HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Mac software on a NeXT (was:"official" FSF position on apple)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:49:58 GMT

TS> == Tanya Sienko <sienko@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu> 

 TS> Fom what I hear, a NeXTstation Turbo runs the mac software from 6
 TS> to 20 times faster than a mac II ci, depending on the application.

My comments in an earlier posting about comparing a IIci to an emulator
(in that case, an Amiga-based emulator using 128K ROMs) apply.  In
particular, what bit depth?  Was the IIci using onboard video, or a
card?  Was the cache card included?
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:32:16 GMT

In <ewright.717458505@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <strobl.717018085@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>Well, I just yesterday made that very mistake, by dropping something on 
>>the editor icon without noticing that I had selected a full range
>>of files instead of a single file. The computer was busy for the
>>next twenty minutes and I had to spend an additional five minutes
>>to close all these unwanted windows. Yes, this was on a GUI
>>(neither Mac nor Windows). I don't think that an equally capable
>>GUI protects an user from shooting himself into his feet better
>>than a CLI. 

>Maybe a "GUI" doesn't, but the Macintosh does.  At least if
>the programmer follows the human-interface guidelines.  Drag-
>and-drop applications cannot work invisibly in the background.
>They should have a minimal interface to give the user control.

That is, a dialog box saying

    Now deleting file 723 of 1324,
    Now deleting file 817 of 1324,
    Now deleting ... 
and so on, with a big ABORT button is a solution to that 
and similar problems?

I doubt it.

The answer "but the Macintosh does. At least if the programmer
follows the human-inteface guidelines" doesn't give much of a
hint about a specific solution. Isn't that just "The Macintosh
can do that, by definition"?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:13:57 GMT

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

 Carl> Except that I'm at 1024x768 which gives me tons of room compared
 Carl> to 640x480(?).

Right, for the "standard" 13" color or 12" mono monitors.  However, keep
in mind that the internal ci and si video can also drive a 15"
portrait-mode full-page monitor, and the Quadra internal video can drive
an 1152x900 21" color monitor at up to 8 bits (16 on the Q950).

Of course, many people buy various video cards, which, due to the
hardware/software architecture of the Mac, work with their software
without needing a VGA or SVGA or Fred's Special GA driver.  And of
course there's always the Thunder/24 (24 bits at 21", and fast too) for
those of us who win the lottery :)
--
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: mikelee@oregon.uoregon.edu (mike lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:32:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: old oregon magazine

Answer: Mine.

...Mike Lee, Old Oregon magazine, University of Oregon
...MIKELEE@oregon.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 17:03:05 GMT

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.   
Even when people use more than one platform, its usually to do things  
that cannot be done on their other platforms.

What's important is that the _files_ be compatible across platforms,  
not user interfaces.  The app's user interface should be compatible  
with other apps on the same platform.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: flui@fraser.sfu.ca (Francis Wai Gee Lui)
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:44:58 GMT

In article <Bvo99x.HI0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey) writes:
>>For much less than original Quadra, you would have Amiga A4000 and the
>>Mac which runs like Quadra (just fewer colors). Thus you would have
>>two computers. Is it good reason for you?
>
>Oh, I would be the first in line to buy an Emplant if this were the case.
>Look at what you said. Quadra emulation? Man, I don't know where you got
>your info on Emplant, but no where in the "press release" did I see anything
>about quadra emulation mentioned for $300. The way Mr. Drew has portrayed it
>is an add-on card which does hardware emulation. Therefore, if you have an
>A4000, you would still be hardware emulating a mac plus. Hey, you get what
>you pay for. $300 = Mac plus emulation. Just as ~$300 will get you Amax II
>(which I would trust a whole HELL of a lot more than emplant at this point).

Actually, A-Max is rumoured to be getting colour capability soon.  And, IF
the Emplant did exist, it would use 256K and 512K ROMs, according to Mr. Drew.
Therefore, it _would_ function like a high-end Mac.  Of course, this is all
hypothetical anyway.

>>>Emulating another computer is more of a status symbol than a necessity.
>
>>I have never seen that kind of attitude.
>
>Well, then you either don't know a lot of emulating people, or the people I
>know with that attitude are a bunch of schmucks. (probably the latter of the
>two...) ;-)

That attitude exists, but it's not the reason why people shell out hundreds of
dollars to run another computer's software.  It's simply to run software from
another platform that they need or want to use, without having to buy another
computer.  The issue is mainly one of cost-effectiveness.

>I know. I have both IBEM and pc-task for the amiga. I still don't see where you
>are getting Quadra emulation from, though. Tell me the product that you think
>will emulate a quadra. Emplant? Not. AmaxII? Well, you would have a very
>quick emulation of a Mac SE or whatever, but that's a far cry from a Quadra.

What's so great about a Quadra?  Isn't it just a Mac II with an 040 and 24-bit
graphics capability built in?  I remember reading a MacWorld issue that treated
it as just Yet Another Mac--nothing special, no ground-breaking technology, just
a Mac with an 040.

  __   __
 / /\ /_/\__   Francis Lui
/_/ /\\ \ \/\  e-mail: flui@sfu.ca
\ \  / \ \  /
 \ \ \  \_\/   You know you're a techno-dweeb when
  \_\/         floppy drive applies more to your love life,
               and hard drive to your machines.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dmanning@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Manning)
Subject: Re: Executor: Running Mac Programs on a NeXT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:15:16 GMT

ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews) writes:

>When running Speedometer 3.01 under Executor on a 25MHz NeXTstation (i.e.
>their original slab, not the new 33MHz or the as yet announced "nitro"),
>you get the following numbers:  CPU: 26,  Graphics: 10.  However, the graphics
>number is a best case.

I, for one, would be interested in the full range of benchmark results.
 
>                        NOTE: those numbers 26 and 10 are the number of times
>faster Speedometer 3.01 under Executor on a 25MHz NeXTstation is than a
>Macintosh Classic.  If you want to normalize them to a IIci, they come out
>to about four and two respectively.

Perhaps without a cache card. With cache, Speedometer 3.05 clocks the IIci
at 6.59 and 8.28, respectively.

>Detractors will be happy to know that currently Executor has many limitations
>including: No Color, No Sound, No AppleTalk, No Desk Accessories and no
>Script Manager Support.  In addition, some programs run very well (Word4/5 and
>Excel3/4), some have quirks and some don't run at all.

This may sound like a terribly callous thing to say, but citing the fact      
you've gotten Microsoft products to "run very well" while others "have 
quirks" puts Executor 180 degrees away from how most products run on the
Macintosh: Microsoft programs usually are the ones with quirks.

>However, we're real and we're doing a lot of cool work and people are using
>our software to wean themselves from Macintoshes.  The NeXT has many features
>that people want and that Apple is planning on putting into Pink.  However,
>I'm not here to sell you on NeXT, Executor or Pink.

This *does* sound cool -- and I'm glad you're not trying to sell me a NeXT.
However, if people (by implication) need to be weaned from the Mac, why
bother to offer them an option that involves using a new platform to use
the same applications?

>Thanks for your interest.

Thanks for the innovation. If something like this is possible, at the very
least it means Windows NT won't dominate everything...

Dave
--
[ Dave Manning * Part-Time Instructor * dmanning@cwis.unomaha.edu * Testing...]
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:49 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

DS> == Stephenson Daniel A <das9674@usl.edu> 

 DS> On my PC, 'move *.mod' moves all the soud modules up a level.  FAST.

You mean 'move *.mod ..' right?

 DS> How easy is it to move dozens of files this way via GUI/mouse?

In System 7:

View by kind
Drag-rect across all the "SoundTracker" files or whatever, which will
all be next to each other.  The window will scroll if needed.
Drag them to where you want them (even if it's some folder 9 layers deep
in a different part of the hierarchy and it has a name like
Fahrvergn\"{u}gen that you can't even TYPE on a PC let alone spell right).

No problemo.
--
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: Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important wo
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:43:31 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Oct02.051843.16218@CS.ORST.EDU> pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU 
(price carl wayne) writes:
> Actually the increase in Apple market share has not been that great.  In 
the
> October issue of UNIX World they have an article in the Industry News
> section on page 16.  A market research firm, Infocorp, surveyed 4,100 
> VARs in the US and asked what OSs the sold and supported.  The pie charts
> in the article show that in 1988 Apple had 4% of the market and in 1992
> Apple has 5% of the market.  MS/PC-DOS had 29% of the market in 1988 and
> 42% in 1992.  OS/2 did not have enough market share to get a slice of teh
> pie in 1988 (the smallest slice is 2%), but had 12% in 1992.  UNIX had 
> 18% of the market in 1988 and 28% in 1992.  I know these numbers aren't
> perfect, but they do tend to show a trend that goes against the theory 
> that Apple is making huge inroads into the market.

If I understand your survey reference, all this really shows is that 
Apple is not making inroads into the _VAR_ market.  That says absolutely 
nothing about about all the other markets that VARs do not sell into 
(i.e., home, education, small business, and even large business).  What 
percentage of total personal computers sold are sold through the VAR 
channels?

- Dale Adams
  Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 18:37:37 PDT
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
Reply-To: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5


In article <6104.2acc30e6@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> In article <D2150025.o5ttag@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
> What the heck is OSA? 
Open Scripting Architecture

> 
> AppleScript can only work with AppleEvent compatable applications, that's
> true. And the Applications have to be modified to support some of the 
> AppleScript features (such as recording). This will take time for developers
> to support. It won't instantaneously work with everything. 
> 
> One particularly AppleEvent incompatable application is the Finder.
> 
> > It hardly delivers system-level power.
> 
> In what way?

It doesn't give access to system globals and such. (Like Frontier.)

> > And it's useless as a command-line shell. 
> 
> AppleScript was NEVER INTENDED as a command-line shell. If you are so
> backward to be locked into the tradional computing interface of the 70's,
> buy MPW. It has command lines. Happy?

MPW's file management is inadequate.  And as I've stated before, there are just
some things that a CLI shell is better at.  An ideal system has both CLI and
GUI shells available as part of the standard OS package. 
 
> The MultiTasking capacity of System 7 is perfectly adequate for most users.
> Apple realises that preemption can solve certain problems. They are working
> on it. They have told us to expect a microkernal OS in about 2 years.

Try stuffing a document in the background and using a term program. 
Cooperative mutitasking causes the user to have to learn what tasks he
can't run concurrently.Apple's paradigm is to insulate the user from the
rigors of the hardware and OS, so that is in my opinion a violation of
that paradigm.

Have YOU ever used an Amiga? I'm not bringing that machine up to advocate
it over the Mac, but preemptive multitasking makes a big difference in
what the user can accomplish in a given period of time.  The Amiga's
multitasking is infinitely better than the mac.  You can pull down menus
and background apps continue to process.  If you hold the mouse button on
a gadget or button, it doesn't freeze the whole system.

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.

> -- 
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR      

You seem a bit defensive about the Mac, eh?


 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: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:16:35 GMT

In <+fmz3p#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

Hi Daniel.

<Definition deleted>

>I agree completely. :)

;-)

>|> Simplified steps:
>|> 
>|> NormalPointer *pointer;    
>|> pointer=GlobalLock(GlobalAlloc(size));
>|> <'pointer' points to a moveable block>
>|> <No need to Lock/Unlock during references>
>|> <.. .......>
>|> <Later ....>
>|> GlobalFree(GlobalHandle(pointer));
>|> 
>|> Notes:  GlobalAlloc returned a handle that was locked immediatly.
>|> 	No need to keep the handle, cause it ain't used.

>You mean, "ain't used again."
>But it IS used (by GlobalFree); Its just that you dont need
>to keep it. You can get it.

As I've said I don't consider that *using* handles, but if you thing
otherwise then so be it, and there's no sense in arguing about it.
I consider *using* handles having to Lock/Unlock whenever you reference the 
memory block(this is unecessary in Windows 3.1).

>|> Both the Mac and Windows Real mode use intermediate software allocations to
>|> implement moveable memory blocks, whether they are called Master Pointers(Mac)
>|> or Burgermaster Table(Windows Real mode).  The main point is that Windows 3.1
>|> implementation is CPU supported and hidden from the programmer.

>It is hidden by the compiler, NOT Windows. If you're compiler does
>this, hooray! Just don't program in assembly. :)

It is hidden by Windows and the CPU.  What is hidden by the compiler is:

Highly simplified. 	#define malloc(size) GlobalLock(GlobalAlloc(size))
			#define free(p) GlobalFree(GlobalHandle(p))

The underlying mechanism is implemented by Windows and the CPU.

>This is because there aren't enough selectors to do around,
>so you need to break up  the  blocks you allocate into sub-blocks
>and use THOSE.

Correct.

<Hacking past Windows internal selector mechanism>

>Care to explain how you can hack pst this stuff, short of using
>an axe on your CPU?

Well, selectors are segment pointers and if you "poke" into a known "real"
segment like the Video ram you'll get past the selector mechanism (but you
might crash the system).  

>|> That's right, there are handles in Windows 3.1, but you don't *need* them,
>|> unless you consider calling GlobalLock once *using* handles.

>Which I do. So there! :)

I don't, so arguing this point is a waste of time.  Our definitons obviously
differ. 

>That Fixed memory blocks are supposed to be a feature  of
>Windows, when the MacOS not only has them,  but has special
>commands to allocate them (NewPtr- it allocates a block
>as low as posisble in the heap and  returns a pointer to it)

Windows 3.1 does this too.

>Ughly Ugh!

>[here we go again, Karl... :)]

:-)  (ugh).

--

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1657@anagld.analytics.com> <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com>
	<TOMSTER.92Sep28200453@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:13:59 GMT

TRD> == Thomas Richard Dibble <tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> 

 TRD> Can you even get CLOSE to manipulating the hardware on a MAC?

Yes.  It usually gets you royally flamed when it breaks, though, so why bother?

 TRD> I beg to differ.  Have you bought and/or maintained a pc built in
 TRD> the last year or so, Mr. Apple Spokeman?  It is quite difficult to
 TRD> get a machine which will break on you.  Open up a brand new
 TRD> machine -- even a 286 -- and compare it to a standard computer of
 TRD> three years ago.  Note the difference in structural as well as
 TRD> component integrity.

I've done that; we have a 486/33 at work.  The case requires me to hold
the side in to screw the top on, because the sheet metal benders screwed
up.  The cosmetic snap-on plastic panel won't stay on the back.  And the
little flip-down keyboard legs suck.  Now, on the Q700 next to it, the
case lid just flips right on, and the keyboard leg is the entire width
of the keyboard for greater stability.  That machine also gets used.

Sure, the 486 hasn't *broken* yet, though I spent enough time just
getting the SCSI card not to conflict with the video card to make up for
it.  Why did I have to screw with DIP switches?  Why did I have to keep
rebooting and trying bizarre rituals with chicken blood?  Because
there's no built-in address resolution and card configuration, and no
built-in SCSI, but there IS config.sys.  Thank god I at least had
freemacs to edit it with.
--
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: jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: CUA. Yuck.
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:12:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.Bvn5L8.8t7
Organization: Rice University

In article <1aot96INNch@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>>* Human Interface Guidelines and standards sufficient to form consistancy 
>>  between applications (Not, Perhaps)
>
>HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.

Heh.  I did testing over the summer of a software product that was required
to be "CUA Compliant."  One of the interface niceties that resulted was
that the scroll bars in some windows (or, rather, screens -- the program
was almost completely modal in nature, despite having a text screen-based
mouse interface) diappeared when they were no longer the "active" control.
As in vanished completely from the screen.  The user had to Tab through
about five other controls, making each active in turn, to make the scroll
bars reappear.  As if the concept of an "active" control wasn't ludicrous
enough in the first place.  From what I saw (and I'll admit I haven't seen
the spec) CUA is a half-hearted kludge, designed to keep users too cheap
to buy a pointing device but insecure enough to want a fancy GUI look
and feel happy.  The guidelines seemed more aimed at keeping people from
feeling like they've fallen behind the times and to allow software developers
to produce semi-slick looking programs without (horror of horrors) requiring
anything beyond baseline PC hardware.

(For what it's worth, the product specs also required that the program
run on any version of DOS numbered 3.3 or higher and on any machine
down to the PC/XT. Blah.)
-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More info on system 7.1 and $$$
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:05:06 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 <vt!pdra.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>       Hm.  System 7.0 was supposed to be "world-ready software".  Remember?

The world has changed since then. :-)