X-Envelope-to: spssx-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"spssx-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.spssx-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:30:00 EST
Reply-To:     Brian Pickerill <00BKPICKERIL@BSUVAX1.BITNET>
From:         Brian Pickerill <00BKPICKERIL@BSUVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Mac SPSS discussion -- 227 lines

OK, Folks,

There's been a lot of discussion lately about Mac SPSS.  I've kept some
of the mail, and have decided to respond to it all at once.  Here goes...

On Fri, 24 Jan 1992 14:57:00 EST GILBERT KLAJMAN SAID:

->Along with other readers of the industry press, I, too, have been watching
->what, to me, seems an enormous amount of hyperbolic advertising in favor of
->the Windows environment.  I have windows on my machine, of course, but I've
->disabled it (except for the playing of a rare game of solitaire).

Since MS practically gave it away in an attempt to make it a standard, lots of
people have it.  Most though, seem to have had experiences similar to yours.
Windows makes some real improvements to the DOS environment, but is still bound
by it in a number of ways, and is, in my opinion at least, CERTAINLY no
comparison to Macintosh.

->Is there something that an SPSS running under windows could let us do beyond
->the DOS version?  Frankly, if I wanted a MAC, I would have bought a MAC.  But
->perhaps I'm missing something, here.  Any thoughts?

Is there SOMETHING?  Spend a few weeks comparing the mainframe version to your
PC+ manual.  I'm afraid I don't have time to write about it all.  Frankly, Gil,
no one is going to force you to get a Mac.  Just don't take mine!

                             *** *** ***

On Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:57:13 EST, Dave Slaw Said:
->Subject: replacing the ANY function.

->Dear SPSSX-Lers,
->  In a few recent posts some ppl have been looking for a substitue for
->the ANY function that does not seem to be available for the PC version of
->SPSSX.

I wish people would stop calling SPSS/PC+ a "version" of SPSS.  It's not
a version of SPSS in that real versions have the full capabilities
of SPSS.  It's a separate product that has a lot of similarities to the
real thing.  Furthermore, SPSSx IS a VERSION of SPSS.  It's outdated now,
so why is the list still called the SPSS(x) discussion list, shouldn't it be
called the SPSS discussion list?  No big deal, but it seems odd to me.  I
suppose "SPSSx" is a catchy name, and using it avoids the confusion of
wondering whether someone means the product or the company.

->Try this instead:
->****************************************
->  Return 1 if the value of ARG matches
->  one of the items in a list, otherwise
->  return 0.
->****************************************

->compute ANY = 0
->compute ARG = x  /* /
->!let !l = !length(!arg2)   /* how many argument in the search list? */
->!do #i = 1 to !l   /* go through the lie vector */
->+  do if (temp(i) = ARG)  /* is this the one? */
->+    compute ANY = 1   /* yep, found it.  */
->+    break    /* no need to look farther so get out. */
->+   end if          /* keep going until the end of the list */
->end loop

->I realize that this will be tedious if you have to use it many times.  I have
->not written any macros in SPSSX but you might try the above code within a
->macro:

->define in (arg1 = !tokens(1)/ arg2 = !cmdend) /* 1 arg + a list of args */
->!let !ANY = 0       /* ANY is initiallyst */
->!if (!arg1 eq !head(!arg2))    /* is the first one in the list the one? */
->   !then !let !ANY = 1   /* yes, so set ANY to true */
->   !break          /* quit.  no need to look any more */
->!else    /* nope not found yet */
->   !let !arg2 = !tail(!arg2) /* discard the front element of the list */
->!ifend
->!doend
->!enddefine

->Since I have not actually used macros before I don't know if this will work.
->I am particularly unsure if ANY will be passed back and can be used
->in further processing.  Any way, it may get you pointed in the right direction
   .

->This is one of the reasons I have switched over to SAS!  It handles data
->much better than SPSS.  Sorry die hards.  I have a programmers background
->and really like things to be intuitive.  SPSS is not intuitive to me.

I admit I haven't used spss/pc+ for a couple of years, but I don't think I
recall that it could do VECTORS, and I'm positive than no version of spss/pc+
can handle macros, so why write a macro that is a workaround for ANY?  IF
statements would work, but the POINT is that ANY and functions like it are
some of the best parts of SPSS since version x (10).  ANY is a great function
BECAUSE it doesn't require 10 lines of code and a ton of comments to use
and understand.  Adding all that code can be challenging and fun, but it just
makes your programs harder to read and more error prone in the long run.

If you like SAS, you are better off using a PC than a Mac. (There's no real
version of SAS for the Mac, though they have a Mac stat visualization
product called JMP.)  I hope though, that you don't mind paying YEARLY FEES
for using SAS.

                      *** *** ***

On Thu, 09 Apr 92 15:47:14 EST, Murph Sewall Said:

On 04/09/92 you said:
->>Given that the "job size" is defined to be too large to run on PCs, i.e.
->>too many variables or cases, or the run time would be prohibitive. What
->>RS/6000 or SUN Sparc models can support 20 interactively based users
->>running "SPSS/PC Prohibitive" jobs?

->My personal experience is that Mac SPSS on a IIci delivers about the
->same wall clock execution time to one individual as SPSS-X on an IBM
->ES/9000 shared with 600 or so others (the mainframe's CPU times are only
->a couple of seconds, but the time from submission to output is
->comparable to what a Mac delivers).

My Mac IIcx is getting a bit long in the tooth, but it can keep up with
the overloaded university VAX quite well.  The cx was discontinued some
time ago and is considerably slower than Murphy's ci (not to mention his
Quadra 700 or Powerbook 170 notebook Mac!) but a new mac comparable to mine
can be had for about $2500.  The going used price for the cx would be about
the same.

->The Mac version has ALL the features of the mainframe version (except
->for the LISREL option).  A UNIX workstation is both quicker and more
->expensive than a Mac Quadra.  I'd be interested in a comparison of
->cost/performance for a workstation supporting a score or so versus a
->suitable number of Macs with FPUs (SPSS runs at a quite acceptable pace
_>On a Mac SE/30 -- alas, Apple no longer makes that model; I guess the
->closest substitute would be a IIsi with the addition of an FPU).

It's been said before but bears repeating--the Mac version for all intents
and purposes IS the mainframe program.  There are pros and cons to this,
the main advantage being that you know the stats are correct and you will
not lose any capabilities, have syntax problems between the Mac and the
mainframe, or lose any of the dictionary when porting EXPORTED datasets.
The disadvantage is that the Mac version PRINTS as if it were a mainframe,
and most Mac users don't have line printers on their Mac networks.
I've got a few macros that will take out most of the extra page breaks
to save paper.  The way I work is to deal with most everything on screen
anyway.  I port files to the mainframe when I need large printouts, but
work with the data primarily on my full page monitor, this way I have
search capabilities AND save paper.

One point Murphy didn't mention is that you can get all the SPSS options
like Tables or Categories, ect...that you need for the Mac version, whereas
you may have some trouble convincing your computer center to get these
options for the mainframe.

->For that matter now that OS/2 2.0 is, will soon be, shipping, what about
->SPSS OS/2?  If you've already got the PC's, might that be a feasible
->option (of course OS/2 2.0 is going to want 8 MBytes of RAM and 20
->MBytes of hard drive space and I expect that anything less than a full
->32-bit system is likely to be sluggish; though I've heard that the 20
->MHz 386SLC does deliver respectable performance -- compared to what, I
->wonder).

I saw SPSS for OS/2 running on a 386 at a user exchange meeting.  It didn't
look as fast as the Mac version on a IIci, though I haven't tested it.
Besides, OS/2 is a totally dead operating system.  8 Tracks will come back
before OS/2 catches on.  I do agree though, that SOMEONE needs to publish
some reliable benchmarks for SPSS and SPSS/PC+ on different platforms and
CPUs.

                         *** *** ***

and FINALLY,  On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:21:56 EST, Murph Sewall again replies
to the following message:

->>Subject: RE: Can I use SPSS on MAC??

->On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:47:07 GMT you said:
->>How good is the SPSS on the Mac? Can I do a spreadsheet on QuatroPro and
->>export that file to SPSS? Is SPSS on the Mac even comparable to the one
->>on the PC?

As you know by now, in my opinion, the question is rather wether SPSS/PC+ is
even comparable to Mac SPSS.  Personally, I don't think so.

->Mac SPSS doesn't read spreadsheet formats directly, but there are
->several fairly easy ways to save spreadsheet data (as an ASCII file) in
->a format that SPSS can easily use.

Mac SPSS is about 10 times more efficient than excel or lotus when saving
datasets.  SPSS sells an excellent data conversion package (DBMS COPY MAC)
that will handle virutally anything.  You probably won't need it though if
you have even one good commercial spredsheet on your Mac.  Take your pick
between Lotus, Excel, Resolve (improved version of WingZ).  Any of these
will read your quattro pro sheets saved in 1-2-3 format and export to
a SYLK file that spss will read without the bother of writing a DATA LIST
command.

->SPSS Mac blows SPSS PC away.  It doesn't have the either the variable or
->command restrictions.  The appropriate comparison is to the mainframe
->version.

->The PC versions data entry interface is better, but there are a host of
->Mac editors (including shareware spreadsheets) which do data entry quite
->nicely.  My primary reason for electing Mac or PC was so I could port
->command and data files from a mainframe to my desktop without all the
->restrictions.  I haven't got any files I can't run on a Mac; admittedly,
->the largest data set I work with is barely more than 500K.

The main reason I originally got a Macintosh was that I needed better word-
processing to put together complex, multi-column tables.  Let's just say that
printing a document is not my idea of print preview.  Then SPSS finally
buckled and wrote a Mac version. (They insisted in 1988 that it would never
happen!)

Personally, I never liked DE on the PC, because it always seemed awkward,
though I do like the idea behind it, and I managed to use it for a few
projects.  Come to think of it, SPSS/PC+ has one of the most awkward
editors I've ever seen.  Why CANT you delete back to the end of the previous
line?  Not being able to read the entire output file within PC/+ is probably
more of a DOS problem, though that I recal was a pain, too.

I've created system files as large as twenty megabytes on the Mac, though I
seldom leave that much data in one system file. There is no limit other
than your available disk space, as far as I can tell.   All Macs since the
lowly mac plus (1986 model) have built in SCSII, and make adding hard disks
a breeze.  The new mac quadra models have dramatic SCSII I/O advantages over
other Macs.

***************************************************************************
Brian Pickerill                   *
Ball State University             * phone (317) 285-5209
Offices of Institutional Research * Bitnet 00bkpickeril@BSUVAX1
 and Academic Assessment          * Internet 00bkpickeril@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
Muncie, IN 47306                  *
***************************************************************************