HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbailey@world.std.com (jim bailey)
Subject: Re: PowerPC
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:25:18 GMT

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec6.155038.251@physc1.byu.edu>, goblec@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> 
>>>> Yet stereo output has been removed from all new Macs I 
>>>> know of.
>>>
>>> Not true!
>> 
>> Yes, I stand corrected here.  I understand that the Quadra
>> has stereo output from it's port.  

>Some Quadra models (all?) have stereo input as well.

Unfortunately no Quadras have real stereo input :-(.  The 900/950 has
a left and right jacks but they are mixed internally to a single input.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.171029.9443@cuug.ab.ca>, wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance
Wilcox 229-3361) wrote:
> 
> but it still takes a lot more time and effort to write quality software on a 
> Mac than on a NeXT. The NeXT's main advantage is its full-featured appkit.
> TCL and MacApp simply aren't there yet.

If that was true, then wouldn't there be more NeXT apps shipping?  The
machine has been out for 4 years or so.  Also, MacApp is a full featured
application framework.  It does take a different approach in that it
concentrates on details, while NeXT's kits concentrate on breadth.  For
example, MacApp defines a document and command processing model, but does
not include a text or sound kit.

> As for AppleEvents, sure there's a lot of potential there. When's it going to
> be realized? 

It is partially realized today.  Most of the popular productivity apps
support the publish & subscribe suite of Apple events.  Several support
events beyond this, which you can access from something like Frontier.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: un-amazing NeXT (was: Will the real Taligent please stand up?)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:25:39 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Dec18.144748.22143@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  writes:

>If I want to run Usenet News on my NeXT I have to ftp, compile, and  
>configure C-News or INN; there is no uAccess for the NeXT (uAccess is a  
>Mac point-and-click news implementation).


I suppose that's because you don't want to use NeXT's NewsGrazer, arguably  
the best-designed news program around, and certainly far nicer than, oh,  
say, NewsWatcher.


>If I want to automatically mount a file server every time I boot my NeXT  
I  
>have to edit some configuration files, not just check a box.


Indeed.  It would be nice to have a non-root mounting system that's easy  
and accessible like the Chooser.  But using configuration files...have you  
not used NeXT's sysadmin stuff?


>If I want to tell my NeXT about a new network printer I have to edit a  
>configuration file, not just open the Chooser and click on it.

Why not just use the PrintManager?  This is hard?  And the NeXT has a very  
elegant method for changing printers:  in the *print window*.


--

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
Distribution: world
From: asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel)
Organization: Odyssey Ultraware, Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:36:42 CDT
Subject: Re: MAC percentage of the Market

Again, we're talking about Mac market share of the PC sales.

JC> where in the hell did you read this?  The truth is that apple is number
one
	in sales right now with IBM number two and I think Compaq is third.  Are you
	sure that this was not a *specific* area in PC sales?  Because this goes
	against everything I have read over the past few months.

Some one has questioned my sources! Unfortunately I was just as wrong two
weeks ago and had to go back to the board that I misinformed and post the
following
***********
Date: Mon Nov 30 06:53:35 1992
Ok, I got it wrong. In regards to the positioning of PC sales, here is the
word from today's Wall Street Journal.
Apple Computer Inc. was the third-biggest supplier, with 15.5% of units.
Compaq had nearly 23% of the units last month, compared with IBM's 17.2%.
Sorry for MY confusion.
*********
Back to the present. As you noted JC, the truth is Apple WAS first RECENTLY
but things change. That's why the WSJ is published daily. You can look at the
article for that day's Journal. You'll find it in the MarketPlace section (you
know, the middle part of the paper. I always read it first since it has all the
technology news.) Apple is UP, BTW while IBM is taking a beating. I've held
shares for the last couple of years and at one time (sigh) saw the price per
share nearly double. Oh well, it's only money.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: MAC Harddrive space
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:24:46 GMT

In article: <TOMSTER.92Dec15184036@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> Thomas Richard Dibble replies:

  >   BC> My wife's Powerbook only has a 20MB disk. You have to really
  >   BC> think "do I really NEED this" when you go to install software on
  >   BC> it. But she has everything she needs on that machine.

  > > I realize that it's cheaper to buy harddrives from companies outside
  > > of Apple, but then the quality becomes a concern.

  >   BC> I bought my 105MB from APS. I've been quite happy.

  >   BC> When you run out of space, that's the time to start shopping for
  >   BC> a larger drive, not before.

TD> I tend to disagree.  If you buy a small drive now, one which just
TD> barely fits everything you *know* you need, that money is pretty much
TD> gone.  When you find that you need more disk space you will be forced
TD> to trash the old drive (or sell it for next to nothing) and re-invest
TD> in a larger drive.  See?  You're out almost every penny you used to
TD> buy the first hard drive.

Unlike most PC's, Macintosh computers use SCSI based hard drives.  When you
decide to add more disk space, just add on an external SCSI drive.  Don't
get rid of your current drive, just add on some more.  With the buit in 
SCSI port allowing up to 7 external hard drives, you'll go a long time
before you need to swap out hard drives.  PC users have a more difficult
time when it comes to expanding and/or using a multiple hard drives 
(especially if they are using the IDE based drives).  As a result, PC
owners find it easier to just get as big of a hard drive as you can afford.

With the ever decreasing costs of hard drives, purchasing more than you
need will cost you dearly.  Just put some money in the bank and wait a
while.  The extra money will purchase a lot more later than it will
today.

TD> On the other hand, there's no need to go out and buy a 2-Gig drive if
TD> you can only envision yourself using forty.  Buy an eighty instead, or
TD> maybe something a bit larger.  If you over-estimate your needs too
TD> much you will end up having a lot of hard-drive that you never use by
TD> the time it decides to die on you (or your computer does).

TD> End story: buy what you need, plus a little bit.  Never get less than
TD> what you think you need, but not more than twice that ammount either.

I'll agree on this.  You'll find that you needs tend the 'expand' to meet
the size of your available drive.  Also, features like FAX images and
multi-media (QuickTime) files can eat a lot of disk space.

Another consideration:  Get a product like Disk Doubler that transparently
compresses files on your hard disk.  You'll get roughly double the amount
of data space without having to purchase expensive hardware.

  >   BC> Go with the Mac.

The Mac will cost a little more, but It'll be worth it.  Go with the Mac.

[MGM]
From: zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:34:45 GMT

I failed to mention another "concrete example" of the magic of object
oriented technology in my last post.  

NeXTstep 3.0 supports drag and drop color onto text objects.  Therefore,
the color of text on the screen (an object) can be changed by simply
dragging a color from the color panel and dropping it onto the text.
NeXTstep 2.0 did not support this feature.  However, when you upgrade to
3.0, the text object gets upgraded, and all programs that use text will
support drag and drop color onto text.  All programs will take advantage
of this feature by simply upgrading your OS. 


In article <-ch2rl_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib104.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>Eric Hermanson Writes:
>>Draw a cirle on your Mac screen.  Then draw a tangent to that circle, as best
>>you can, without zooming in.  Do the same thing on a NeXT (built in display 
>>postcript).  You will find that the tangent is correct when printet out on
>>the NeXT 100% of the time.  On the Mac, the tangent is off.
>
>Really? How does the NeXT do that? How does it knwo I meant 'make this tangent'
>and not 'make this almost, but not quite tangent'? Does it assume that
>if anything is drawn near-tangent to a circle, it should make it all-the-way
>tangent?
>
>Just exactly what does Display Postscript do here?
>

Postcript code is sent to the screen AND to the printer.  If the tangent
touches the circle on the screen , it will absolutely touch the circle
when printed out.

Eric



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: zkessin@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Zach, the Lego Maniac)
Subject: why apple and ibm will win
Keywords: apple ibm pink talgent microsoft
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:17:29 GMT

In the Apple-IBM-Motorola vs Microsoft and Dec I think the clear
addvantage has to go to the Apple-IBM camp. Microsoft is probably in
over their heads with NT. They have no experiance with a real OS,
while IBM has move than anyone with big os's and compadability modes.
I dont think microsoft can do this well. Also there may be and
anti-trust suit agenst microsoft soon spliting it right down the
middle. Also how commited to NT is dec realy? I think they might just
be using it to hedge thair bets. The chance of NT killing unix in the
near (or far) future is *VERY* small.

--Zach
   Zachary Kessin                
 ZKessin@cs.brandeis.edu  /  For a good Prime, call:
 (617)736-5848           /  391581 * 2^216193 -1
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:10:40 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1go214INNrd7@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
> The action that results from the moving of the mouse is not.
> (At least, it isn't before you move the mouse)

Yes it is. This is the "intuitive" part of the interface. Moving the mouse
device on the desk moves the mouse cursor (your "proxy" on the computer screen)
on the screen)

Moreover, this behavior doesn't change. If you move the mouse left, the cursor
will always move to the left. Contrast this with mouse buttons which may do
any of a number of things when depressed, each context-sensitive to the area
of the screen, the current action and (perhaps) the exact button pressed.

> By the way, dont you thing that it places a rather large cognitive load
> on someone when they actually have to look at a computer screen? 

Depends on what they see. People are very good at recognising certain 
things. Shapes and figures are easy. Words are harder. 

> Maybe
> we should reduce the screen to one pixel, and thereby reduce the cognitive
> load further. Or maybe we should all sit around like zombies, and have
> no cognitive load at all!

Oh, I see. The old ad homenim argument of reducing a proposition to its
absurd conclusion. Sorry, guy, this one has been tried before. It doesn't
work. I won't fall for it.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:32:57 -0500 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 14-Dec-92 Re: Will the real
Taligent .. by Andrew Loewenstern@cubet 
> Look at what's happening.  This is obvoiusly not a "joint venture"
> this is "lets put our guys together and see if we can steal a lot of
> technology from the other."  IBM talks about folding OOP bullshit into
> OS/2, and Apple talks about doing the same thing with System 7.  Where
> is the joint product.

You can't just abandon the rest of the world and start something new! 
(Look at NeXT, which is floundering in comparison to Mac and PC)  You
have to take small steps.  Companies don't take well to quick changes
(ie, entire computer systems (hardware and software) changing
overnight).  Like I said, Jobs did it, and while they have the best OS
around, no one's using it.

> I bet nothing comes of Taligent but a major "lovers spat" where IBM
> and Apple come out with separate, competing products.

You obviously don't know the game plan then do you.  From the IBM side
comes a combination of OS/2 and AIX.  OS/2's object oriented WPS is now
being ported to AIX and DOS, and even Windows (its main competitor). 
OS/2 will be transfered to a Mach derived kernal.  From Apple's side
comes a combination of System 7 and A/UX.  I've heard that System 7 will
also become kernal based like OS/2.  The interface probably will be some
mish-mash of WPS and System 7.  It'll probably use the System Object
Model of WPS or some derivative thereof.  The actual GUI will probably
resemble System 7, ie single menu bar etc.  The underlying structure
will be based on a kernal, borrowing from A/UX and AIX.  etc etc etc. 
If you consider the software side of the alliance, the first steps have
already taken place.  The hardware side is much more advanced, as the
first PowerPC chips have been produced.

> if I may quote Steve Jobs: "Name one really sucessful product that
> came from an alliance... I can't think of one sucessfil product in the
> history of our industry that ever came from an alliance.  Or any other
> industry, either.  Toyota and GM? - no.  I'm sure there are some
> examples bit they're not standouts.  The statistics are not in favor
> of these industry alliances."

If you wanna talk cars, let's see, Forda/Mazda alliance: produced Ford
Probe and Mazda 626 (I think).  GM/Toyota: produced Geo's for GM.  These
aren't bad cars, and they are better than most of what was coming from
Detroit at their initial introduction.


Carl
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:24:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.032817.21440@watson.ibm.com> arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick) writes:
>In <1992Dec14.143904.1237@yvax.byu.edu> feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>>As far as combined resources of Apple and IBM go, it's been my experience  
>>that, with the exception of Apple, large computer companies make only-okay  
>>stuff.  It's the service, marketing, advertising, and positional power  
>>that lands sales for them.
>
>IBM definitately has the resources and respect of business to land sales for
>Pink and PowerPC, should they decide to wield it.
>
>>I'm not impressed with IBM as a whole, though OS/2 is a good showing.  I'd  
>>say NeXT has significantly more to worry about from Apple being part of  
>>Taligent than Big Blue.
>
>"OS/2 is a good showing"
>What part of IBM are you not impressed with?  The Mainframes and Minis?  The
>join venture with Apple is not going to develop either.  The RS/6000's 
>architecture is what the PowerPC is going to be based on; I would consider 
>THAT the model for expectations from Taligent and the joint venture.  IBM
>Research is a big organization, and I have seen some amazing things come out
>of it.  Why the pessimism?  IBM for too long has been exclusively associated
>with the mainframe world, which is (by all indications) drawing to a close.

What does the sucess of one of IBM's processor line have to do with
the expected success for Taligent???  Along those lines I guess we
could expect DRAM prices to drop since pork-bellys are up....

I have no doubt that PowerPC will be a sucessful processor, and both
Apple and IBM, among other manufacturers will make very nice
workstations around it.  It's this OO-OS joint venture that stinks to
me.  In fact, what does Apple have to do with the PowerPC beyond using
it in future Apple boxes anyway?  It's a IBM-Motorola deal.

Incidentially, according to DataQuest and IDC, NeXT shipped more
workstations last year than IBM did.  Sounds like the RS/6000 is
really sucessful.  Sure, you could say that most RS/6000 boxes cost a
lot more than NeXT's, but Sun, DEC, and HP each shipped a hell of a
lot more boxes last year than NeXT based on SPARC, Rx000, and PA
processors - most of which were on the same price and performance
level as the RS/6000 line.  I guess that puts POWER dead-last as far
as popular RISC architectures go.


Sounds like Taligent is going to do great!  ;-)


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
From: jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: MAC percentage of the Market
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:29:08 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec14.023508.126470@ultramac.uucp> asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel) writes:

>Title gives the question which this note addresses.

>About 2 weeks ago the WSJ had an update of PC sales. Apple was third, having
>just lost second place back to IBM. My recollection is that Compaq was first.
>Anyhow, the answer isabout 17%. That is; Apple gets about 17% of the market
>of microcomputers.

where in the hell did you read this?  The truth is that apple is number one
in sales right now with IBM number two and I think Compaq is third.  Are you
sure that this was not a *specific* area in PC sales?  Because this goes
against everything I have read over the past few months.

peace,
-justin m. collins <jstc_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:00:48 GMT

andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:

> NeXTSTEP 3.0 broke no software.  3.0 is totally binary comptible with
> 2.1.  ADB keyboards broke software that was peeking at hardware
> dependant key codes rather than hardware independant char codes, but
> this is not NeXT's fault.

Developers frequently don't follow rules.  This is the usual reason why
software breaks between system releases on Macs and on NeXT's.  A similar
problem with keyboards, incidentally, occured with some old mac programs.
However, even if software doesn't work because its developers failed to
follow guidelines, the new operating system did "break" the software.

NeXT's usable by the general student population here at the UofI currently
have a public domain (or shareware, I'm not positive) implementation of X 
on them.  This software won't work under 3.0, which we are changin to over
break.  So, while I fully believe most NeXT software works between system
releases, and even gain new features from the new OS, there are programs 
which break.  The same is true of the Mac.

I guess my point was that properly written programs for both the Mac and 
the NeXT can run under different system software, and take advantage of
features added since their development.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "We expect them [Salvadoran officials] to work toward the elimination
   of human rights." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:46:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.050708.1488@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com
(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
> 
> 2)  Here you have a company, Apple, which basically taught it's
> employees to hate I.B.M. for years and years (I've seen a slide that

The press made a big deal of this, but they got it mostly wrong.  Taligent
was not formed by taking 100 Apple engineers and 100 IBM engineers and
putting them together.  It's more accurate to say that the core of Taligent
was formed by a group of Apple engineers and that other people were hired
(some of whom happened to have worked for IBM or Metaphor).  The corporate
culture is much like Apple's (better IMHO) and there hasn't been any kind
of clash with IBM's corporate culture.

> OS/2, and Apple talks about doing the same thing with System 7.  Where
> is the joint product.

Perhaps you're right about this, because I don't think of Taligent's
product as a joint product.  It's a Taligent product.

> I bet nothing comes of Taligent but a major "lovers spat" where IBM
> and Apple come out with separate, competing products.

I might take the bet about nothing coming out of Taligent, because I think
you will see a product.  But you are 100% right that Apple and IBM will
continue to compete with one another.  

> if I may quote Steve Jobs: "Name one really sucessful product that
> came from an alliance... I can't think of one sucessfil product in the
> industry, either.  Toyota and GM? - no.  I'm sure there are some

The Toyota GM alliance has been very successful.  The NUMMI plant is hiring
new workers.  And Taligent is more like that venture than like ACE in that
there is a separate company rather than a group of company representatives
that get together.  Also, ACE was composed of 4-5 major participants and
100's of smaller one, which is very different from a collaboration between
2 companies.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy