HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:43:06 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <BvDFMz.K7F@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
> dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
>>Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of the basic features
>>that define a REAL operating system.  Where is Memory protection?  A
>>system level scripting language that isn't third party?  Preemptive
>>multitasking?  Command-line shells?  All these are things that Apple has
>>been promising us for years.
> 
> I strongly agree with all the above.  After working alot with Unix I can
> really see the Macs weaknesses in these areas. A marriage of the Mac user
> interface and Unix functionality would be an unbeatable combination.  

It's called A/UX. So far it hasn't sold much.

-- 
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: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:50:23 GMT
 <1992Sep22.004150.6436@leland.Stanford.EDU> <2578@cronos.metaphor.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <2578@cronos.metaphor.com>, emg@Metaphor.COM (Mike Greenawalt) says:

>But no matter what, the smoothness of operation and the graphic quality of
>OS/2 (introduced in 1992) are not the equal of what the Mac has had since
>1984.  And I won't even mention the configuration nightmares or the horde of
>applications and/or system software components that have not been converted
>to the GUI.
>
I don`t know about the Macs of 1984. But I don`t call the jumping of the mouse
cursor while accessing floppies smooth. Neither the unability to do some work
while downloading some stuff over the serial port at 9600baud. Or the half day
it takes to print some pages on a Laserwriter LS.
 But this is on
a 1991 IIsi, so perhaps it was better in the ole days.

There are not that much system software components that have not been converted
to the GUI in OS/2. One of them is Backup/Restore which is lacking at all on
the Mac.

BTW the workplace shell is some years younger than the finder, so
finally even IBM has acknowleged the benefits of a GUI (Point for Apple).
But (small hint for the future, it doesn`t count now) WPS is version 1.0
although OS/2 is version 2.0. So it has its share of bugs yet, but its
potential for the future is far beyond everything I`ve seen on a Mac.

If you think WPS is just almost what Apple had in 1984 get the IBM CUA 91 demo.
This demo is not a demo what OS/2 will deliver in some future but what it
can deliver now. It only needs native apps. And with over one million sold
units after 4 months these apps will come.
          .
So if you have to use a #*&% Intel box (at work or whereever) finally there is
hope. :-)

Michael Bode
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! .NOT.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 02:05:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <Bv7MAC.E6C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
>>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.
>Look at Prograph on the Macintosh and NeXTstep on the NeXT machine and you'll
>eat your words.  They also do far more than Visual Basic.  
>-Terry

Terry,

In the interest of eating my words please explain, in what ways are
Prograph and NeXTstep better than Visual Basic?

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:30:31 GMT

In article <5bpzyk_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>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.

I guess I was misled by the numerous posts of the superiority of Apple GUI
over another GUI or CLI. (???)

>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. :)

Yes, I meant what I said. It is not that working is better in one over
another. I meant that each one of them helps best a particular types of
jobs. That's why many people like to have systems which provide most
functionality or most flexibility (see emulators).

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

Good to agree on something,

>			- Dan Johnson

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
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:36:07 GMT

In article <mcpz53_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct03.033319.19328@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>|> No, I'm talking about a *real* GUI. It's sitton on top of a shitty O/S,
>|> but it's really real. Apple could learn a lot from it if they'd try.
>
>Unfortunately, the shitty OS affects teh GUI deeply, in lots of ways.

I think this is an invitation for a flame. What you wrote is exactly
what many NeXT or Amiga advocates think about the MacOS. :-) (I would call
it shoot-the-foot-point)

>To get past this, you need to be much more specific about what you
>want to argue. Example: standard file dialogs. 

Example: multitasking ...


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
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:34:28 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct03.233823.24925@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <6111.2acc6999@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> Note that Peter got the shortcuts wrong in the text above, so it wasn't right
>> until I corrected it.
> 
> The point isn't what the particular shortcuts are, but that they're clearly
> presented and easy to learn and allow access to ANY menu item, not just a
> subset.

Except that they don't work in all cases, so you can't use them.

>> So, if you get used to using the Alt- shortcuts (as painful as they are),
> 
> But they're NOT painful, that's the point. 

I find them painful. Well, cumbersome more than painful.

> They're learned automatically as you use the system... 

NOT!

> and the shortcuts you learn are the ones you actually *use*. 

And as soon as you try to use one of those ALT- shortcuts in a dialog,
WHAMMO -- all that learning goes out the window.

> It's a beautiful design, which helps speed learning *and* simultaneously 
> makes the system totally usable without a mouse!

Using the computer without a pointing device is a benefit? Oog. I disagree.

>> Yup. He (and you) got the shortcuts wrong. That proves the inconsistancy of
>> Windows.
> 
> Actually, if it proves anything, it proves I didn't have to memorise them:
> I just learned them naturally.

No, if you don't know what they are, then you can't recall them. You are
back to the old remember/recall cycle that we've shown is faster with the
mouse.

Second, it proves you never learned them at all, since you couldn't remember
them. If you can remember them in a discussion, you can't remember them
on the keyboard.

> After four years not using a Mac I could still quote ALT-XCV, even if I
> couldn't remember ALT-period (or whatever it is) to abort a print job.
> Because I had to sit down and *learn* them.

Except the Mac doesn't have an ALT key. It appears your learning is
defective.

>> The problem, of course, is the neverending confusion of which button to press,
> 
> This is only a problem on brain-damaged X-windows systems where every
> application has its own GUI design. Really. On the Amiga or in OpenLook
> I can just use "SELECT" and "MENU".

This is also the problem with OS/2 PM and Windows. There's no consistancy
in the UI design. (Gee, we've come full circle)

-- 
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: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Software Emulation
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 27 Sep 1992 05:21:11 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

  Isn't there a licensing problem with all forms of Macintosh Emulators?
Are'nt the Macintosh OS system software only licensed to run on authorized
hardware platforms? I thought it said so somewhere in the fine print.

---
 The Evil Tofu
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:49:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.0elb_xS00VRB4=YItF
	<hlhzwsn@rpi.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> I see. Menus, but not mice. Well, that helps but its hardly
> better than mousing (instead of finding the mouse, you
> find the alt-key.)

agreed - the alt key is just a poor substitute for a mouse in this
case

> Finding the mouse doesn't take long, if you are good at it.
> Its always right where you left it.

but you still have to reach for it with your arm

> :) That's a good way out of ANYTHING. Basically, "if it doens't
> agree with me, it must have been done wrong." :)

will someone please show me these studies.
I have never seen one.  I have seen mention of studies that Apple did
showing that new users worked faster with mousing than with a CLI.  Then
I saw someone hypothesize that this was because of the active motor
processes involved in rememberring commands.  Then suddenly everyone
is taking it as gospel.  I have yet to see any proof to the contrary.
I have done some testing (ok not very major tests - timing myself and
a few friends with a clock doing basic tasks) that show a CLI to be
much faster for certain tasks (a significant enough portion to make it
worthwile to have one)

> WindowShade-    Double click window title bars, and watch them roll up

> SpeedyFinder-   Lots of things. It makes your floppy icons display

> SoundMaster-    Everyone's favorite :) Plays sounds on certain

> MaxApplZoom-    This one is wild. It reprograms the Apple High-Resolution

> Wild Magic-     Comes with QuickTime. This fudges things so that apps

> Just TRY to make a batch file do THAT! :)

comparing apples to oranges, i should say :-)
but you can do all that stuff in a real operating system like os/2 as
long as you have the right hardware (sound card for sounds, etc.)
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macs are the best!
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:11:54 GMT
 <1992Sep22.143333.2059@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
 <1992Sep22.185236.2307@ra.msstate.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Sep22.185236.2307@ra.msstate.edu>, ada@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
(Sunga Rettaf) says:
>
 [stuff about the NeXT deleted]

>If it is a better computer, why are there so few of them?  The number of
>Macs clearly show that it is the superior computer.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So I guess the PC (probably with 8088 and 80286) is the best of all, simply
because there are sooooo much of them. Interesting to hear that from a Mac
advocate. Even the most extreme PC advocates wouldn`t dare to say such rubbish.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:13:37 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 <TOMSTER.92Sep28222039@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:

>Okay.  'select del (*.*)'.  Then I'm selecting which files I want to delete
>by highlighting and pressing space-bar.
>Or.  'except(select (*.*)) del *.*'.  Then I select which files I *don't* want
>to delete.  If I don't remember the exact syntaxt, 'except /?' gives me
>the syntaxt.

Well, the word "syntaxt" isn't in my dictionary.  Presumeably you
mean syntax.  Yet another CLI user who believes that typing errors
are not a problem but can't spell.  

If you really believe you could type this, then type in the command
names of all the files you *don't* want to delete without forgetting
any or misspelling any, resulting in files you really wanted being
deleted, you're living in a dream world.

Also, the (del *.txt) type commands are only really useful in a
file system where filenames are constrained to DOS-like conventions.
If you have a real filing system, where documents have names like
"Letter to Bill", "*.txt" doesn't mean very much.


>The example *you* gave, however, is more than just slightly caterring to your
>GUI point of view.  How does 'the first four columns' relate to any real
>filing system?

Some people want to do more with their computers than just play with 
the file system.

>The system 'imposed upon us' by that evil thing DOS by nature has very quick
>short-cuts and casts in it.  

Quick?  Only because you insist that "the time spent learning a command
doesn't count, only the time spent actually typing it in."  This is like
measuring an astronaut's work days by those he spends in space, ignoring
all the time he spends on the ground *training* to go into space.

It also assumes that you can type those commands acurately, the first
time, every time.  Most people can't.  This has been shown time and time
again.  Even people "showing off" their knowledge of UNIX and DOS commands
in comp.sys.mac.advocacy have managed to get them wrong, time and time again.


>How easy is it for you to launch a system-
>intensive application and leave for lunch?

Unless both hands are in a cast, very easy.


>If you are not drugged or unconcious, you will most likely see the listing
>of deleted files go up on your screen.  I know that I, as an 'experienced'
>CLI user, read these as they come up so that I don't screw things up.  

Lucky for you you have a ".edu" address.  If you had a job in the
real world, you might find your boss asking you to work overtime.
You might get tired, make mistakes... start to spell things like
"syntax" as "syntaxt."  You see, no matter how many times you say,
"but I never make mistakes," it isn't true.







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: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:56:10 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 <1992Oct2.203520.17288@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Well, in my specific case, you suspect wrong.  Practically all the  
>systems I worked on before getting a mono NeXT were color.  And it  
>was precisely that experience that convinced me that color added  
>little or nothing to my productivity.

Well, color has come a ways since the stone age. :-)

>In other comments, you mention the performance penalty that NeXT has  
>to bear for having display postcript.  Color likewise imposes a  
>performance penalty.  

Insignificant.  You can now buy accelerated 24-bit color cards
starting under $400.  Who's making Display PostScript accelerators
and how much do they sell for?

>The difference is that while display postscript  
>is genuinely useful to me, because of the equivalence between screen  
>and printed results, color adds little beyond aesthetic value.

Well, yeah, if the difference between a 1-bit MacPaint drawing and 
a 24-bit raytraced image is what you mean by "aesthetic value."
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Object-oriented technology (was Re: Macs are the best!)
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UelLlhq00VAt89N65H
	<1992Sep25.154415.23552@pellns.alleg.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

dblackbu@carr11.alleg.edu (David Blackburn) writes:
> Well, there's always Hypercard. It ain't fast, but it's as flexible as  
> string (physical, not ASCII that is ;-). And you can make it as customized  
> as you want by incorporating compiled chunks from other languages, or get  
> compiled chunks that other people made and stick them in. And of course it  
> (at least was) bundled as part of the Mac package. 

somebody please tell me this is a joke
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: chris@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Chris Manly,,,2577951)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Originator: chris@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:09:50 GMT

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.

That is beacuse such control systems do not require the interface of the Mac.
When the primary interface is between the computer and a machine, it is not
as important to have a user-oriented interface. If there were a demand for
this interface in those markets, there would be Mac products to fill the
demand.

Anyway, I would tend to dispute your implication that industrial control
systems are the only important work a computer can do.  It is, after all,
computation and calculation which are a computer's forte.  I think that
scientific computation, business applications, electronic publishing, etc.
are also very important endeavors which computers lend themselves to well.

--
Christopher A. Manly 	c.manly@cornell.edu	| Cornell doesn't pay me
(607) 257-7951		chris@crnlmsc2.bitnet	| enough for my opinions
						| to be theirs.
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: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:08:42 GMT

In <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.

Please define "deal".

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:42:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.213138.12576@times.aux.apple.com> coolidge@apple.com writes:

>This may be true. It _does_not_ deny that I had not one but three
>salescritters, _and_ the printed price sheet, disagree with you.

I would say the salescritters didn't want to sell a NeXT - otherwise
they would not have [<lied to you> <been misinformed>].  I can
say the price sheet was not from NeXT.  You cannot purchase a NeXT
*without* NeXTSTEP.  It is included in the price.  In fact, though
an 8/105 cannot hold the entire release (it does not come with the
development tools), you are still *licensed* for all of it if, at
some future date, you purchase a large enough drive to hold it.

Spouting misinformation like this only serves to make you look defensive
and soil the Mac's fine reputation.

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                            *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)