HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot)
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:56:24 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec10.084558.5606@athena.mit.edu>, vlcek@mtl.mit.edu (Jim Vlcek) writes:
> Sheesh, this is _still_ going on.

Actually, the title remains, but the thread has substantially drifted.

> Look, if you need an example of the limitations of a graphical user
> interface, just play that party game "Pictionary" some time.  I've
> often felt like I _was_ playing that game at times, when faced with a
> GUI whose designer thought she/he could use an icon for everything.

Well, the requirements of Pictionary and those of a user interface are very
different. With Pictionary, you are attempting to name something from a
graphic representation. Once identified, you never see it again, right?
(Ok, I'm guessing, I never actually played Pictionary)

A user interface on a computer, however, presents you wich many familiar
things repeatedly. So being able to recognize a familiar picture is much
different from recognizing an unfamiliar one.

> The notion that you can't combine a useful GUI and an effective CLI
> into the same system is nonsense, akin to maintaining that a car can't
> have both a powerful engine and effective brakes.  

My problem with combining a GUI and CLI in the same system is that the GUI
developers will wimp out at some point and justify it to themselves by
saying "well, if users really want to do this, they'll use the CLI."

> Someone here said
> that a GUI-only system makes easy things trivial and complex things
> impossible; well said.  

Well said, but not true. A well designed visual interface makes both
things possible (and trivial). It is just more work to design such a good
interface.

OTOH, a CLI-only system makes easy things difficult and complex things even
more difficult.

> Eventually, system designers will come around
> to providing both, as both are needed, but until that time I do fear
> that the uninformed are going to prevail and banish CLIs for a time.

Jim, you are living in a dreamworld. CLIs were a great interface when all
computers had character-based terminals. That was great in 1970, but today
visual interfaces are much better. CLIs are dying. Get used to it.

-- 
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: johnsd2@jec330.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec330.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:03:02 GMT

In article 7041@athena.mit.edu, mflafeer@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer) writes:
>A couple of points about this discussion:
>
>Isn't "accurately" converting a hand-drawn 72dpi picture to 300dpi sort of 
>like taking a digital recording done at 22kHz and converting it to 44kHz?
>In other words, if the drawing is hand-drawn how can you add more detail
>to the picture? Doesn't that mean making arbitrary decisions. The example
>that Eric gives just shows that Apple and NeXT make different arbitrary
>decisions.

In this case, we are drawing a circle and a line- the bitmaps are only
approximations, but if you increase the resoluion you CAN get more
details, because the computer knows what "supposed" to be there.

>The conversion from screen res to printer res only works well for mathematical
>constructs. Lines drawn on the Mac at 72dpi print smoothly at 300dpi.
>Same for Circles. And it you define a true tangent in Claris CAD for instance,
>it will print correctly at 300dpi. The fact that you can go up to a NeXT and
>eyeball a tangent at 90dpi and have it be a tangent at 400dpi means nothing
>to me. 

This case we have a ->hand draw<- tangent that looks right at 72 dpi..
will it looke right at 300 dpi or not?

>In short, device resolution independent imaging only makes sense with
>mathematical constructs. 

Such as what we have.. :)

>Furthermore, who cares? In practice, the conversion between quickdraw and
>postscript isn't a problem. 

Hmmm. I hope so, but Eric says that it IS a problem. I think. Im not
quite sure.

>Oh, and by the way, the price of the NeXT printer was a big deal two years
>ago. It really isn't any more in the age of cheap Postscript II RISC powered
>laser printers.

I dont know about this bit.

>Remember, Mac OS may not be the most sophisticated OS around, but it has 
>grown quite well maintaining compatibility with 4 generations of Motorola
>processors, eight years of development from thousands of developers, and 
>millions of Macs, many of which are quite affordable. These features are
>at least as important as the implementation details we nerds argue about on
>the net.

I agree heartily. (surprise surprise)

But the implementation details do matter too.
And they are more fun to argue about. :)


---
			- 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: jwa@vipunen.hut.fi (Jyrki J Wahlstedt)
Subject: Several monitors
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: comp
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:05:45

  Sometime ago there was discussion on having several monitors connected
  either to Mac or to PC. A question to PC users was, if I remember right,
  was whether they could use second monitor for debugging. I am not quite
  sure about this, but I read today a pretty piece of Windows documentation
  on this subject.
  (The answer to that question was yes, but...) Well, this is only about
  Codeview for Windows and I do not say anything about other things.
  In Codeview you can use secondary monitor for debugging, if you start
  it with option /2, /8, /25 or /43. You may not run DOS programs while
  you are debugging. So, it is possible, but not in Macintosh way...
  Perhaps those who answered had something else in mind, I don't know.

  Another thing, while I write: last week I read in an article that Bill
  Gates is an admirer of Napoleon and has read several of biographies.
  Just came to think that where are Russia and Waterloo for BG:-?
--
!
!	Jyrki Wahlstedt
!		Jyrki.Wahlstedt@hut.fi
!
!  Our life is no dream, but it should and will perhaps become one.
!
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:41:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Dec20.044104.2696
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Dec14.050708.1488@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>
>if I may quote Steve Jobs: "Name one really sucessful product that
>came from an alliance... I can't think of one sucessfil product in the
>history of our industry that ever came from an alliance.  Or any other
>industry, either.  Toyota and GM? - no.  I'm sure there are some
>examples bit they're not standouts.  The statistics are not in favor
>of these industry alliances."

The Teradada/NCR P-90 project (later renamed NCR 3700 when NCR bought
Teradata) produced the Bi-Net architecture from the two companys' alliance.
This was a pretty serious improvement over Teradata's initial stand-alone
success, the Y-Net architecture, which was of primary importance in such
things as the Wal-Mart data network recently featured in Scientific American.
And, although you will never read about it due to Teradata's policy on
word-of-mouth-only advertising, the Bi-Net-based database computers that
Teradata/NCR are prooducing aren't exactly a failure.

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:45:32 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec6.155038.251@physc1.byu.edu>, goblec@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> 
>>> Yet stereo output has been removed from all new Macs I 
>>> know of.
>>
>> Not true!
> 
> Yes, I stand corrected here.  I understand that the Quadra
> has stereo output from it's port.  

Some Quadra models (all?) have stereo input as well.

>>> The sound chip on the IIvx is the inferior chip from 
>>>the LC.
>>
>> Not true! 
> 
> Are you sure about this one?  I understood that the sound 
> chip from the LC was used in the vx.  It had much more
> limited capabilities as compared to the ones in the Quadra
> or other Macs.

The sound chip in the IIvx may not be the same as that in the Quadra, but
then the IIvx doesn't have the same specifications as the Quadra. The IIvx
(aka Performa 600) has much different tarket market than the Quadra.

>> Multiple monitors support is a hardware problem. Can't solve 
>> that one with software.
> 
> I remember at least one drawing program for DOS (not windows)
> that required two monitors and two graphics boards.  One 
> monitor was used for drawing alone while the other was used
> for selecting commands.  

I would wager that the OTHER monitor wasn't graphic at all, but a character
based monitor. I've done PC development running CodeView on a second,
monochrome character-only monitor. That can easily be done.

> What stops a PC from driving multiple graphics cards?  

Hardware. Two graphics cards will try to occupy the same address space.
This isn't good

> I admit I am not as familiar with
> the PC hardware, but I don't see anything beyond the Windows
> drivers that would stop this.

Any monitor card with a different hardware memory address could conceivably
work with a special driver, but it would otherwise be incompatable with DOS,
OS/2, Xenix, etc. (Although drivers might help for OS/2 and Xenix)

So far, no one has gone out on that limb for the PC environment.

-- 
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: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:36:03 GMT
 <6493.2b1fabf3@hayes.com> <1992Dec6.155038.251@physc1.byu.edu>
 <6545.2b2de17c@hayes.com> <1992Dec16.073344.10939@msc.cornell.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Dec16.073344.10939@msc.cornell.edu>,
maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) says:
>
>to come up with new ideas. The major breakthrough in PC hardware in the
>last three years is local bus. Yeah right---my SE came with that.

You don't understand the difference between PCs and Macs. For a Mac PDS
(or local bus as you call it) is a good thing (though more slots would be
better). For PCs local bus is major bullshit. PCs don't come from one company
(we call that an advantage most of the time). If you buy a local bus mainboard
from company A and a local bus video board from company B you have to either
sell one or build up 2 computers. They won't be compatible, esp. if there is
some distance in time between the buys.

If you want to name a breakthrough then say EISA or MCA but not local bus.
EISA is even used in some workstations that are guaranteed to have nothing to
do with PCs or DOS.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system
From: rs54@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Richard Sucgang)
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info-Version .90
Reply-To: rs54@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Richard Sucgang)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:35:26 GMT

In article <BzF8Mv.2Ds@rice.edu> stiv@stat.rice.edu (david n stivers) writes:
>In article <wf_i1Bi00VpAIS1cdP@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>>This list still has major bugs that I can see...
>>
>>bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>>
>>> Mac:  Built in AppleTalk functionality (Includes LocalTalk).  For
>>> most present machines Ethernet requires a card (PDS or Nubus) and
>>> the hardware support for each machine runs about $250-$300.
>>
>>If you want to connect two machines with Appletalk, it takes a serial
>>cable.  Connecting more requires some hardware, the cost of which I
>>recall as being something like $30 per mac, plus $100 for the box...
>>
>
>Focus sells Phonenet boxes (1 per Mac needed) for $15 each. Plus you have to
>buy telephone wire.
>
>david n stivers stiv@rice.edu

Nice try: they are called TurboNet STs, and are compatible with Farallon's
PhoneNet connectors, and come with a phone wire each. Of course, I don't
think this makes much sense, since you always end up with one wire too
many. 


-rich
Richard Sucgang  : Dept. of Anatomy and Cell Biology Columbia University
(sucgang@cuhhca.hhmi.columbia.edu | rs54@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu)
"...Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, individually, collectively or otherwise." 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:46:27 GMT

In article <-ch2rl_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>Carnegie Mellon University developed Mach with the aid of NeXT.  Carnegie
>>Mellon now owns around 5% of NeXT computer.
>
>Mach, last I checked, was a kernal that was designed for general use. Im
>not surprised NeXT took an interest in it, but it clearly did not design
>mach for the NeXT. Somebody else designed Mach (Carnegie Mellon), and NeXT
>uses it but does not own it. Last I checked Mach was not even object
>oriented- that was put in on top of it. No?

Mach is free.  You can FTP it from cmu or mit.  NeXT owns NeXTMach
3.0.  Tenon owns the mach they have in MachTen.  CMU designed mach,
and the principal designer now works on mach at NeXT.  NeXT has added
things to mach like the Bootstrap Server and loadable kernel servers
that you don't get with mach from CMU, GNU, IBM, or OSF.

Mach is plenty object-oriented.  Mach provides most of it's services
through user-level programs accessible by a consistent system of
message passing.  That's as object-oriented as you need or want your
kernel to be.

>I think to say that the NeXT was "designed from the ground up" is pretty
>silly, even if NeXT went ahead and payed for the entirety of the development
>of Mach; I rather doubt they did, tho. If so, why not make it object
>oriented like everything else?

It is object-oriented, see above.

>I also think it's pretty irrelevent, but heck why not argue about it,
>we argue everything ELSE here. :)

I don't really want to _argue_, I just want to set the record straight
about NeXT.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Reply-To: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca
Organization: Not Really, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:13:14 GMT

In article <josteisv.99.724036890@dhhalden.no> josteisv@dhhalden.no  
(JOSTEIN SVENDSEN) writes:
> 
> NeXT have a great operating system, but you can't critisize Apple  
for PINK 
> is not out yet.
> 

Well, people insist on praising Apple for Pink (and it's not out  
yet), so why not criticize.

> Actually, NeXT was developed in the Apple Laboratories under the  
name Big 
> Mac. But Steve Jobs took this project with him when he left Apple.  
(Apple 
> didn't sue Steve of natural causes.) I'm sure PINK/Taligent won't  
have any 
> problems to match the other operating systems the days it's  
available.
> 

I'd be curious to find out how NeXT was developed at Apple when the  
OS (Mach) wasn't selected until after NeXT was formed. As well, NeXT  
didn't decide to go the OOP route until after NeXT was a company. So  
what did Steve take with him? The idea to build a better machine?

I find it unlikely that Apple wouldn't go after Jobs if he took  
useful information with him when he left.

As for matching OS's when it becomes available, who knows what will  
be available in 1994? From what I've heard of Pink, it's nothing I  
don't have now.

Terry Wilcox

-- 
Terry Wilcox		| 'Next to the originator of a good sentence 
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca	| is the first quoter of it.'
NeXTmail welcome	|  - RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:40:13 GMT

feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.144748.22143@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  writes:

> >If I want to run Usenet News on my NeXT I have to ftp, compile, and  
> >configure C-News or INN; there is no uAccess for the NeXT (uAccess is a  
> >Mac point-and-click news implementation).

> I suppose that's because you don't want to use NeXT's NewsGrazer, arguably  
> the best-designed news program around, and certainly far nicer than, oh,  
> say, NewsWatcher.

NewsGrazer is a news reader.  If you have a NNTP host you can read news
from, it's fine.  If, on the other hand, you wish to _be_ a news host
(ie, receive and store news on your machine, and perhaps forward it to
other machines), you must run C-News or INN.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." -- A. Einstein
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was: Macin
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:06:06 GMT

In article 2b277fd6@hayes.com, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1fqa1kINNbo1@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
>> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> 
>> [ one-button mouse arguments deleted ]
>> 
>> Just out of curiousity, how do you play netrek with a one-button mouse?
>
>Interesting argument.
>
>I'm not exactly sure what "netrek" is. If you are referring to "Nettrek" by
>Randy Carr, I can recall that we managed to play it quite effectively
>with a one-button mouse. (Much to the chagrin of the management)
>
>If you are speaking of some other "application" then I must confess
>ignorance as to its particular qualities.

I think he means the x/windows game netrek, which uses one button to
cause your ship to rotate towards the cursor, another to cause it to spew
torpedoes at the cursor and yet annother for (I think) phasers.

Its an example of this which-button-to-push problem at its ghastliest.

Just for the heck of it, here's how Id do it with one button:

Use keyboard control to rotate ship, not mouse. Mice do a bad job anyway,
imho. Make the mouse button rotate the 'turret' or 'aim' towards wherever
you click. Have keyboard controls to fire. OR, have keybaord controls
select a weapon to fire, and make the mouse button fire it at the
mouse cursor. (I dont mean modifiers, I mean push p for phasers, t for
torps, sorta thing)

The Mac Net-Trek game follows annother approach which I like even less. :)

>> Do you feel that the one-button mouse is a better choice (in this situation)?
>
>I feel that one button mice are a better choice in all situations.

I tend to agree, but Im not totally convincied. However, I have never
seen a multibutton mouse doing anything that justified its extra
buttons, and I have had the joy of learning X/Windows (3 buttons!
No standards! Life is fun! :) )

>Of course, I can't help but feel that NetTrek is a terrible example of an
>"application" one uses to do "productive" work. Like the television, it is
>entertaining and a large consumer of time.

Heh heh.

Its just a user interface question, it doesn't matter if its
'productive' as such. In this case its 'productive' of torpedoes.

>(Alas, we don't play NetTrek around here anymore)

My condolences. :(

'Twas a sad day when that happened.


---
			- 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: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:39:58 GMT

In article 5904@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>In article <-ch2rl_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>Carnegie Mellon University developed Mach with the aid of NeXT.  Carnegie
>>>Mellon now owns around 5% of NeXT computer.
>>
>>Mach, last I checked, was a kernal that was designed for general use. Im
>>not surprised NeXT took an interest in it, but it clearly did not design
>>mach for the NeXT. Somebody else designed Mach (Carnegie Mellon), and NeXT
>>uses it but does not own it. Last I checked Mach was not even object
>>oriented- that was put in on top of it. No?
>
>Mach is free.  You can FTP it from cmu or mit.  NeXT owns NeXTMach
>3.0.  Tenon owns the mach they have in MachTen.  CMU designed mach,
>and the principal designer now works on mach at NeXT.  NeXT has added
>things to mach like the Bootstrap Server and loadable kernel servers
>that you don't get with mach from CMU, GNU, IBM, or OSF.

Check. Gotcha.

>Mach is plenty object-oriented.  Mach provides most of it's services
>through user-level programs accessible by a consistent system of
>message passing.  That's as object-oriented as you need or want your
>kernel to be.

Doesn't sound terribly object-oriented.

>>I think to say that the NeXT was "designed from the ground up" is pretty
>>silly, even if NeXT went ahead and payed for the entirety of the development
>>of Mach; I rather doubt they did, tho. If so, why not make it object
>>oriented like everything else?
>
>It is object-oriented, see above.

Perhaps I don't quite follow what you mean by "object oriented"; in
what way is Mach object oriented?

>>I also think it's pretty irrelevent, but heck why not argue about it,
>>we argue everything ELSE here. :)
>
>I don't really want to _argue_, I just want to set the record straight
>about NeXT.
>

Dang. :(

---
			- 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.