HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:45:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: gmd.strobl.717792329
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany

In <1992Sep28.152825.16163@cc.umontreal.ca> tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos) writes:

>Wolfgan Strobl writes:

>Can your Mac read/write 5 1/4" diskettes?

>Well, Wolfgang, yes, there are several external 5 1/4" drives available
>for the Mac that can read ProDos and Dos formats.  But why the 
>hell would anyone want to use 5 1/4's when 3.5s are smaller, and more
>durable.

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. 

In addition, there exists a pure software solution to read 3 1/2
inch HD disks.

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.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:46:28 GMT

In <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu> kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) 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.  
>Well, I guess this is what an advocacy group is for: being able to use
>a loaded and essentially meaningless adjective such as REAL.

>>Where is Memory protection? 
>This is probably the biggest feature lacking in the MacOS. From what
>I understand, though, it's a highly nontrivial task to graft this onto
>the OS now. Microsoft did add memory protection to Win3, at the expense of
>essentially breaking all Win2 applications, which didn't matter since
>no one was using any Win2 applications. 

You seem to confuse a few things.  Microsoft didn't add "memory
protection" to Windows 3, they changed it so that it could run in
Protected Mode on 286 and above processors. This is not the same.
Running in protected mode is only a necessary, but not a
sufficient precondition to implement memory protection on Intel 
CPUs. Running in Protected Mode has a lot of other advantages
besides that (breaking the 1M barrier, better hardware support
for memory management, i.e. for relocation of memory blocks,
better backward compatibility for DOS on 386, for example).

In fact, Microsoft added only a little bit of memory protection
during the change from version 2 to 3. The only reason for that
was *not* to break applications written for Windows 2. This
was essential, because there where a lot of them available and
in use. This was quite successfull, because many  Windows 2
applications (essentially all those which where written by
the rules) ran under Windows 3 without any change. Fixing those
which did not was trivial, most of the time.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 03:17:51 GMT

In article <8jmz05+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct01.113803.11359@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |> In article <ydkz3z#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> |> > IMHO, your subordinate doesn't speak English. He speaks a limited
> |> > pidgeon of swahili, with occasionaly English words thrown in. The
> |> > gramar is minimal, and primitive where it does exist, the vocabular
> |> > is near zilch. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to point the dude
> |> > in the right direction? [ie, gesture?] Perhaps if you happened,
> |> > just be chance, to have picture of a cup o' coffee lying around
> |> > (now how'd that get there?)....

> |> Fine, except he gets the coffee from room 221-A, and you'd rather have him g
> |> to the third floor machine in 332-G because they clean their coffee maker
> |> more often.

> No he don't. He knows a clean coffee maker from a dirty one. Where
> are you getting this?

OK, the one in 221-A is clean, but the regular secretary is on vacation
and it's got Folgers instead of fresh-ground. My subordinate doesn't know
Folgers from Hills Bros.

> Learn Pidgin:	You can do this, but pidgin is limited and awkward.

It's less awkward than pictures and charades. And certainly less limited.

> 		this seems to be what you hve done.

Yep. The learning curve is steeper, but you only have to climb it once.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 16:42:04 GMT

Bill Coleman writes
> I was under the impression that DPS was actually kinda slow.
> At least it appeared to be a bit sluggish on the old NeXT cube. 
> 

The old cube was slow.  Period.  Check out the latest models (or do  
you think we should still judge Macs by the standards of the original  
128k mac?).
It is quite true that DPS does not come cheap, performance-wise; on  
anything less than a NeXT-level performance you'd really feel the  
pain.  Then again, as was pointed out by another poster, you could  
really get blinding speed if you wrote directly to the screen as in  
many DOS programs.  Hands up those who think that would be a good  
idea.  Using DPS means that NeXTs aren't as fast as they could be,  
given their hardware.  The same is true of macs, incidentally; if you  
turned off all that silly GUI ridiculousness, you could have a very  
fast character-based system, able to take on even DOS machines!   
Hands up those who think _that_ would be a good idea.

> QuickDraw GX will be fast, fast, fast! I saw demos at
> the Developers Conference. Wow.
> 

It'll be great if its as fast as promised.  But lets wait and see the  
actual production version, under real use.  If you can't make a demo  
_look_ effective, you're not worth your salary as a salesman.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:09:43 GMT

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>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.
Wrongo.  AUX 3.0 is better than before but it's still a kludge of the Mac OS
and Unix.  Almost as bad as Windows running on top of DOS and with alot of
the same weaknesses.  But then you knew that didn't you.
-Terry
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: terjer@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: IfI, UNIT-AVH
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 08:21:34 GMT

In article <1664@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam
Blackburn) wrote:
> 
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
> >All that hardware you bought for $2000 is going
> >to be one very expensive silicon space heater.
> 
> How can hardware that is not tied to any ONE OS become a space heater?

Just plug it in and turn it on!

> 
> >Students, note that John has neglected to include software with his computer.
> 
> Students also note that most PC systems today ship with Windows or you can get
> it for about $50 when you buy the system.
> 
> Sammy

But what can you do with Windows? Are you saying that if you buy a 
PC with Windows you don't need to buy applications?


Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
Internet : terjer@ifi.unit.no
AppleLink: NOR0103
Tlf : +47-7-591845
Fax : +47-7-591733
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:59:25 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct03.230921.20117@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <6105.2acc370e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> System 7 features: 
>> * InterApplication communication, with provisions for App to App communications
>>   using standard terminology (AppleEvents), on the same machine or over a
>>   network. (Windows not, OS/2 not)
> 
> AmigaOS 2.0 has, though the networking is 3rd party. Actually AmigaOS 1.1 had
> this.

Nope. It doesn't. Doesn't have the standard terminology (AppleEvents). 
And does any of this Amiga stuff work over a network?

>> * Support for the localization of Sorting order, Data and Time formats,
>>   currency, measurement, calenders and numbers (Not, Not)
> 
> AmigaOS 2.1 has.

All of them? 

>> * Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
>>   static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 
> 
> Standard formats for data has been one of the Amiga's strong points.

The Mac has had standard formats for several types of data. I was specifically
speaking of temporal data, with compression. (QuickTime) I don't think the
Amiga has support for this kind of data.

> Not everything, but pretty much considering that it'll run on a $300 computer.

Gee, Peter, you left out a considerable number of the other things I mentioned.
Perhaps because the Amiga doesn't have them?

-- 
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
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:17:33 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <ibhan.718039215@husc8>  writes:
>I'm a college student about to buy a computer, and I'd love to buy a 
>NeXT,
>but frankly, I think they're just too expensive.  Sure, they may be a
>better deal than the approx $3000 Mac I'm about to get, but with Macs you
>can get color with a machine as low-end as the LC.  With the NeXT, you
>have to find the money for a NeXT Station Color, which may be a really
>nice system, but it's also really expensive.  At least on the Mac, you
>don't need to buy a Quadra to have color.


Fair enough.  A $5000 NeXTStation Color is very competitive with other  
$5000 machines, but certainly not with a <$2000 LC.  If all you need to do  
is write papers, or do small graphics work, there's no reason to pay more  
than $2000 to do it.  What it boils down to is:  the NeXT is very very  
competitive with similar machines, but if you don't need its power, you  
don't need it.  The NeXT is overkill for well over 80% of the computing  
population.

BTW, for most functions, color is not all that useful, (Apple's #1 seller  
is the Classic II, isn't it?).  If a great many of the advantages the  
NeXTstation (Mono) offers might be useful to you, I would consider how  
important color really is, compared to the disadvantages a $3000 Mac would  
have compared to a $3000 NeXT.  Perhaps color may be very important for  
the stuff you're doing, but I'd wager that unless you're into a lot of  
graphics (including color output), it's probably not.

--

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: ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:15:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.ibhan.717866137
 <1992Sep24.202232.14538@javelin.sim.es.com> <strobl.717369208@gmd.de> 
 <1992Sep28.152825.16163@cc.umontreal.ca> <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.

Well, I think the 3.5" PC format is fairly standard now, and the Mac, with
no additional hardware, can read all PC formats of 3.5" disks.  Within the
PC market itself, unless you have both types of drives, you need
additional hardware just to read the other kind of disks.  And unless you
have the highest capacity drive, you won't be able to read HD formats
(same as Mac 800K disks can't read Mac 1.4 disks).
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccsouth07.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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.024931.25310@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <hdpz1g+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> > Well, I at least find pop up menus a pain because the targets are
|> > really small, vertically. They are wide enough, but one line
|> > of text is a pain to hit accurately. It slows me down.
|> 
|> I don't understand this. All menus require you to hit a vertical target
|> of that size, once you've pulled it up.

I know. Bizzare, ain't it?

Maybe Its the mice. Maybe Im just messed up. But it does trip
me up.

-- 
			- 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: 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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:06:20 GMT


Wolfgang Strobl writes:

>>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. 

>Doesn't qualify a 5.25" drive as hardware?


>>> 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?

>No. The Macintosh has moved from old, proprietary floppy technology to
>something more standard. In order to read that old, outdated format, 
>which Apple only supports for compatibility purposes within their
>own line of computers, you need additional hardware on PCs. This
>hardware is available, but nobody with a brain would put it into
>new PCs as a standard feature. Do new Macs come with a standard
>5.25" drive, just to be able to read old PC floppies? Of course, not!


Wolfgang, I don't think you really get it.  Sure, you'll need a drive of
the appropriate type to read a disk, but if you have a drive (say 3.5")
then it is a benefit to be able to read a variety of formats with it
without having to purchase extra adapter boards and/or software.

I can take a 3.5" disk that has been formatted with MS-DOS, Macintosh HFS,
or even ProDOS and read it in a Mac SuperDrive (std. equipment).  I can 
read, write, and format in all of the stated formats.

On the other hand, it is very common to format a 3.5" 720 KB MS-DOS disk
on a high density drive and not have it work on another PC that has
a 720 KB 3.5" drive.  The same problem occurs with many PC 5.25" 
drives.



To reitterate the real point here:

>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. 

I do this kind of thing all the time, and I don't need to purchase extra drives for
the Mac.  All of the above stated formats, including Mac HFS & MFS come on 3.5"
disks.  These are the most common formats, and the ones that most people want to
convert.

[MGM]



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 02:49:31 GMT

In article <hdpz1g+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> Well, I at least find pop up menus a pain because the targets are
> really small, vertically. They are wide enough, but one line
> of text is a pain to hit accurately. It slows me down.

I don't understand this. All menus require you to hit a vertical target
of that size, once you've pulled it up.
-- 
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: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: System 7's memory protection, or lack therof
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


  I have heard a rumor that Apple is going to provide a system
extension similar to Tune Up that will provide preemtivitive
(yes, I can't spell today) multitasking.

  System 7 is the only OS other than a DOS/Win 3.1 combo that
does not have some form of memory protection.  OS/2, A/UX,
Windows NT (Gag!), NeXTSTEP, Pink, AIX, XENIX and UNIX have
memory protection so when one app decides to barf and die
a sick death, your system does not go bye-bye.

  In OS/2, Control-Esc will save you, the NeXT can click
out of the offending program, NT (who cares), and UNIX,
control-C or Control-Z, or logging on another terminal
will take care of the problem.  System 7 TRIES, by
the command-option-esc combo, but on my machine,
I end up into macsbug or if MB is not installed,
I end up with a frozen keyboard.

System 7 is very good, but it needs this memory protection
for mission critical tasks.  This is probably one of the reasons
that the Mac is not used for mission critical stuff.

PS:  I like the Mac, have done so since 1984, and have
written items for it.  I just do not like this weakness
in the OS.

PS#2:  Pnews crashed on me when I was first writing this
article (omen, perhaps?), and I recovered by starting
a new terminal session.

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

   I would rather have a frontal lobotomy than Windows NT!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@rs6219.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:15:41 GMT

[deletia- various babble, not saying anything much, until this:]
|> 
|> Snide remark: The apparent lack of understanding of some  Mac users that
|> there is something like proceduralization which allows the user to
|> interact (after exercise) with the system using very little 'attention',
|> seems to indicate that the Mac GUI is severely lacking in some
|> respects.

And Macheads are certainly glad it is, too. :)

|> Nat!
|> P.S.  Stuff a GUI can't do 

Oh good. :)

|> Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)

A workaround to a problem GUIs dont (well, shouldn't) have,
namely long obnoxious commands. GUIs have _short_, obnoxious
commands. :) All the difference in the world.

|> Command name completion (not filename) (possible, but not implemented)

No command names. :)


-- 
			- 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: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau)
Subject: comp.sys.mac.advocacy <- Hey! Important word here...
Keywords: fnord 
Organization: Fredonian Computer Network 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:30:52 GMT

	Sheesh.  I must kill fifty posts a day on why IBM MS-DOS/Windoze/OS2
is better than the Macintosh.  Really, I don't have any complaints.  If we,
the Mac community, can't honestly prove our platforms and OS to be superior
to those available in the IBM world, then we'll just have to beat them to
a bloody pulp. :)  First off, I'd like to say that I agree with virtually
every comment made about Mac goodness here : Assured hardware and software
compatibility (well, almost, but we're a lot closer than the IBM fools),
the wonders of the Mac GUI, and the speed with which the Mac handles this
(especially relative to Windoze.  OS/2 isn't really comparable because of
the extreme hardware required to use it.).  Second, I'd like to agree with
virtually every comment made about IBM "badness" : CLIs (sure, they're nice,
they're potentially more powerful than a GUI, etc., but they should be an 
option for using your computer, not the rule.), wretched compatibility,
and family values. :) 
	Finally, I'm now going to select Restart in the Special menu.
Hopefully, this will purge all IBM fools from this newsgroup and allow us
to get back to the real business of mindlessly reveling in our GUI world. 
Hey!  Does anyone else realize that with NowMenus you can dump an alias of
your entire _harddrive_ in the apple menu and have it easily accessible
from _anywhere_?  It goes without saying, of course, that an IBM can't do
this...

		- Drau

The first rule, grasshopper, in dealing with the universe, is the realization
that there are absolutely no absolutes.  All opinions are subject to dissent,
all facts are subject to learning. 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood)
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:49:22 GMT




I claimed...
>The Apple Lisa was preemptively multi-tasking in 1983

David Vandeven replied;
>Apple Lisa PREEMPTIVELY MULTITASKING?  BULLSHIT!!!!! 

Daniel Norman Johnson wrote:

> It certainly did some sort of multitasking, from the screen
> shots Ive seen.

Bill Coleman wrote:

>Lisa multitasking was non-preemptive.
>It did, however, have memory protection, and virtual memory for code segments.

I'll double check.  I still have the copy of Byte that introduced the
Lisa and the Apple //e (which I still own... but that's another story).

Chris


Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com