HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI  (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 03:18:19 GMT

In article <9aqzm-g@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> I believe ya. :) But lets see what shortcuts you have the Mac GUI
> doesn't have also. (well, if you can look at Unix, I can look at
> de Mac, no?)

find /usr/spool/news/comp/unix/shell -print |
	while read number
	do smail johnsd2@rpi.edu < $number
	done

> |>  There's also a UNIX
> |> command which can determine the type of a file (C code, PostScript,
> |> digitized sound, etc.) by its *content*.  Naturally the command is
> |> extensible to handle new file formats as they come along).

> A bit of a hack. The system should just _know_, without having
> to be asked politely to go figure it out. I wouldn't
> call this a feature.

Yes, the system should know. The Mac doesn't... it just knows what the
application that created it was. This is *similar*, but not the same.

> |> there are commands like "find" which let me apply a command to  
> |> whatever list of files the command finds.  I can easily tell the find
> |> command to apply the print command to all the C files which      
> |> are owned by me, readable by others, modified in the last 10 days,    
> |> and which don't have any syntax errors, for example.

> I'd love to see the command that did THAT! :)

find . -name "*.c" -perm "-4" -mtime "-10" -exec cc -c "{}" ";" \
	-exec "lpr" "{}" ";" > /dev/null

> In any case this can also be achieved by drag+drop type apps,

Yeh, but you have to write the app first. Does it exist?

> However, this technique does requires you to prod it along
> at each step;

Yes, that's the point. I can't type a command and let it crunch. Right now
I've got a script at work converting sagans of lines of PL/M to C. Hate to
have to do that on a Mac.

> Most of this is indeed inapplicable, so you can count it as a "Feature"
> if you like. Id say it was trying to make up from the obnoxious nature
> of the CLI.

Repeat last command would be a nice one. How would you repeat (say) a print
command, with all options the same, on a different file?
-- 
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: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:32:21 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <kkmzhn-@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> In article <D2150025.pbqw1l@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
> |> In article <1992Sep30.185125.18010@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
> |> > When was this?  1978?  The Apple Lisa was preemptively multi-tasking in
> |> Apple Lisa PREEMPTIVELY MULTITASKING?  BULLSHIT!!!!! 
> It certainly did some sort of multitasking, from the screen
> shots Ive seen.

Lisa multitasking was non-preemptive.

It did, however, have memory protection, and virtual memory for code segments.

-- 
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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:08:59 GMT

In <1992Oct6.083928.212@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steve Fuller) writes:

>In article <TOMSTER.92Oct4193442@wpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.045258.27262@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
>>
>>   Name *ONE* OS that you can buy that is completely hardware independant.
>>
>>Well, I can name *three* os's for which I can buy the hardware from literally
>>*thousands* of vendors around the world ...  Hell, and that's without even

>Well, I am assuming you are talking PC's here. All PCs are based on an Intel
>80x86 processor. While there are a couple of sources for 80x86-compatibles,
>this hardly counts as 'hardware independant'

Well, "completely hardware independant" is a strawman type of argument.

The original point was that Windows is open enough so that you 
can buy the processor it is running on from the manufacturer of your 
choice (Intel, AMD, ...), the motherboard from the manufacturer of
your choice, the computer from the manufacturer of your choice, the 
peripherals from the manufacturer of your choice, and so on.

Apple sells hardware, and makes the OS a bundled component. Its 
main purpose is to make the hardware more attractive to the 
customer. Technically, I believe that they could sell a "hardware
independent" variant of their OS, just like Microsoft does it with
Windows. But for some reason or another, they don't. 

On the other hand, I've heard the argument that the Macs OS software
is much more important (and worth) than its hardware. Given that,
one could think that the Macintoshs hardware simply is some kind 
of oversized dongle. :-)

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 04:09:26 GMT

In article <sjmzdg+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct01.012900.5186@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |> In article <ibhan.717796628@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
> |> > RE: What the Amiga can't do with a Mac Emulator that a IIci can.
> |> > A good percentage of the software coming out for the Mac today is color
> |> > based, which means that your Amiga couldn't run it.

> |> What, you *can't* run color software on a B&W Mac? I thought Mac had
> |> this device independence stuff down pat!

> You were mistaken. 68020, 030 and so on Macs do, but 68000 based macs
> do not. They only support a few color commands (and not the right ones,
> imho.).

But my Amiga has a 68030.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:14:40 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct03.231600.20280@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Um, the mouse tracking in a preemptive multitasking system is rarely done by
>the foreground program. It's more often handled by a separate program that
>just manages mouse position and sends messages to programs as requested.

Implementation details.  The point is, there will always be programs
that *need* 100% of a machine's CPU cycles for short periods of time.
The only way to guarantee this is either 1) cooperative multitasking
or 2) setting the program's priority so high that it gets more cycles
that it needs, depriving other programs, at other times.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:57:24 GMT

In article: <strobl.717792329@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: 


> Anyway, I only questioned the validity of the argument: the Mac
> is better, because it can understand PC disks, but the PC cant
> understand Mac disks. 

> Both systems are only able to process a subset of the disks which
> are in use on the other side, and need additional hardware
> support to read all the other ones.

You seem to forget that the Mac can read/write both MS-DOS and Apple II ProDos disks
without the need for EXTRA HARDWARE or SOFTWARE.  Apple File Exchange is provided
free of charge with all system disks that come with Macs.  And the Apple SuperDrive
will recognize both low and high density disks.

True, you will want to get extra extensions if you would like the Finder to auto-
recognize all formats, but Apple has been hard at work on this for some time.  The
Apple II ProDOS extension was written by Apple.  The AccessPC package is nominally
priced, and comes with all kinds of extra features (like being able to launch
applications by double clicking on a DOS file).

Apple probably would have written the driver themselves, only Insignia Solutions was
there first with a grade A product.

> Well, then a PC can read/write all Macintosh disks, too.

> Central Point, for example, sells an "Option Board" which has
> to be put between the drive and the disk controller, plus optional
> software which allows reading and writing the old, low density
> Macintosh disks. 

An "Option Board"?  You mean this isn't standard PC equipment?  I'd have to buy
something extra to get where a Mac already is?  I'd have to spend some of my
big PC savings to get basic cross system functionality?  What about just within the
PC line: can you format both low and high density disks within a single drive?
Will other drives reliably read what has been produced?  A lot of the PC'S that
I've used end up requireing both a low and high density 3.5 & 5.25" drive just to
insure that every disk can be read/written properly.

OK, here's the test:  One user has a 3.5" Mac disk and would like to get a PC to read
a text file, and another user has a 3.5" MS-DOS disk and would like to get a Mac
to read it.  Go!  Within a short time span the Mac user is done, and the PC user
is trying to search for third party solutions.

Nice try Wolfgang, but it won't fly here.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:17:13 GMT

In article <16375@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>>chris@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Chris Manly,,,2577951) writes:
>>>From article <dpenner.717568208@ee.ualberta.ca>, by dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner ):
>>>>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.
>>        You don't see that much engineering work done on the Mac, either.
>
>But then there's the old story that when Jobs mentioned to Seymour Cray
>that he was using a Cray to help design the next Macintosh, Cray replied that
>he was using a Macintosh to help design the next Cray...  (I assume it wasn't
>for circuit simulation, of course ;-)

Ha ha! This explains a lot. There is a continuing discussion between scientists who use
brain to think against those who prefer to employ the sheer horse power of the computer
to substitute (or support) thinking. Cray just made a clear remark on who he thinks
he is and who is Jobs (in these measures).

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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Mac's Doomsday
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:58:18 GMT

Carl B Jabido writes
> ... 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.

Amazing how much this sounds like NeXT. Maybe they just forgot to  
insert 'eX' in their name.
Of course, if that is what you want, no need to wait for NT; you can  
have NeXT right now.  In fact, you could have had it for two years.
Oh, and you also get AppleTalk (as a client; software to be a server  
is also available).

> However, NT will have the same interface as [Windows] 3.1.

Aside from its being available now, the other great advantage of NeXT  
is that it does _not_ have the Windows interface.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:46:59 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University

<my nastier comments on all of you deleted to prevent flames)
program running on the OS??? Why not have a GUI AND a CLI?? When I'm
programming on the Mac, I use Aztec Unitools as a shell, and emacs
as an editor... when I'm using it for general purpose things, I use
the Finder. I could use the shell for those purposes, but the finder
is faster... likewise, I could use the finder and McSink for programming,
but shell/emacs is faster. Ever try to select the file you want from
150 source files? sure you can type into the file-open window, but
I've got 20 files  that start with "furball.dlog.blah.c"..
 And sure, it's faster to type ":/utils/resedit furball.dlog" than to
open a window, click twice, hit %-o, type "P<CR>Z<CR>furball.dlog<CR>"
(folder, file selection), but attempting to use the shell for normal
usage???? Yeah right! trying to remember the name of where a letter
or drawing may be? or having to type the program name? looking at
200 entries in a subdirectory, then another and another? instead of
glancing at a window, and changin it's organization by a click?
  The same goes for Windoze, when I'm forced to develop for that,
I'm constanly switching back and forth from DOS to Windoze.

THINK! when you're doing the same thing over and over, yes use a shell
with commands you've memorized, but if you have to even ONCE consult 
a manual because you can't remember if it's -w or -x for some obscure
option, and yeah, you know it's one or the other, when you type it
with no args it tells you the valid ones.. that blows your whole hour.

On the other hand, using a GUI when you want to only to select a bunch
of files that end in  NNN.c where NNN is a digit string, is pretty lame too.
Use a shell..  Novice and casual users --NEVER--, and this is 8 years of
being a 70-user installation manager speaking, --NEVER--, have to do this
sort of thing more than once or twice a year, they can spend the time
to do it by hand.

 They should have GUI's. Experts should have both. Case closed.

Then again, from the amount of time this agrument has been going on, it's
clear your all just arguing for the sake of it.....
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:19:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.717808750
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <ft_pf=b.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>        Part of the problem is that, in CAD and engineering work, sheer
>speed, especially floating point speed, matters.  Macs have traditionally
>had less price/performance,                       ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Finally, he admits it!    

>and floating point coprocessors are not all that common in the Mac world.  

Actually, the Mac IIsi was the first 68020/68030-based Mac that was
even *available* without a floating-point processor.  Though I suppose
you'd have to read something other than PC week to know that.


>SANE, Apple's numerics library, is
>painfully slow, even with a coprocessor present.  (There's a big
>performance degradation, perhaps 10x, from using SANE vs compiling floating
>point instructions for a coprocessor).

Gosh.  Using a numerics library designed for the 68000 without a
floating-point processor slows things down by a factor of 10.

Of course, just an option and compiling your code for the 68881/882
speeds things *up* by a factor of 10.


>        Apple is finally getting enough compute power in its machines for
>serious CAD users, but it's probably too late.

Yeah.  Poor Seymour Cray.  Used a Mac to design his last machine.  Too bad 
he's not a *serious* CAD user like you are.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:10:40 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <Bv786v.9q5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jmo50888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josephine M. Otter) writes:
> UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:
>>So lets get this straight... an Amiga, running in black and white,
>>is 10% faster than a mac IIci running in color? <snort>
>> 
> 
> No.  An Amiga >EMULATING< a mac IIci in black and white is 10% faster than a
> mac IIci running in color.

We've been through this once. The Amiga emulates a Mac Plus. Not a IIci.

Regardless of the speed, it ain't the same thing.

-- 
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: boyd@apple.com (scott boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:32:01 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1665@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam
Blackburn) wrote:
> 
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
> >> Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
> 
> >Name *ONE*.
> 
> Embedded hardware control.  Monitoring of states of remoted equipment and 
> responding to changes.  Whole system must fit in a box no bigger that a shoe
> box.

If you really want to do embedded systems, you might be interested to know
that Motorola, Intel, and many other companies build and sell vast
quantities
of embedded microcontrollers.  You can get a decent microcontroller with
EEPROM, RAM, an A/D controller, an async serial line, a synch serial line,
and some other pretty neat features for around $5 each.  For a few extra
dollars, you can add a little more logic and you've got yourself a nice
little machine ready for programming.  Even though the development tools
are a little crude, you can build a pretty good system in something a
great deal smaller than a shoe box.  They've even got automatic hang
detection and auto-rebooting so you can build systems robust enough
to deal with programmer limitations and program misfeatures :-)

That's if you want to build embedded systems.

scott
boyd@apple.com
macintosh system software
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. NeXT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:37:25 GMT

The Mac has a *huge* advantage over the NeXT: it is legal!  The NeXT (at least,
the ones they sell here) are not FCC certified for home use.  Why is this?
Even if I had an office to stick one in, I'd get a Mac or an OS/2 system
or a 486 Unix system rather than a NeXT because I want the same kind of
computer at home.  Surely there must be enough people who think like me
for it to be worthwhile for NeXT to get the thing certified.  Why don't
they?

--Tim Smith
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Thanks all.
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:49:26 GMT
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


  Thanks for the E-mail about the NeXT system, A/UX and the Sun information.

I really appreciate the people I E-mailed about how often NeXTs crash
(or not crash as the case may be. :-), and their replies.

It is great to know that there are people out there that are not just into
flaming and bitching.



-- 
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
             (Insert standard disclaimer here)

   I would rather have a frontal lobotomy than Windows NT!
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:31:45 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.717873156@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> I would like to add yet another advantage specific to CLIs, which
> I haven't seen discussed here.

Ah, fresh meat! <grin>

> CLIs not only allow you to see where you are, but how you got
> there, in addition. You see a trace of your commands and what 
> the systems reaction was. I don't know any GUIs which offer 
> a similar capability. If you change something, it's changed,
> as if it had always been so. The display of the actual state
> of the system is great - this compensates for much of the
> above problem, but the display of the state change is lousy,
> at best.

Interesting point. I think the primary benefit of this facility comes from
the CLI gosh-awful presentation of the current state. So, when you see
that you think you are in a certain state, you ask yourself, "Self, how
did I get here?" The history or command / response window gives you
a chance to assemble that information -- it allows you to build a mental
picture of the actual state.

For the visual User Interface, there's (usually) no conflict. You know what
your state is, because you can just look at it. It's obvious. So you don't
have to go through gyrations trying to get your mental picture to match
reality.

So, for a CLI, this history facility is of great benefit, because the tools
to generate a correct mental picture are so limited. Under a visual interface,
the benefit is greatly lessed, perhaps to the level of being unimportant.

Note that with AppleScript, you'll be able to record (some of) your actions,
so it is possible to construct this kind of "history" window. The caveat 
is that AppleScript isn't available, and that applications will have to
generate AppleEvents for all their actions, in order for them to show up
in the history.

-- 
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.