HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 22:53:56 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.

People are usually able to deal with one *activity* at a time, but saying
they can only deal with one application at a time is like saying they
can only deal with one utensil at a time.

Right now I'm watching a program convert some sagans of lines of PL/M
to C in two windows (one logging the include files, the other error messages)
while editing the source of the translator in one window and compiling in
another. Earlier I was running a font editor, an application using the
custom font I was editing, and the same compiler and editor windows.

Each of these needs as much of the CPU as they have use for, and I sure
don't want the converter thrown into the "background" because I pulled
up the editor... or the mail or news programs.

By the way, I'm also using 3 systems over the network and another system
(with three concurrent interactive shells: doing FTPs while I'm typing
into news) that's 20 miles away. I can also call up my home computer and
check my mail there.

And all this becomes one big application in my mind called "what I am
doing now". I didn't buy a computer to wait while it's screwing around
with the printer or whatever. The only computers I own that *doesn't* have
a better operating system under it than the Mac are a videogame machine
(Atari 800) and my Mac.

Use the best tool for the job. Sometimes that's more than one tool.
-- 
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?
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:27:30 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <gbhz=jl@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> 
> |> --- MICE VS KEYBOARD
> |> I find a heavy reliance on point and click menus to be insulting to
> |> my intelligence.
> 
> This always confuses me. WHY do you think a particular
> UI arrangement is ->insulting<-? I could follow thinking
> it was stupid, slow, rigid, etc. But instulting? Its not
> like its sez "Roger Maruis is a dweeb" at the top of 
> each window or someting. :)

I think this is a reaction to the psycological reality that the graphic
interface takes less cognitive effort than a CLI. QED.

Really. It is like their subconcious is saying, "Hey, this is easy. That's
not right. Using a computer is supposed to be hard. This must be childish.
I'm insulted."

-- 
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: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 04:06:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.235005.3816@ncsa.uiuc.edu> kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) writes:
> 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? 

> Um, yes.

> >I can work while I'm doing Postscript rendering
> >(a very CPU-intensive task) without hassles. I couldn't do that on a Mac,

> Um, why not?

Because unless I got gobs of memory, I'd run out. Or my mouse response would
get jerky, or the printer would get timeouts.

> PrintMonitor spools the document in background, while I do other work.
> (PrintMonitor *is* somewhat buggy. There are documents that for some
> reason die with Postscript errors when PrintMonitor is in the background,
> but print fine when PrintMonitor is the foreground app. Yes, that utterly
> defeats the purpose of a print spooler, but that's bugs with PrintMonitor,
> not an inherent limitation of cooperative multi-tasking.)

Actually, it *is* the inherent limitation... system performance becomes tied
to the quality of the least well designed application. I can have apps not only
crash but get into infinite loops and still keep working. Without any slowdown
in the rest of the system because that infinite loop only gets to run when
I have nothing better to do.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kim@i812.enet.dec.com
Subject: Future color Powerbooks?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 30 SEP 92 11:44:58 EST


Does anyone know if Apple has plans to make a Powerbook w/ a color screen?
It could use tech. similar to the Atari Lynx, which has a full color LCD
screen.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:39:23 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct5.140712.997@yvax.byu.edu>, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
> 
> At any rate, I don't think that an effective argument can be made for  
> *prefering* cooperative multitasking over preemptive multitasking for  
> everything but very unusual tasks, simply because cooperative multitasking  
> has a BIG BAD side-effect:  because it allows programs to grab 100% of the  
> time-slices, programs can grab 100%.  

I think the point of the original posting demonstrated this side effect isn't
always BAD. Indeed, when the machine is limited in CPU power, sacrificing 
some background operation for smooth foreground operating is an effective
trade off.

> The other nasty is that programs have to be written to multitask 
> efficiently, yet another problem a programmer has to face in addition 
> to the multitude of stuff the Mac GUI already imposes in terms of 
> program-making-toughness.

It really isn't difficult to make a Mac applicaiton multitask efficiently.
You just have to adopt an event-driven system. 

My experience with developing real-time systems has shown that it is 
substantially simpler to implement a correct real-time system using 
events in a non-preemptive system than in a pre-emptive one. With a 
pre-emptive system, any component in the system can cause a system-wide
failure. (eg grab a semaphore and fail to release it, or simply fail
to complete processing) These types of situations are nearly impossible
to correctly debug.

We're not talking speed or efficiency here, but quality. 

I'm not entirely sure how this applies to multi-tasking OSs. But building
a non-preemptive system can actually be easier than building a preemptive one.

I think that too much emphasis in college CS curriculum is placed on
pre-emptive tasking / virtual machines. There are other reasonable
solutions to the same problem. Just because one solution is more 
"technically sophisticated" doesn't mean it is "better."

-- 
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.

Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 1992 15:09:13 -0400 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mac's Doomsday

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 4-Oct-92 Re: Mac's Doomsday
by Chris Trimble@uiuc.edu 
> Everyone must ask himself (or herself) what Windows NT is in response to.
> And after thinking for .01 seconds, you'll come to the conclusion that NT is
> in response to the growth NeXTStep and/or preemptive multitasking systems,
> just as Apple's Pink is. So since Apple and Microsoft are both jumping on
> this bandwagon, I don't think that this is really going to hurt Apple in that
> NT will be much better than Windows 3.1. What WILL hurt Apple is that NT is
> going to come out much sooner than Pink is. 

I'm not so sure about this.  Yes, NT is going to have pre-emptive and
multi-threaded multitasking.  However, as far as I can see, it's going
to be sold more as a networking operating system.  This can be shown
with the included apps.  NT will inlude the same basic stuff as 3.1: Win
Write, the calander program, the calculator.  Basically all they did for
that was port the 16-bit stuff to 32-bit.  However, NT also includes
basically all the networking that anyone in the world can use.  It's got
TCP/IP, their own Lan Manager (or whatever), netware (I'm told), etc. 
The only thing they don't include is Appleshare, which isn't that big
(at least compared to the ones I mentioned).  It's got support for peer
networking built in.  Also, when you boot up for example, it asks you to
login.  Then you have to logoff etc.  It includes C2 security, which
basically means that the file system will be able to assign security
according to the user.  It lets you login as "root" a la Unix.  Etc. 
And you get all this as soon as you're done installing it the first
time, no extra packages, nothing.
However, NT will have the same interface as 3.1.  Thus, it won't be for
any new users; NT is an answer to those who said that networking in
win3.0 and 3.1 is too hard.  And it just so happens that when they were
making their new Networked Windows, OS/2 2.0 was released, Pink was
started, Unix started getting some fame, NeXTStep 486 was announced etc,
so Microsoft put in the 32-bit stuff.  It's main purpose was to be a
"user-friendly" networking operating system.

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Windows better than Mac (at least one way)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 12:10:56 GMT

In article <ewright.717837425@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> if you're trying to figure out what that funny-looking doohicky is
> on the screen,

I thought the whole point of those funny-looking doohickeys was to avoid
sending the user running to the manuals... if they're poorly chosen then
I'd rather the application author fix them.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`
From: tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why the fuss???
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:05:11 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

unimelb.edu.au writes:
>
> Having just read this news-group for the first time I have come to the
> conclusion that it should be called loony.advocacy.comp.sys.
 [ much deleted ]
> I can think of mach better things in life to get emotional about (and if
> you can't then its time to switch off your Mac and try a brand new game:
> its called going out meeting people and GETTING A LIFE)

Speaking of getting a life.  We look into this newsgroup because we are
interested in what is being said, and because we get a hell of a lot of good
information and opinions.

We're not the ones cruising newsgroups in which we have no interest just to
flame so we can get noticed by others.  I think you should take your own
advice, and while you're at it, here's a hobby you can take up:
learning to spell, or learing to type, I mean "I can think of mach better"
"its time" come on, man, get with it!
Chris in Montreal
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! .NOT.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 20:06:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1657@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
>>>  drivel deleted ...
>> 
>> Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
>
>Name *ONE*.

How about network servers?  Dial-in servers?  Database platforms?  
Inexpensive and non-proprietary terminal servers?  Anything that
requires system programming (batch files).  

>> 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.
>
It depends on what you mean by applications.  It would be difficult to
argue that anything, on any platform, is easier to write a simple
application under than Visual Basic.

>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

Are you serious Bill?  Mac's cheaper than PCs?  Wasn't it less than 2
years ago that the cheapest Ethernet option on a Mac cost nearly
$1000 vs. $100 on a PC?  I don't expect proprietary hardware
platforms will ever approach open systems in cost, not to mention
development time, number of available applications, and hardware options, 
especially with 8 expansion slots.  Heck, if it wasn't for Apple's fleet 
of lawyers I would even be able to chose MacOS as one of my software options 
instead of just DOS, Windows and UNIX.

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:45:40 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <QelMEsq00VAt89N9BV@andrew.cmu.edu>, fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> Now the stupid part. You know that all programmers do? You guessed it, they
>> name their files <whatever>.c. Duh. Tradition.
> 
> reasons to name things with standard suffixes
> 1.  so the project is organized like any other project for that language, 
> thus any programmer can look at it regardless of whether he is a mac weenie

Except that THINK C is designed to compile Mac programs. And programming
in C for the Mac is complicated enough that you at least have to have the
dedication of a Mac Weenie.

> 2.  so that if one moves the files to another system one can recompile
> without having to remember what's a library and what's a this and
> what's a that

Oh? And what if the other file system doesn't like things like spaces or
other characters in the file name? I'm sure using the <pi> character is
also done for compatability. (NOT!)

> 3.  because it's much easier to put .c on the end of anything than to
> write 'source code'

Why do you have to put anything? It is obvious from the icon that the
file is source code. It is probably obvious from the files location that
it is source code. 

> 4.  portability

Again, same as number 1 or number 2. Same arguments can be used against it.

> 5.  space

Leaving off the ".c" would save exactly two characters of space.

> 6.  ease of use - programmers are used to seeing .c on the end of
> source, etc.

TRADITION!

> 7.  so quiche eaters get confused (see footnote 1)

Huh?

> i could bother to explain why this whole theory is bunk, but i've had
> to do it 4 times in the past two weeks, so three days ago i went and
> looked up the kill file system for our stupid mail system and now i
> just KILL people who tell me that it's easier to do everything with a
> mouse

Looks like you forgot to add me.

> An ideal GUI lets you use multiple CLI's (command line interface)
> along with multiple Graphically Interative Application's at once, 
> so you can do things like this while maintaining all the advantages 
> of a gui.

How about a graphic user interface with all the power of a CLI, without having
the CLI? Surely it would be easier and simpler to have something you can
see, on the screen and interact with than to constantly come up with 
these repetitive command strings.

-- 
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: cheshire@cs.stanford.edu (Stuart Cheshire)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: No more free OS upgrades?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:43:40 -0500
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <CMM.0.90.2.716726718.werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> Werner
Uhrig, werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu writes:
>So if you feel like letting Apple know what you think about this,
>use your imagination ...

The reason that I can write software for the Mac which REQUIRES System 7
is because the only excuse not to run it is refusal to buy more RAM, in
which case I say fine, don't run my software then.

The reason that PC software rarely uses any new technology, and is still
backwards compatible to DOS 1.0, and still can't do anything which might
need more than 640K RAM, is because it is hard to insist that users go
out and buy every latest release of DOS.

Just remember, PCs still don't come as standard with microphones,
digitized sound playback capability, multiple monitor desktop capability,
network connections, File Sharing, etc. Hell, most PCs don't even come
with SCSI ports as standard yet, and I've met people who still think that
3.5 inch disks are a novel idea. Things advance very slowly in the PC
world.

If Apple doesn't make its System Software updates free (or nominal) to
all its users, then I will not program to use ANY of the new features, on
the basis that most people won't have them available.

If programmers don't use the new features, then there is no point for
ANYONE to go out and buy Apple's new system software. If no-one buys it,
then Apple makes no money, and the Mac simply stagnates and stops
advancing in technology.

Apple's on a roll -- next time you are on an aeroplane walk along the
aisle and count the PowerBooks -- so please Apple, don't change a winning
formula.

(But on the other hand, I'm not in this for the religion. I have no
prejudice. If Apple drops the ball, and Microsoft succeeds in picking it
up, then I'll port Bolo to Windows NT instead.)

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@cs.stanford.edu>
 * Liliore Green Rains Houses Resident Computer Coordinator
 * Stanford Distributed Systems Group Research Assistant
 * Macintosh Programmer

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@rs6115.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:07:05 GMT

In article <1acv6sINNa3n@travis.csd.harris.com>, jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
|> I want to respond to one point made in this discussion.
|> 
|> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
|> > ...is a 
|> > bug (a short-sighted design) sold as a feature. Same for the
|> > single menu bar at the top of the screen. 
|> 
|> and johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) responds:
|> > ...I agree the single menu bar isn't
|> > a good idea on a multitasking system; too confusing. But it's
|> > too late now.
|> 
|> A single menu bar at the top of the screen has one big advantage: it provides
|> a target of "infinite vertical height" for the mouse pointer.  When you move
|> the mouse to the menu bar, you don't have to worry about vertical placement, 
|> you just slam the pointer against the top of the screen.  This makes
|> menu selection quicker, since you only have to worry about horizontal 
|> positioning.  Menu bars inside windows provide a much smaller target, and
|> so the target is harder to hit, slowing you down.

I agree! I know! Don't shoot! :)
I know its faster. I just don't think its worth it
[buts it's a close call imho]

|> Besides, you can only interact with one application at a time, so why is
|> it so bad for a multi-tasking OS to show only the menus for the active
|> application?  I am fairly certain that the NeXT does this, (even though 
|> it doesn't use a menu bar), and the NeXT was certainly designed for
|> multitasking.

The problem is that it means that a "layer" is INVISIBLE. You CANT see
an app that has no windows, unless it is at the front. This is
confusing to new users (who close the window and think thats it) and
makes it harder to see what apps are open for anyone.

This could be solved wo/ removing the menu bar from the top
of the screen, if closing all windows DID close the app (or something
like that), but so far the best solition I've seen actually availiable
to this is menu-bars-in-windows;

-- 
			- 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: jfw@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:30:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: jfwhome.BvJs7p.1I4
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us

In <6112.2acc701e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.115048.11563@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> That's an implementation problem. I already *said* the implementation sucked
>> dead gerbils. I'd certainly rather use a Mac than a Windows box for real
>> work (and I recommend so). 
>I don't understand your reasoning. You're saying that the Mas is better for
>real work than Windows, but you still think Windows is "better designed." 
>I don't see how this can be.

That's because you don't understand what Windows was designed for.  It was
not designed to make X86 systems easier to use.  It was designed to convince
legions of pinheaded PC weenies who've never seen another computer that GUI's
aren't all they're cracked up to be, and that what they REALLY want is for
Microsloth to crank out grosser and uglier DOS versions until the sun explodes.
Sucking dead gerbils through a straw is *not* a bug in Windows, it is a
*feature*.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:50:15 GMT

Most of these features of Macs are common to any modern personal computer.
It's just a pity that so many people are stuck in the dark ages with MSDOS
and its clones and lookalikes.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Segodnja volka obnimal?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy