HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:33:14 GMT

In article <6138.2ad1c9cc@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <D2150025.phghrd@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
>> Have YOU ever used an Amiga? 
>
>Yup. I actually played quite a bit with an Amiga 1000. 

And you make up your opinions based on that experience????
When was that, may I ask?

>Face it. Preemptive tasking doesn't make that much of a difference to the
>user. There's little or no perceptable benefit.

It depends if the user wants to work fast or not.

>> I think before you belabor the point of the Mac's OS not needing preemption
>> you sit down and work with an Amiga for a few hours.
>
>Why bother? You might as well suggest I go work on OS/2 as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

It would help you to present more educated opinions.

>Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958

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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:17:13 GMT

In <ibhan.717866137@husc10> ibhan@husc10.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:

>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, [...]

Well, I think that you think that whatever the Mac has is 
fairly standard now. 

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 03:33:19 GMT

In article <4jmz7x+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct01.115048.11563@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |> You know... it's possible
> |> to consider individual components of a system and discuss their merits
> |> separately without getting emotional. At least I hope it is.

> Oh, I very much doubt it! :) I mean, this is an .advocasy group... :)

This is why I hate the name "advocacy". People think it's a synonym for
"flame". If you want a flame group, call a spade a spade and make one.

> Anyway, the implementation is what matters. If you want to talk
> about a THEORETICAL windows, Fine.

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.

> But you'll have to tell us
> SPECIFICALLY what you are talking about.

I did. The GUI.

> It isn't clear to me that
> the Program Manager isn't included in what you were talking about....

PM is an application. The GUI is the window system: how menys operate,
how windows operate: interactions between menys, gadgets, and keyboard
shortcuts, and so on.

> I suspect that that is (or should be) just plain print, no? On the Macintosh
> that's command-P.

OK, now what's "Print Final"?

> Now, the reason for having standard command keys
> is to avoid using the menus for certain common commands (quit, save);

But the commands *you* find common aren't the ones *I* find common. In Windows,
you automatically learn the hotkeys for the commands *you* do.

For example, a hotkey for "quit" is useless to me. I use "quit" about once
a session (by definition, allowing for crashes). I use "Select Italic style"
or whatever a whole lot more often.

Quick, what are the hotkeys/shortcuts for "select italic", "begin underline",
"quarter note", and "rounded box"? Are there any?

I don't know what they are in Windows, but I do know that I'll know them within
15 minutes of starting an application.

> It isn't. pity. Under windowsm how do you tell just by looking at the
> screen, what disks are mounted?

Your point. Of course, I use an Amiga, so I get to see both of those facts.

> b) How do you get the menu bar on a Windows app to come down to where
> you are? Without shrinking the apps window or moving it down so that
> the upper areas of the screen cannot be used?

Well, I generally have 3 or 4 programs running concurrently, and don't overlap
them much, when I'm using a screen large enough to make a difference.

> Upshot: These hacks aren't needed.

I need them. Particularly the menu handling. Not only can you use Windows
without a mouse, but it's even convenient.

> Some people just like them. Are there
> comparable things for Windows, if you dont like the way Windows works?

Yes, but you really don't need to use them that much.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`
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 16:52:40 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <UenWvoy00WBNM2TW5B@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
> 
> Yes, but there is the rule of thumb: Cooperative multitasking is only as
> good as the worst written app.  That means that on a Mac, if you're
> running some shareware hack that was written in five minutes and won't
> give up processor time, then you just may lose control of you system
> because of that app.

Of course, there's a whole host of other bad, evil things this shareware
application could do, like destroy some or all of your files, or bring
your network or serial communications down, or even crash your machine.

I would think that not giving up processor time would be the least of your
worries.

What I don't understand, however, is this insistance on applications that
can't cooperate. MultiFinder has been around for 5 years. In the Mac world,
we long ago weeded out the applications that can't cooperate. It has become
a non-problem for everything but formatting floppies.

-- 
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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:07:28 GMT

In <1992Sep27.170305.12832@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Wolfgang Strobl writes
>>>>> 1. Consistent user interface - Simplicity saves time. Apple
>>>>>    has spend a lot of time and effort to insure that
>>>>>    applications have a standard look and feel.
>>>> 
>>>> Question: did Apple succeed?
>>>
>>> Yes. Very much so. There are a few companies that insist on
>>> breaking those rules.
>>> One of the main offenders is Microsoft. 
>> 
>> Perhaps because Microsoft has had to keep a standard look and 
>> feel for its applications on a bigger scale, which dosn't just 
>> include the Mac platform, only?

>Who cares about application look and feel across platforms?  Which  
>better describes the average user?
>1. Uses the same app on different platforms, so wants that app
>   to look/feel the same across platforms.
>2. Uses different apps on the same platform, so wants all apps
>   on that platform to look/feel the same.

>Unless MS really thinks people are running Excel, say, on three  
>different platforms, cross-platform look+feel just isn't an issue.   

I don't know what Microsoft thinks, but IMHO it is quite probable
that an average Excel user has a good chance to use Excel on
both platforms during his professional life, and that he or she
doesn't use much other applications besides Excel.

There are many companies who have both Macintoshs and PCs, and
have the same training on Excel for both platforms.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:10:39 GMT

There ARE things for which a CLI is preferable to a GUI.  As a Mac and UNIX
fan, I must agree with this.

Most Mac users, however, do not need CLI functionality much.  Also, to
include a CLI with Macs would simply encourage developer laziness.  CLI
hacks would replace beautiful, creative GUI solutions.  I believe that
the main reason Apple does not include a CLI with the Mac is to encourage
GUI, as opposed to CLI, development on the Mac.

If you need/want a CLI for the Mac, spend the $100 on MPW.  It can do all
of what all of the CLI fans are whining about and more.  Also, it 
backgrounds relatively nicely while it does these things.  A freeware
editor, Alpha, includes much of the "rm *.c" functionality at no cost.  So,
if you need/want CLI features, don't whine, just get an appropriate program
to solve the need/want.

Solving GUI needs CANNOT be adequately done on a PC, except PERHAPS with
OS/2, which I have not run, so I'll reserve comment.  Windows does not fit
the bill and requires many meg of disk space and RAM.  OS/2 requires even
more.  These are not cheap little add ons, unless you start with a very
hefty set of hardware.

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:54:44 GMT

In article <ewright.718052529@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>
>>Well, about a year ago that was how it was with the NeXT.  NeXT customers  
>>were out on a limb.  But now NeXT's software base is moving towards that  
>>magic 1000.  
>
>Well, since it's increasing and below 1000, it's moving toward it.
>But the last time I looked at an ad for NeXTConnection in a copy 
>of NeXTWorld, the number of software packages wasn't even close to
>100.

Historical note....  The major complaint against the mac in 1985 was
that it lacked the software base of a DOS box.  We all knew however
that the Mac software was much better, so the number did not really
matter.  Most people only use a half dozen applications anyway.

NeXT does have all the software most people normally use, yes,
including wordprocessors.  It also has the advantage of having an easy
to program interface.  That it is easy of course is just my opinion,
but I would argue that it is easy than the Mac.  

-- Peter Kocks
   kocks@chemistry.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:23:15 EDT

In article <ewright.717785119@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Autocad for the Mac.
>
Don't make me Puke...  We just got it in, trying to do 3-D surface modelling
and stay compatible with someone else....  It's designed for Dosites..
I could (and will) write a Mac surface modeller in less time than a
novice user could learn this pigshit of a program. Even the Autodesk
support people have no clue.. (and we have an Eval copy, so it's in the
best benifit to show us how to use it)

BTW, anyone know of a good (or bad) 3-D reconstrucion program?
preferably one that'll take NIH Image files (TIFF & text output of tracing)
as input? and do real-time rotation?

Autocad... and they consider it good.. try Claris CAD, out machinist
tried looking at the AutoCad and laughed his way back to Claris CAD
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<ewright.717701028@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:35:54 GMT

Natuerlich!> == Natuerlich!  <wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> 

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

 Natuerlich!> Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)

Why "can't" it do this?  Look at some of the programs with an "again" or
"undo/redo" like Canvas or Nisus sometime.

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

What would this be?  Cli<TAB> dra<TAB>?  Command completion is to save
you typing, right?  So what's there to save when every command is
roughly the same amount of mousing?  (Barring bizarre hierarchical
monstrosities and MicroSoft's "hide it three dialogs deep".)
--
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>
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:51:16
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<ewright.717701028@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de> <6072.2ac8373c@hayes.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 29 Sep 92 11:00:12 EDT

In article <6072.2ac8373c@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de>, wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:

   > Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)

   Wrong! AppleEvents (when recorded) make up a detailed command history.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was the point.  I just did some horrendous task and now want to repeat
it.  I did not know I would want to repeat it when I started the task.  I
know that now.  Therefore, I did not start up my macro recorder.  Now.  How
do I repeat that sequence of events with only a few mouse and/or keyboard
clicks on a Mac.  On my pc, i press up-arrow, <enter>.

   -- 
   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.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu
--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 21:36:33 PDT
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
Reply-To: whoever posted this thread first
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5


In article <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu>, kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) writes:

> >system level scripting language that isn't third party?  
> Apple is working on AppleScript. Again, a nontrivial task: just what
> should a scripting language for a graphical interface look like?

I just saw an alpha of Applescript.  IT SUCKS!! It deals only with OSA compatible
applications, and its interface is lame.  It hardly delivers system-level power.
And it's useless as a command-line shell. 
 I am VERY disappointed.  MacroMaker is more useful.

> >Preemptive
> >multitasking?
> For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue.

Have you ever had a file transfer abort because you were launching an application
or pulling down a menu?  And don't tell me about MacIntercomm..  The multitasking
capacity of system 7 is spastic at best.

> >All these are things that Apple has
> >been promising us for years.
> Other than AppleScript, Apple never promised any of this for System 7.
> For me, the things that *were* dropped seem more important: the Line
> Manager, the better Print architecture.
> 


> There are always two important considerations when talking about features:
> 1. The feature itself.
> 2. How well it is implemented.
> Apple, to its credit, has long realized the second is at least as important
> as the first, and that if it can't be implemented well, then it can wait.
> Features should not be added merely to fill in check marks on a
> comparison chart.

See above flames of Applescript.  I disagree.

> Kenneth Chang
> kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu
> 


 David Vandeven    ********************************************************
Systems Progammer  *   "I don't believe in Pinochle, I don't believe I'll *
    Deadhead       * try: I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the    *
    Cyberpunk      * Frizzle Fry!"  (dvan@spumco.cts.com)      *PRIMUS!*  *
Zen Agnostic Guru  ********************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nazedgi@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (ivan)
Subject: PDA's are a flop
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:44:56 GMT

Pda's are the wave of the future and Apple is going to sell trillions of
them.  Yeah, right.  I wonder how a computer is going to be able to
recognize handwriting when people sometimes can't even recognize their own.
 And even if the software would be so great that it could recognize all
types of handwriting, why in the world would anyone want to buy a $900
notepad.  I don't know what John Sculley thinks, but this new Apple product
sound like a Lemon to me.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:04:39 GMT

In article <ibhan.718039411@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Ever printed a large, complicated document in a page layout program or
> >structured graphics program?

> I think his point was that it's very infrequent that most people  print a
> large compicated document in a page layout program and need to do
> something else at the same time.

There's that word again. "need".

You don't "need" multitasking at all. You don't "need" a computer at all.

I still prefer a computer that works like a kitchen (I can make coffee
while the oven's in use without making the roast take longer or come out
funny) than a microwave. I find it intolerable to have to stop what I'm
doing just because the system's busy. I love being able to come up to
a screen someone else is using, start a print of something, and go away
secure in the knowledge that *my* printout isn't going to mess up *their*
work.

Funny how all these things that I've been doing for years don't become
necessities until Microsoft offers them. I judge necessity by what I want
to do, not what sells.
-- 
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?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:02:08 GMT

In article <-dpzy-+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>
>Of course not. And they dont all belong in the Apple menu anyway-
>some belong on the desktop (where you can drag and drop to them); Most
>of the little utilities that do simple things should be extensions, which
>change the behaviour of the finder (fer instance), so that they can
>do all sorts of neat things. An obvious example is SpeedyFinder7,
>which adds a "Get Info on Origional" command to the Finder. this
>could be done w/ a drag&drop app (drop an alias on the app,
>it sends an apple event to the finder telling it to display
>the info window on the thing), but SpeedyFinder7 provides a neater
>solution- when the option key is down, Get Info changes to Get Origional
>Info and you can just use the menu (or do an option-command-I, if you
>like)
>
>Of course, you cant get to 700 things that way. but then, I doubt
>very much you can remember 700 things anyway. You can get a lot
>of things in very cleanly this way tho.

I really think that everyone who works on multiple systems knows much
more than that. Please read my other post on that.

>			- Dan Johnson
-- 
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: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:04:00 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct01.113803.11359@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <ydkz3z#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>> 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
> 
> 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.

All the more reason to use a gestural language. If you had a Map, you could
point to the right room with no ambiguity. (eg "I thought you said....")

Of course, with a CLI approach, you could tell your servant to go get 
coffee in 332-G, and he comes back empty-handed, because the coffee was
really in 332-F, and you misspoke (typed).

-- 
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