HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.035134.11426@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
[deletia- some hacks]
|> >
|> >It's not part of Apple's GUI, and so it's not something the naive user you
|> >were talking about earlier will come up with. This basically proves my
|> >point: if the Mac GUI was so well designed, these hacks wouldn't be needed.
|> >Other parts of the Mac system software are clearly superior to the way
|> >Windows works, but the GUI is not one of them.
|> 
|> Excellent point. Actually, I would even say that if the Apple`s GUI was that
|> final excellence of the design, there would be no need to improve it. Yet
|> there is a long list of expected improvements.

I dont rememebr anyone claiming that Apple's GUI was perfect.

|> Conclusion: Apple GUI is just another GUI, just like Windows' or Amiga's or NeXT's
|> or whatever's GUI. They let do some work better, some worse.
|> And the difference between them is not that large to pray that one is definitely
|> better than the other. In the each of them is a lot of room for invention and 
|> improvement.
|> 
|> This is my humble opinion.

I wouldn't say it was warranted by the fact the Apple's GUI is
not perfect, although it may be correct anyway.

Several points:

Nobody is praying about anything here.

If you mean by:
	"They let do some work better, some worse"

that some let you work better, some worse, I agree. If you mean
They let you do some  work better, some worse, I'd say this may
be true but you haven't convinced me. I'll reserve judgement
until you do. :)

I do agree that there's lots of room for improvement in them ALL,
however.

-- 
			- 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: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Mac crashes
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:56:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <6033.2ac1d826@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>And it isn't standing still. By 1997 there will be a whole laundry list of
>capabilities the Mac has that aren't available under Windows that don't
>exist today. You see, there's little hope of catching up.

Maybe System 7+ will have memory protection by then so that one app
does not take down the whole shebang when the app decides to take
a walk down memory lane and sit on the system heap.  :->

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
------------------------------------------------------------
|            (Insert standard disclaimer here)             |
------------------------------------------------------------
|  I would rather have a frontal lobotomy than Windows NT! |
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: To Each His/Her Own! (was GUI v. CLI stupidity
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:54:48 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

Jeez!  All you whining weenies just let this thread die!

Some of us prefer the GUI for some things (Some of use prefer it for
all things, but I'm not one of them).

Some of us prefer the CLI for some things (though I don't think there
is anyone who prefers it for all things, not that this means much).

Why the debate?  Just use what you like!  There is no reason to kick
each other around just because the prefer a different interface for
certain operations!  Gawd!  You all are just like screaming children!

If you like GUI, use it.  If you like CLIs for some things, use that.

Oh, yeah.  This is a Mac newsgroup.  I sometimes forget that the
uptight macintosh machines don't have a decent CLI widely available.
(Don't suggest MPW, thank you.).

Well, if you like GUIs alone, stick with your macs and let those of
us who like CLIs for some things tell apple that we would really like
to be able to use our prefered interface for things sometimes!

In the meantime, we have to settle for NeXTs and Suns...

(What! Compute without my trusty Bash?  Never!)

Peace, friends, please!

--David
-- 
+++ David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)  *** PGP key avail.! *** +++
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:06:33 GMT
 <1671@anagld.analytics.com> <6100.2acb37f8@hayes.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <6100.2acb37f8@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) says:
>
>Question: Does Windows NT provide support for all scripting systems? That is,
>can it support languages such as Arabic, Japanese or Chinese which do not
>use conventional Roman, Left to Right, Top to Bottom, phonetic methods?
>
>Further Question: Can Windows NT support several scripting methods in the
>same edit window?
>
>System 7.1 can. If Windows NT cannot, I stand by my original statement.
>
So I hope I can use a decimal comma instead of a decimal point to write numbers
with my copy of IGOR (Engeneering graphics package). This is a much simpler
task but impossible under System 6.07. (Of course I won`t use it unless my copy
 of Labview 2 starts to run under 7.1 which it doesn`t under 7.0)

You see, standards of an OS are only as good as they are followed. And while
the situation is much better for the Mac than for DOS (and Un*x as I hear) it
is not as good as one might think after reading these newsgroup.

Michael Bode.
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: Possible solution to Apple's charging for Sys. Soft upgrades
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:36:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.202024.20432@cc.umontreal.ca> tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos) writes:
>Dariusz Bolski writes: (concerning system disks)
>
>I am not sure if one is entitled to use backup if one does not posess
>original anymore. Wouldn't it be considered a software piracy?

>Well, Dariusz, one would not be entitled to use the backups if one
[ information deleted ]

Thank you for the info.

>Chris in Montreal

Regards,

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
Subject: Re: mips not Mhz
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:50:52 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <19lcu3INNrnk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>  writes:

[referring to MIPS]
>	Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed;
>	Meaningless Ignorant Processor Statistics;

MIPS:

	MIPS
	Is
	Purchased by
	SGI

	:)
--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec324.its.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: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:06:55 GMT

In article <CKD.92Oct4011524@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
|> Daniel> == Daniel Norman Johnson <johnsd2@rs6115.ecs.rpi.edu> 
|> 
|>  Daniel> The problem is that it means that a "layer" is INVISIBLE. You
|>  Daniel> CANT see an app that has no windows, unless it is at the front.
|>  Daniel> This is confusing to new users (who close the window and think
|>  Daniel> thats it) and makes it harder to see what apps are open for
|>  Daniel> anyone.
|> 
|>  Daniel> This could be solved wo/ removing the menu bar from the top of
|>  Daniel> the screen, if closing all windows DID close the app (or
|>  Daniel> something like that), but so far the best solition I've seen
|>  Daniel> actually availiable to this is menu-bars-in-windows;
|> 
|> Applicon.  Think of a dynamic, only-shows-what's-running version of the
|> NeXT icon dock.  And you still get the "infinite height" menu bar.  It's
|> also free.

Yeah, but it seems to be that the people who really get messed
up by this problem also generally dont know what it means to "ftp"
something. :)

This needs to be in the system.

|> Note also that System 7 Tune-up will, if you try to open an application
|> when you don't have enough memory, ask you if you want to close another
|> application that has no open windows.  (This is nice.)

Yes, it is nice. This helps.

|> Menu bars in windows tend to make me overshoot, and I'm pretty well
|> practiced with the mouse; I can even play Crystal Quest and Netrek, so
|> it's not that I'm just uncoordinated.  Aiming for the menu bar is
|> something I shouldn't have to think about.

I agree! I agree! Don't shoot!

-- 
			- 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: s_fuller@iastate.edu (Steve Fuller)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:19:03 GMT

In <1a8i5gINNfvm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd248@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Sherman) writes:


> 
>Will your IBM type drives read or write to disks from any other computer?
> 
>  No they won't.  As a matter of fact (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I
>think the hardware is incapable of doing this.

I did recently see advertised a software solution under Windows
to read/write/format Macintosh disks.

> 
>I have another question for you:
> 
>Can your IBM 3.5 drives tell the difference between 720K and 1.4 meg disks and
>format them accordingly?
> 
> NO.  They can't.  If you stick a 720K disk into an HD drive,  the drive will
>try to format it as a 1.4 meg disk.  YOU have to tell the computer to format it
>as 720K.

This is true, as far as I know, only on PS/2 machines (ie TRUE
IBM machines) most clone makers have had the sense enough to hook
up and recognize the media select switch that comes with most 3.5
inch drives today.

> 
>A Macintosh can tell what kind of disk you have in it, and what file system
>it's from. You don't have to tell it anything.

This is true as long as you have the appropriate extension (read
SOFTWARE) running. If I put an IBM formatted disk into a mac
that's not running Access/PC or Apple's new entry into the arket,
then it will tell that it isn't a macintosh diskette and will ask
me if I want to format or eject it. It doesn't tell that it is a
formatted MS-DOS diskette, but just that it can't recognize it.



BTW I own both a Mac and a PC clone, so I can do with the "you've
never used a Mac" flames.









-- 
---------------------=------------------------------
Steve Fuller	     = 
s_fuller@iastate.edu =   No witty quote here yet...
---------------------=-----------------------------
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:39:32 GMT

Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> * Support for the localization of Sorting order, Data and Time formats,
>>   currency, measurement, calenders and numbers (Not, Not)

>Umm, what's this?  A control panel?  We have them.  They're all in Settings.

Not just a control panel.  Something actually to easily change to
different standards for date, time, etc. (such as using commas in place of
decimal points).

>(This is only my opinion:  QuickTime isn't all that great.  I've seen
>stuff on IIci's with 8 megs of ram, etc. (ie, a higher end setup)  and a
>quicktime movie was demoed for me.  First, it was a small window, only
>like 160x160(?), and what really got me was how jumpy it was.  That was
>weird because there was _nothing_ else in memory.  That was the only
>app.  Tell me if this is just really bad performance.)

Strange, because even on my Mac II (16Mhz 68020) I can get smooth images
that are larger than that.  It could have been the movie that you were
watching was recorded at a low frame rate, or that it was not optimized
for the bit depth of the IIci.  QuickTime 1.5 is supposed to be even
better.  Plus, it's a standard.

>> System 7.1:
>> * Features to support virtually all known forms of written human
>communication
>>   using WorldScript. (Not, Not)

>Well, I guess I shouldn't say this, but I will.  What's the real
>importance of this?  Go ahead flame away.

Well, if you need to write something in Japanese or some other language
which uses different characters from English, you can do it with System
7.1.  You personally may not care, but it's important to anyone who uses
such languages (and since Japan is such a giant now, this is an important
issue).

>NO COMMAND LINE!!!

>Why do I want one?  How do you set a path for running programs in a
>folder 5 or 6 deep?  You have to dbl-click, dbl-click, etc. . .  Just
>set a path and type in the command, and you're running it.

Then you're missing the point of System 7's alias system.  With System 7,
you won't need to worry where your programs are, because you can have an
alias of the program as close as you want (even in the Apple Menu).  I
keep my most frequently used programs (about 15) on my desktop, instantly
accessable.  I don't need to remember any commands, directory names,
etc.

>Except I also have a printer object >which you Mac people don't.

There is a program on the Mac (rather, an init) which lets you do that.  I
didn't find it particularly useful (just cluttered the desktop) and so
removed it.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)                    | 
|  "Oh, I should be...a polar bear...but it's impossible." - The Cure        | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:54:38 GMT
Organization: MSD software vault #9 @THD

In article <ewright.717749225@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>[drivel deleted]
>>P.S.  Stuff a GUI can't do 
>
>>Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)
>Wrong again.  The Journal utility has been around for years.
Well tell me about it.

>>Command name completion (not filename) (possible, but not implemented)
>And again.  It's implemented in System 7.
How ? Is there a PATH concept in System 7 ?

Nat!
-- 
 -----   Email: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de  -----
                "Bang that bit that doesn't bang"                 
 Album of the month: "Psalm 69" Ministry

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:04:21 GMT

In article <ibhan.718089305@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>
>I read something about that.  It said basically what you are saying.  That
>even though menus inside windows and floating menubars (like the NeXT has)
>may seem convenient and nifty, they reduce your speed by requiring more
>accuracy.  I would prefer it if Apple just made the Finder look better. 

I have a second monitor on my Mac, and at one point I had things
arranged so the second monitor was (logically) on top of the menu bar. 
Hitting the menu bar was pretty horrible.

>No, there are no practical uses for it, but it would be a nice bonus.  The
>NeXT LOOKS COOL.  How about getting rid of that ugly Chicago font.  Give
>us some standard 3D stuff.  Shading.  Cool stuff like that.  Or at least
>make it an option.  What do you people think?

The first time I used a non-Chicago font in the menu bar was on a B&W
Mac, and very quickly discovered the value of Chicago.  It's designed
to still be legible when "greyed out" (the black replaced by a
black-and-white checkerboard pattern).  Other fonts are, at best,
decipherable.  So you could use another font on a color or grey-scale
monitor, but Chicago is a good choice for B&W.  Besides, I don't think
it's all that ugly, but there's no arguing about tastes.

  --dave

-- 

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:24:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

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.

>> 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.

Macs are tied to ONE OS. PC's are not. So the argument of "comparing equivalent
things" is misguided.  PC Application - program that runs on a PC.  Mac 
Application - program that runs of a Mac.  The PC app can be any one of a number
of operating systems whereas the Mac is hindered by one OS.  But back to the
point, I have never programmed for a Mac so I cannot compare Windows development
against Mac development.  Windows development over DOS development takes a 
little getting used to but is not very difficult.  In fact, I would even call
it easy.  The problem is overcomming the initial learning curve as it is with
any operating system.

>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!

Maintenance is a beast unto itself.  For example, if something blows up
inside a your computer.  If it's a Mac then you've got one source for parts,
APPLE.  If something blows up in a PC, you can get replacements almost
anywhere.  The downtime of a PC is less than an Apple.
From: coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:05:18 GMT
Reply-To: coolidge@apple.com
Organization: Open Systems Development, Porting&I/O Group, Apple Computer, Inc.

md85-epi@byse.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen) writes:
>In article <6034.2ac1db35@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>The Apple / HP/MS suit were about overlapping windows, wouldn't Apple 
>>also being suing NeXT and Sun? Did you notice that they aren't?

>Copyright is something you don't lose by not suing.
>If they win against Microsoft&HP they might decide to sue NeXT and Sun.

Copyright is something you _do_ lose by not suing. Patents do not have
to defended, but copyrights bring with then a burden to defend. If a
copyright holder ignores a violation they know about (or has reason to
know about), that lack of action constitutes a major defense to any
later action. Given the amount of time that NeXTStep and OpenLook have
been out there, it is extremely unlikely that Apple would sue them now
and even more unlikely that a court would look favorably on Apple's
delay in action. In effect, Apple has already stated (by inaction)
that neither infringes any intellectual property Apple may have.

(Note that I don't speak for Apple; that's just a reading of their
actions based on copyright law).

>I guess I should just make a much better GUI not worrying about Apple
>and then when they sue me you will come rescue me :-)

Go for it! No one (IM not so HO) has managed it yet, although NeXTStep
and OS/2 WPS have occasional flashes of brilliance.

--John

	"Character is what you are in the dark."
		-- Dr. Emilio Lizardo, _Buckaroo_Banzai_

+++John L. Coolidge++++++++++++++++coolidge@apple.com+++++++++++++++++++++++
I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer. Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge.
Copying allowed only if attributed, and if all copies may be further copied.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<strobl.717290109@gmd.de> <1992Sep25.064430.27111@ugle.unit.no>
	<strobl.717604304@gmd.de> <0_hzlck@rpi.edu> <strobl.717624432@gmd.de>
	<kmhzd9n@rpi.edu> <strobl.717719219@gmd.de> <ftjz3=k@rpi.edu>
	<strobl.717768907@gmd.de> <+!kz16n@rpi.edu> <strobl.717780436@gmd.de>
	<qdkzdx#@rpi.edu> <strobl.717865111@gmd.de> <4-lzwag@rpi.edu>
	<1acv6sINNa3n@travis.csd.harris.com> <1dlzfpk@rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:15:28 GMT

Daniel> == Daniel Norman Johnson <johnsd2@rs6115.ecs.rpi.edu> 

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

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

Applicon.  Think of a dynamic, only-shows-what's-running version of the
NeXT icon dock.  And you still get the "infinite height" menu bar.  It's
also free.

Note also that System 7 Tune-up will, if you try to open an application
when you don't have enough memory, ask you if you want to close another
application that has no open windows.  (This is nice.)

Menu bars in windows tend to make me overshoot, and I'm pretty well
practiced with the mouse; I can even play Crystal Quest and Netrek, so
it's not that I'm just uncoordinated.  Aiming for the menu bar is
something I shouldn't have to think about.
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:50:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.222259.39457@news.th-darmstadt.de> 
 derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes: 

>>I hope your understanding of DOS is better than that of the English language.
>>The real intersting part here is that in the same sentance that you tell us
                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>>how infrequently you misspell short commands, you make mistakes with words
>>of lengths between three and four letters in length.

>How about you first take care of your English spelling before you knock
>the others'?

The point isn't to knock spelling errors.  They occur more frequently that even
I would prefer.  But that was the point.  A Command Line Interface is more 
prone to error than a Graphical User Interface because typing and spelling
errors are more common with the CLI.

If the substance of my argument was that I don't make spelling errors, therefore
a CLI is a faster/better interface, then you would be warranted in pointing out
that I make spelling errors too.  But my argument was that most people do make
occasional spelling and typing errors.  I guess that I fall into the 'most people'
category on this issue.

[MGM]