II, III and Lisa.

A3) I bought (would buy) a Mac because of my positive experience with
my Apple II.

B)  I bought (would buy) another new Mac from Apple Computer.

B1) I dislike Apple Computer.  However, I bought (would buy) a used
Mac because of my positive experience with my first Mac.

C)  I will buy (have) another computer.  It will be (is) a ????
because a Mac simply will not do what I need(ed) to do.

C1) I will buy (have) another computer.  It will be (is) a ????
because I dislike Apple Computer.

D)  When asked, I speak well of Apple Computer.

D1) When Asked, I speak well of my Mac.

D2) When asked, I speak well of an Apple II.

Please indicate that you read this on c.s.mac.???

-------

Make sure you have my sig. on the end.            Thanks again

Larry


InterNet: larry@lablues.UUCP
FidoNet:  1:132/300 Larry Schneider

0 ----> Kernel ----> Ring    207=379-3181
           ^         ^   
The         \       /     Larry Schneider 
"Clearly"    \     /      Bright Software
Functor       \   /        P. O. Box 120
commutes        0       Exeter, ME 04435-0120

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649
From: tomster@banzai.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:01:59
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<ewright.717698297@convex.convex.com> <4x_pa6g.marquis@netcom.com>
	<ewright.717748698@convex.convex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:38:18 GMT

In article <ewright.717748698@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:


   In <4x_pa6g.marquis@netcom.com> marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:

   >BYTE not biased towards the Mac?  Whatever gave you this idea?  I find
   >BYTE heavily biased towards the Mac.

   Oh, sorry, I forgot.  A couple times a year, Byte actually dares
   to publish an article about the Mac.  Why, sometimes those Mac fanatics
   will devote as many as five or six pages, out of a few hundred, to the
   Mac.  Shocking!  Why it's not even Politically Correct!

   >Please explain how System 7's Interapplication Communications are
   >better than those found in UNIX.  This should be interesting.

   Why?  Someone who complains that any magazine that is less than
   99.99999% devoted to PCs is "heavily biased toward the Mac" is
   obviously not interested in the facts and probably wouldn't stop
   frothing long enough to listen.


Okay.  *pulls out the Byte mag beside his desk*  Let's have a look, eh?

August 1992 issue of Byte.  I'd give a more recent example if I could, but this
is the most recent I have.

Articles mentioning pc's in their name and/or pc-only products:
	Back-it for Windows, Premium Exec 386sx/25c, Norton Desktop for DOS:
		all on page 46.
	OS/2 2.0: a mixed blessing: page 247.
	NEC's Notebook Comprimises for Color: page 253.

Articles mentioning Mac products explicitly in their names:
	Microbytes, Apple's strategy, which just started shaping up in mid-1990
		is paying dividends: Page 18.
	Mac LC II: The Sequel : Page 261.
	LETTERS: kudos to Mac programming ...: Page 16.

Wow.  That sure is 99.999% pc related!
The kicker is, there are just as many articles on Unix and RISC computers
as on Macs and pc's.  Therefore, I don't think BYTE can be said to have much 
of a bias at all when it comes to doling out attention equally amongst the
platforms.  True, there are more articles relating to Macs than te share
of the market they hold, but I can live with it.
This is a stupid argument.
quit it.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu



--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:20:03 GMT

Um, so far as I can tell the OS/2 GUI is virtually identical to Windows.
Heaps better OS, and probably better apps, but the GUI is the same.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 17:49:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


It seems that there are 3 things being discussed here.
	1) The GUI vs CLI,
	2) mice vs keyboards, and
	3) a restricted interface vs an open interface.

--- GUI VS CLI
Most of the things you can do with a GUI can also be done quite well
with a CLI: point and click, drag and drop, cut and paste, scroll
bars, etc.  You may need a little more screen real-estate in some
cases but the bit-maps do not add that much more functionality.  Most
Mac/Windows programs can be easily rewritten for a character based
interface, if there was a demand.

--- MICE VS KEYBOARD
I find a heavy reliance on point and click menus to be insulting to
my intelligence.  I can Alt-F (File), Alt-O (Open), Tab, Arrow, Arrow,
Arrow, <return> to select a file faster than anyone can do the same
with a mouse 100% of the time.  More nested menu choices amplify this
difference.  It may take a bit more time to get used to using the
keyboard, especially if you don't type well, but the small investment
pays off 1000 times over in time spent pointing and clicking.
Programs that do not offer keystroke alternatives are assuming that
their users are either too lazy to get used to a keyboard or don't
care if it takes longer to perform an operation with the mouse.  When
manipulating the mouse takes longer than optimal that's the OS _getting
_I_ want to make the decision which is better for a given operation.
For many things a mouse is _more_ efficient.  Graphics, scroll bars, etc.
Again, the _option_ of using a mouse should be available.

--- OPEN VS RESTRICTED SYSTEMS
A good GUI like the Mac's is great for getting a reluctant
computer-phobe up to speed quickly.  It's also good for people who use
their computers very infrequently or who are predisposed against
learning new commands.  Given these positives, and the fact that the
Mac has such a good looking GUI, there are a good number of people who
are best served by the Mac platform.  This is not saying that it's the
GUI that is responsible for these positives.  Rather the strict
enforcement of a rigid interface without access to any command line or
system programming interface should take the credit.

The crux of this argument is: just how much of a trade off are you willing
to make (flexibility and extensibility vs short learning curve).  Are
you sure you can forever do without the ability to write a batch program
which can automate 100 points and clicks to get the benefit of a good
looking and consistent interface?

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:31:47 GMT

A CLI is definitly faster than a GUI when the GUI don't offer you a way to 
efficiently use your keyboard (like the Macincrash GUI). 
In the first hours you will be using the mouse, but later, when you learn 
the system, most people like to use the keyboard to execute their most 
frequently commands. Besides, you don't get a 'mouse-elbow' when you don't 
have to constantly switch between mouse and keyboard.

Besides, it is often *VERY* convenient to put frequently 
used combinations of commands into scripts/macros/etc for later use, but I 
have yet to see any GUI's that's can do that!

Just my 0.02$ worth!

                               }  } {  {
/-------------------------------}  }  { /----------------------------------\
| Rune Halfdan Holst Huseby      }  {  |  S-Mail: Atomveien 18             |
|  ____________________________   }{   |          1777 HALDEN              |
| (_____(_runeh@dhhalden.no____###)    |          NORWAY                   |
|-------------------------------------/ \----------------------------------|
| Real programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around   |
| at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.                            |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:09:21 GMT

In article <6105.2acc370e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> System 7 features: 
> * Scalable fonts (Windows has, OS/2 not)

AmigaOS 2.0 has.

> * InterApplication communication, with provisions for App to App communications
>   using standard terminology (AppleEvents), on the same machine or over a
>   network. (Windows not, OS/2 not)

AmigaOS 2.0 has, though the networking is 3rd party. Actually AmigaOS 1.1 had
this.

> * Support for the localization of Sorting order, Data and Time formats,
>   currency, measurement, calenders and numbers (Not, Not)

AmigaOS 2.1 has.

> * Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
>   static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 

Standard formats for data has been one of the Amiga's strong points.

> * Support for timing to the millisecond level (Time Manager) (Not, Perhaps)

Yes.

> * Aliases. (Not, Perhaps under HPFS?)

Hard and soft links (which cover most of the same territory).

> * Automatic slot conflict resolution (NuBus and Slot Manager) (Not, Not)
>   ( MCA helps, but it isn't automatic )

Yes, but that's hardware.

Not everything, but pretty much considering that it'll run on a $300 computer.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:37:26 GMT

nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>taihou@chromium.iss.nus.sg (Tng Tai Hou) writes:

>>>    When I moved my mouse and windows from one monitor to another, one
>>>    of them suddenly asked, "How did you do that?!!" He was absolutely
>>>    floored by the expanded desktop. These guys have no clue.
>[...]
>>I regularly have people assume I'm using two computers when they see the two
>>monitors on my Mac IIx.
>[...]
>>This is the kind of thing that really shows the Mac superiority over the
>>run of the mill PC clone. (Nan -- can you do this in OS/2?) 

>No, but this is a hardware issue.  But I won't try to weasle out of it
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>by saying no one uses such feature, I concede that Macs are superior in
>this area.

sorry nan, not hardware. It's simply a clever software implementation. you
CAN do this with PC's with enough programming. and enough money, exasperation
and sweat. In software. No need for hardware.

If you look closely at the mac, the screen positions are software-settable
as well... All it does is check to see when the mouse falls off the edge
of the screen... etc.

daniel
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:05:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.717717643@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> 
> You got me wrong. The fact that Windows had good multi-application
> support long before the Mac did, dosn't mean that this advantage has
> to be exploited in each and every case.

The Mac had good multi-application support in 1987. When did Windows get
it? 1991? 

Oh sure, you could run multiple applications in Windows 2. Problem was,
there WEREN'T any Windows applications to run....

-- 
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.

Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1140 comp.sys.mac.hardware:18304 comp.sys.mac.misc:17374
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:00:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

greg@applelink.apple.com (Greg Marriott) writes:

>Well, since your definition of "important work" seems to exclude everything
>in the world except process control, I guess your answer of "almost none"
>is right on the mark.

Maybe "important work" should be "flexible work".  The PC's are infinitely more
flexible than Macs.  There are more tools for PC's.  Macs simply are not
hardware-flexible enough to meet the needs of a lot of real-world applications.
In office automation, Macs excel due to their user friendly OS, not their 
hardware.  Heck, you can get a PC on a 3x5 card nowadays.  Macs can't approach
this because only one company innovates Mac Hardware, APPLE!


                                                               o
Sam Blackburn                                                    \
Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
                                          ||===================\=\===||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy