HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:23:01 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep27.122135.22721@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <6048.2ac3a4e5@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> 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.

That remains to be seen. Windows 3.0 was added to the Apple / HP/MS lawsuit
sometime last year. 

The reason that most of the legal counts have been deflected have been the
laws interpretation of the above mentioned license agreement.

> The Windows GUI is significantly better designed than Apple's, 

<GACK!>

You must be using some unusual, non-standard definition of the word "better".

QUICK! What's the keyboard shortcut for copy and past? GACK!

> though the
> implementation and program interface suck dead gerbils through a dirty garden
> hose. 

I can't see how you can say it is better, if the interface is this bad.
Perhaps you meant the programming interface.

> The Windows GUI is about the only Microsoft designed software that's
> worth using. 

Using Windows is certainly TONS better than using DOS. I'll admit.

> Most of it is only suitable for compost... nope, not even that.
> It's not biodegradable.

Yeah. And how do you think us Mac-oids feel when 70% of the Macintosh
applications market is dominated by MS products? Go figure.

> 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.

The Xerox vs Apple suit was reduced to one count, and Xerox subsequently
withdrew it.

The problem is, Xerox has never acted to defend any of this intellectual
property. Part of the reason could be there was some unwritten agreement
between Xerox management and S. Jobs. 

Remember, Xerox and funded PARC for more than 10 years. It had failed to
produce a marketable product. (Read "Fumbling the Future" -- an excellent
book as to why Xerox management couldn't see the value of the technology
they had developed) Apple picked up where they left off. They added
significantly to Xerox's development. Yet their first attempt at a graphic
workstation was a failure (the Lisa). 

At the time when Jobs came around, Xerox management was probably glad to have
washed their hands of the whole PARC issue. 

-- 
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: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CUA. Yuck.
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:52:47 GMT
 <1aot96INNch@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <Bvn5L8.8t7@rice.edu>
 <1apgi4INN4dg@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <92279.175717ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>
 <CKD.92Oct5170338@loiosh.eff.org>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <CKD.92Oct5170338@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
says:
>
>ASI509> == ASI509  <ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>
>
> ASI509> While you can replace a 386sx with a IIsi it would be a bit
> ASI509> difficult to replace a 3090 with a Quadra.
>
>This is very true.  After all, if you did that, you'd have noplace to
>put the 10-ton air conditioning system, or the computer room's halon
>fire suppression system, or the "Very Big Red Switch".
>
 --
Or several hundreds of spare terminals. And you have to fire all but one of
their users.

Michael Bode.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:16:36 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct01.120625.11908@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu> kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) writes:
>> >Preemptive multitasking?
>> For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue. You can't word
>> process in the background.
> 
> Ever printed a large, complicated document in a page layout program or
> structured graphics program? I can work while I'm doing Postscript rendering
> (a very CPU-intensive task) without hassles. I couldn't do that on a Mac,
> or for that matter in Windows 3.1.

Ever tried it?

There's no technical reason why a Postscript rendering couldn't be performed
in a non-preemptive multitasking environment without significant impact
on other applications. 

I'm not familiar with Mac applications that do Postscript rendering on the
desktop computer. (LaserWriters do the rendering for printing) However,
there is no reason they couldn't cooperate with other applications during
this long process.

After all, MPW can share time with other Mac apps while it is compiling....

-- 
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: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:55:18
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<ddpzjd+@rpi.edu> <1992Oct05.025346.25485@NeoSoft.com>
	<1_rzbm#@rpi.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu's message of Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:01:07 GMT

In article <1_rzbm#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

   In article <1992Oct05.025346.25485@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
   |> You need to have a "current input stream", but it's not the same thing
   |> as a "foreground application". The primary application of interest is
   |> often not the one that owns the currently active window.

   Well, the names have been changed to protect the innocent, as they say. :)

   To be blatant, in the Mac, "current input stream" DOES equal "foreground
   application". Its the way the event manager works.

Well, *MY* understanding of what Peter is trying to say is this: 'foreground'
denotes that it is getting a larger share of processor time than 'background'.
'current input stream' means that key/mouse strokes are given to that app
first (but not necissarily *only* that app, if the app doesn't need it ... ).
For instance, say I was running a large spreadsheet and just set it to
calculating.  I need to get this done as fast as possible.  But I want to get
a quick game of Tetris in as well.  I don't care much about the game.  It
can run slowly and I really won't notice or care.  But having that spreadsheet
going at half speed while 2/3 of the processor time is spent moving Tetris
blocks down the screen -- *that* would annoy me.
If 'foreground' necessarily equals 'current input stream', I can either
play Tetris or get the spreadsheet done fast.  It would be great if I could
change these things around easily and on the fly.

   -- 
			   - 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.


		---- 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
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:40:50 EDT
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Is Apple a hardware company?

I'm curious what people think: Do you consider Apple to be primarily a
hardware vendor or software vendor? Sure, Apple sells hardware, but why do
people buy it?  Probably because the hardware comes with a set of MacOS ROMs.
(Feel free to disagree with this assessment :-)).

Do you think Apple would be a more profitable company if they had given up
hardware a few years ago and just concentrated on the MacOS? My guess is no,
because the selling of hardware makes Apple a more visible company and
tends to generate strong loyalty in customers.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw03.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 00:14:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.195836.12700@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:

Hi Dariusz. Long time no see.

|> In article <1992Sep28.230945.7683@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau) writes:
|> >>>In <strobl.717018085@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
|> >>
|> >>>>Well, I just yesterday made that very mistake, by dropping something on 
|> >>>>the editor icon without noticing that I had selected a full range
|> >>>>of files instead of a single file. The computer was busy for the
|> >>>>next twenty minutes and I had to spend an additional five minutes
|> >>>>to close all these unwanted windows. Yes, this was on a GUI
|> >>>>(neither Mac nor Windows). I don't think that an equally capable
|> >>>>GUI protects an user from shooting himself into his feet better
|> >>>>than a CLI. 
|> >
|> >	Y'know, on a Mac under Sys7 you can just press command-option-esc
|> >and kill any program, no matter what it's up to.  Maybe you should switch...
|> 
|> Does it belong to the GUI? Does it have a menu option or a button?
|> I was almost convinced that Mac interface is consistent...

There is a method to kill a program in the interface- teh Quit menu
option. The command-option-escape trick is usefull if for some reason
the "normal" UI-based methods do not work. (as in the above example);

Not to say that everything is like that. Rebuilding teh desktop has no
visible counterpart. :(

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

-- 
			- 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.
From: greg@applelink.apple.com (Greg Marriott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:42:10 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <dpenner.717568208@ee.ualberta.ca>, dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca
(Darren E. Penner ) wrote:
> 
> Even putting all else to the side, one has to admit the IBM are the INDUSTRY
> standard control device.  How many major factories, power plants and process
> control systems do you see macintoshes tied to ..
> 
> ALMOST NONE.

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.

My experience, on the other hand, provides a different answer since
my definition of "important work" is a little more broad.  Why, as a matter
of fact, I see one in front of me doing important work right now!  So, my
answer to your question is: one.
 
Greg Marriott
Blue Meanie
Apple Computer, Inc.

Disclaimer: My opinions are not necessarily the same as Apple's.
            (can a company even HAVE an opinion?)
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:05:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>All that hardware you bought for $2000 is going
>to be one very expensive silicon space heater.

How can hardware that is not tied to any ONE OS become a space heater?

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

Students also note that most PC systems today ship with Windows or you can get
it for about $50 when you buy the system.

Sammy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sienko@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Tanya Sienko)
Subject: Mac software on a NeXT (was:"official" FSF position on apple)
Summary: NeXTs can run a good mac emulator
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:14:36 GMT
Keywords: ARDI, executor, emulator, NeXT

(Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>
>There is of course, no such thing as a Macintosh compatible.  


It is worth noting that a mac emulator is available to run on NeXT computers.
ARDI has released a program called Executor which allows many mac programs
to run.  While this program is far from perfect as yet, it is still under
very active development and rapidly improving.  The company's first goal was
to get Word and Excel running flawlessly, and now they are tracking down the
loose ends in order to be able to run almost all mac software.  This is 
purely software emulation.  You don't need old mac ROMs or anything.  And
Apple's notorious legal department hasn't been able to find anything to sue
the company over.  Ardi is doing a very good job.

Also, while it is running as an emulator, it is FAST!  This is mostly because
of the NeXTs own speed, plus it has a compatible microprocessor.  Fom what I
hear, a NeXTstation Turbo runs the mac software from 6 to 20 times faster than
a mac II ci, depending on the application.

To top it off, the new NeXT operating system released last month will read
and write mac floppies (as well as IBM), and the system even supports
appletalk networking.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI  (there, I changed the subject ... )
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:03:20 GMT

In article <CKD.92Oct5132952@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
|> Peter> == Peter da Silva <peter@NeoSoft.com> 
[deletia- type/creator details]
|> 
|>  Peter> How would you repeat (say) a print command, with all options the
|>  Peter> same, on a different file?
|> 
|> A properly-written application should preserve print options as
|> defaults, so that if you set your YakWriter for draft mode with an extra
|> sledge and print "The Khan and I", if you then print out "Khan With The
|> Wind" it should still be in draft mode with an extra sledge, and you can
|> just hit the OK button (or return) to print it.

This isn't exactly true. the printer settings are stored on a document
basis, not an application basis, or a system wide basis. 
-- 
			- 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: chang hsu liu <cliu@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: multimedia platforms comaprison discussion request
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:43:16 GMT

It seems that there are a lot readers from other platforms read this
group. I am sure there are a lot people who have compared different
platforms in terms of their capabilities and expense in the application
of multimedia. For example, someone told me that the total expense for
equipment and software for multimedia is cheaper on a Mac than a IBM
machine two years ago. Is it still true now? If you have compared the
expense for multimedia stations in different platforms, can you post one
to the public?

The comparison may include the advantages/disadvantages of each platforms,
expenses, and other criteria you can think of? Mac, PC, Amiga, SUN, NeXT,
etc... can all be discussed.

Peter Liu
cliu@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
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: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 11:38:03 GMT

In article <ydkz3z#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> IMHO, your subordinate doesn't speak English. He speaks a limited
> pidgeon of swahili, with occasionaly English words thrown in. The
> gramar is minimal, and primitive where it does exist, the vocabular
> is near zilch. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to point the dude
> in the right direction? [ie, gesture?] Perhaps if you happened,
> just be chance, to have picture of a cup o' coffee lying around
> (now how'd that get there?)....

Fine, except he gets the coffee from room 221-A, and you'd rather have him g
to the third floor machine in 332-G because they clean their coffee maker
more often.

If he couldn't learn English, I'd fire him or learn pidgin.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Are there any NeXT user groups in Austin?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:02:24 GMT
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Distribution: austin
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu

Are there any NeXT user groups in Austin?  I would like to find meeting
times, etc.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
------------------------------------------------------------
|            (Insert standard disclaimer here)             |
|  I would rather have a frontal lobotomy than Windows NT! |
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:13:46 GMT

dvan@spumco.cts.com (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.

I strongly agree with all the above.  After working alot with Unix I can
really see the Macs weaknesses in these areas. A marriage of the Mac user
interface and Unix functionality would be an unbeatable combination.  I've
heard tha either the new PowerPCs will have these things or that "System 8"
will.  If the Mac doesn't get these features it is doomed to obsolesence.

>OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to workable GUIs. And
>whether the base consumer wants such technical functionality or not, these
>are features, and features are what sell systems/software to the unwashed
>masses. Apple should realize that OS/2 and Windows NT are its direct
>competitors.

Agreed again.  I think it's great that Mac prices keep going down but Apple
has to look at the big picture.  I think they still have a problem with that.
-Terry
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1047 comp.sys.mac.misc:17343 comp.sys.mac.system:12523
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM raw info
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:30:59 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct01.122021.12137@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[ Excellent summary of Processor Characteristics Deleted ]
> 
> See, you can't draw any simple lines. The whole design of the 8086 is
> different from any other modern CPU.

Peter,

I just wanted to say publicly that that is the best summary of microprocessor
characteristics I've seen in a long time. There's no overt analysis, and
the results are concise and unbiased. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

I also feel this "Which chip is better" debate is pointless. Having a good
microprocessor does not guarantee a good machine. It is the software that
counts.

Ten years ago, the choice of microprocessor in a personal computer might
still have been important. Today, it's a secondary consideration. Soon
enough it will be meaningless.

Thanks for putting this debate to bed so succinctly.

-- 
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: ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood)
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep19.125847.26718@cs.uow.edu.au> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
>Wade Williams <williw1@mail.auburn.edu> writes:

>> Of course Macintosh users were Multitasking before the PC World ever 
>> thought about it.

>Of course Amiga users were Multitasking for about 5 years before any other
>personal computer manufacturer at all thought about it.

When was this?  1978?  The Apple Lisa was preemptively multi-tasking in
1983.  Apple was (and still is) a personal computer manufacturer...



Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 03:14:10 GMT
Summary: Why bother flaming between Windows and Mac?

Geeze, the differences between Windows and Mac GUI internals are almost
impossible to see. Why not start looking at the file system differences.
There's where the Mac really shines: HFS might be weird and psychotic, but
it's better than the DOS FAT file system.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`