HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:26:56 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 <1992Oct13.040531.20757@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:

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

>``Pre-emptive multitasking'' usually means the operating system decides
>which waiting process gets to use the processor.  The process priority
>can be used to determine how many time units or how long the process
>uses the processor.

Okay, this is about the third definition of preemptive multitasking
we've heard.  By this one, the Macintosh is preemptive multitasking
also.  The OS decides which waiting process gets to use the processor
whenever a call to GetNextEvent or WaitNextEvent occurs.
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:05:28 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 719167466@convex.convex.com, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <15Dk0295264o01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge) writes:
>
>>We all applaud the Apple engineers who did this research. But others have
>>done research, also. You seem to be saying that there is only ONE way
>>to do a good user interface, and Apple did it. 
>
>Please show me where I have said that

You infered it - thats why it says "You seem to be...".

>
>>So if another computer doesn't act exactly like a mac, it must not 
>>be as good.
>
>However, none of the examples you have shown so far *are* as good
>as the Mac.  Show me one that is, and I'll say so.

Well, if we all agreed on a definition of "good", there would be nothing to
talk about in this group. I use both systems, and find that Windows is by
in large as "good" as a Mac. There are particular things I prefer about each
system; for example, file names are much better on the Mac. On the other hand,
I like the use of icons for running programs (and as drop targets) in Windows.

>
>>Does this mean that your personal experience with Windows was that programs
>>were crashing 5 or 6 times a day? 
>
>No, only on a good day.
>
>>And that your experience with macs is that they never crash ?  
>
>No, but the programs I use on the Mac crash abou 1/10 as often
>as those I use under Windows.
>
>>Do you think either of these extremes represents reality ?
>
>Damn right they do.  Reality is what I work with every day.

If you use a Windows system that is crashing that frequently, then there is
some problem that someone needs to fix. The Windows system I use hardly ever
crashes (same as the Macs here). I'm not sure you should conclude that 
"Windows in general" crashes every hour - I would think my experience is more
typical then yours, simply because I find it hard to believe that millions
of people would buy (and tolerate) systems that crash every hour or so.

>
>Now, notice how many PC users have argued that it's better
>to have memory protection than bug-free programs that don't 
>crash.  Isn't that a strange position?  Why would anyone argue
>*against* the idea that programs shouldn't have bugs?  Unless
>they think it can't be done.  Now, where would Windows users
>get that idea...?

From using a Mac ? :)

I haven't noticed that Windows programs are any more bug prone then 
Mac programs. 
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1411 comp.sys.mac.hardware:18743 comp.sys.mac.misc:17625
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info Repost
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:21:09 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <ewright.718584090@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> 
> The 68000 did not have a 16-bit ALU.  It was a complete 32-bit
> chip internally.

This is the THIRD time I've had to correct this.

A 68000 contains THREE ALUs. THREE.
All THREE ALUs are 16-bit. 16-bit.

Now, I don't know how well this fits into some silly processor classification
structure, but it is the facts.

> Why?  The 286 machines never used the MMU chip for anything.  No
> virtual memory, no memory protection.  

You are going to get flamed royally for this. Windows 3.0 and OS/2 v1.x
certainly use the MMU, as well as certain Unix variants.

I've found these processor comparisons to be really pointless. The processor
makes little difference -- its the software that counts!

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 7 Oct 1992 06:22:37 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <1nszz0-@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman
Johnson) wrote:

> Pre-emptive multitasking is Good. It is Your Friend. I want
> Pre-emptive multitasking. The Mac should have it. The Amiga
> does have it, as does the NeXT, and hence they multitask better
> than the Macintosh.

My friend has an Amiga 500 running workbench 1.3. Within 10 minutes of
inital bootup, he had to reboot 3 times because of application crashes. My
Macintosh crashed twice when I was debugging a C progam and had to be
rebooted. I think memory protection is more important than pre-emptive
multi-tasking.

I WANT MEMORY PROTECTION ON MY MACINTOSH (without buying A/UX).

> 
> I just deny that this renders co-operative multitasking useless or
> nonfunctional.
> 
> I also think that multithreading and memory protection are Good Things.
> I want them too.
> 
> I also dont think that was an invitation to flame. I didn't flame you.

We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill. :)

---
 The Evil Tofu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: eherrera@lascar.puc.cl (Eduardo Herrera IIC)
Subject: 19-10-92 ?
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:46:33 GMT

I want to know what happend the day 19-10-92, i am from chile, and i
want to buy a powerbook and i need information, thank
Eduardo
eherrera@lascar.puc.cl
From: jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: clock speed & MIPS Motorola<->Intel?
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:20:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.Bw5rDr.3H3
Organization: Rice University

Measurements based on MHz are completely meaningless when comparing
processors from different families, and can be confusing even
when comparing different processors from the same family (a 33 Mhz 68040
could be much faster than a 33MHz 68030).  In my experience, a Mac LC under
system 6.0.7 easily matched a 25MHz 386-based system running Windows 3.1.
-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)
From: mg006b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ( marcos francisco galletti)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Computer Sale
Summary: Powerbook 170 for Sale
Keywords: Powerbook 170 for Sale
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:01:57 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Macintosh Powerbook 170 for Sale
- 4 MB RAM (Expandable to 8 MB)
- 40 MB Hard Drive
- Internal Fax/Data Modem
- 25 MHz 68030 Microprocessor
- 25 MHz 68882 Math Co-Processor
- Backlit Active Matrix Screen
- Brand New High Density Internal Floppy Superdrive
- Deluxe Carrying Case Included
- TONS !!! of Software (Too many to list)
- Suggested Retail Price (w/o) Software $4599.00
For information call 274-2709
or leave mess at mg006b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rantapaa@s6.math.umn.edu (Erik E. Rantapaa)
Subject: Apple Buttkicker -- when can I buy one?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:23:42 GMT

I wouldn't be ashamed to own a machine named this.  In fact, I would be
very proud.  It's a much better name than "Power blah" or something like
that.  I mean, a name should tell you what it does, and if the next
generation of Apple machines are going to kick ass, well, let it be so.
--
"3356.
                -- The year in which President George Bush's 1988
                   campaign pledge of 30,000,000 new jobs would be
                   fulfilled, at his current rate of job production
                   (as of July 1992)."

Erik Rantapaa    rantapaa@math.umn.edu
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 8 Oct 1992 16:24:03 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>>>* Scalable fonts (Windows has, OS/2 not)
>>Does ATM count?  I don't play with fonts too much.

>I think he said "OS/2," not "ATM." 

But ATM is part of OS/2, perhaps you've never even used OS/2?

>Why don't you "play with fonts too much?" 

Perhaps I have no need to?

>That statement suggests that it's not easy to do.

You have a vivid imagination Edward.

>>More precisely, OS/2 does not have the exact same form of IPC as
>>AppleEvents, but it does have pipes, named pipes, semaphores, and
>>Windows DDE and OLE based IPC.

>AppleEvents are *not* a form of IPC.  They are a standard language
>that programs can use in talking to one another.  You may have some
>form of interprogram communications in OS2, but lacking a standard 

It's not OS2, it's OS/2. 

REXX is a useful form of script language that you can use to control
other programs, Amiga users will tell you the things they can do in
ARexx.  By the way, how many apps out there utilizes AppleEvents?

>>>  concurrently, or are running on different machines on a network. (Not, Not)
>>>* Built-in support for standard 24-bit color, with automatic interpolation

>>Device Independent Graphics means any video device could be supported,
>>be it 1-bit or 24-bit, with the necessary device driver.

>Yes, but the PC doesn't have device-independent graphics.

Yes it does.

>Instead you change a video card and find your networking software will no
>longer run.  (Happened to me.)

I don't know what happened to you, nor do I care, Windows and OS/2 have
Device Independent Graphics, period!

>>HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.

>So?  In CUA 92, have they finally figured out whether the menu
>item that closes an application should be called "exit," "quit,"
>or "close" (all of which are used by various Windows apps)?  

Why don't you go take a look?  But I guess you enjoy talking about
things you know nothing about.

>CUA 92, evidentally doesn't specify menu fonts that look
>like they were designed by professionals.  At least, if it
>does, OS2 doesn't use them.  CUA92 didn't prevent OS2 from
>having buttons, controls, and dialog boxes that look like
>they designed by art school dropouts, either.  It doesn't

Did you know that OS/2 allow you to change the font used in every menu,
button, dialog?  If you want to make these kind of statement, make sure
you know what you're talking about first.

>>>* Standard support for temporal data, graphics data compression, both for
>>>  static and real-time graphics and sound. (QuickTime) (Not, Not) 
>>Different standards, MPC and Ultimedia.

>Note the word *standard*.  Is there a standard format for sound
>files that you can play back on *any* PC (not just the ones you
>bought a special board for)? 

Yes, there is such a standard, the .wav format, you can play it back on
ANY PC, well any PC running Windows 3.1.

-- Nan
From: green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Bradley Green )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some misc. stuff
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:45:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <81700@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>How do I answer this:
>
>  A friend of mine who got a Quadra 950 w/128 megs of RAM,
>a gigabyte HD, 24 bit color, and a built-in CD-ROM asked me
>if ejecting his RAM disk would cause his SIMMS to pop out.
>
>This person turns the machine on by turning the key to
>Secure, and then On, like starting a car.  He did not
>know that the little triangle key started up the machine.
>
>What do you do w/ people like this?

I could suggest several reference books on medeival torture techniques.
e-mail me for more details.

(NOTE: smiley hidden in .sig)



--
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Bradley S. Green				University of Pennsylvania   *
* green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu			Dept. Of Systems Engineering *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:04:35 GMT

In <ewright.718660745@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <bmccnnll.718583847@unix1.tcd.ie> bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:

>>On the Amiga, you use the Forbid() .. Permit() combination to "turn off"
>>multitasking. In effect, you are back down to co-operative multitasking, in
>>that you can hold the entire system at your mercy via this method. I would
>>thus consider pre-emptive multitasking a superset of co-operative 
>>multitasking, and hence there is no valid argument for *not* having it! ;-)

>Well, no, you've just proven that the Amiga, like the Macintosh,
>has cooperative multitasking.  The only time it can multitask
>is when an application permits it.  If an application doesn't
>cooperate by using Permit() calls at the appropriate times (after
>a Forbid() call), multitasking can't occur.

Next time you will tell us that OS/2 2 or Windows 3 and above don't
have virtual memory, because there is some API function which enables
an application to fix some pages in real memory.  :-{

Cooperative multitasking is usually defined as non-pre-emptive
multitasking, where the application has to cooperate (by giving
up the cpu, yielding) during lengthy operations, in order not to
block other tasks. It actively has to *do* something, go through
the message loop, for example. On preemptive multitasking
systems, you don't have to do that, because the system 
interrupts your task if its time-slice is up. Most preemptive
multitasking OS have one or more synchronizing functions,
including some which enable a task to block some or all
other tasks for a short time. This capability is usefull
for various purposes: to guarantee the consistency of
shared, global data, to guarantee that an interrupt is
serviced in time, and so on. 

I wouldn't go so far as to declare cooperative multitasking
as a subset of preemptive multitasking - cooperative multitasking
has a lot of advantages of its own (simplicity, the state 
space is much smaller, as long as the applications don't start
to implement their own timeslicing). But *your* argument is weaker. 

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 10 Oct 1992 14:15:49 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct9212741@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU
(Thomas Richard Dibble) wrote:
> Correction:  the ones at the bottom are the ones *the programmer* thought
> would not be used very often.  Look at programs which have been out a few
> years.  Many times, they are being used for things quite different than
> what the programmer had envisioned.

Developers don't test their products on test subjects before releasing
them?

> I didn't mean the MacOS was faster than equivalent os's.  If you hadn't
> cut out a significant chunk there I would have shown you more descriptively.
> I meant that mousing on the MacOS is inherently faster than keyboarding
> because there is no extensive system of keyboarding on the Mac.  Many,
> many, many things can not be done on a keyboard.  I consider this a bug, not
> a feature.

Which things do you mean?

---
 The Evil Tofu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Formating Floppies (Was: 7.1 vs.OS/2)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:40:15 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

To everyone who tells me Mac floppies are initialzed automatically:

I know that. And PC floppies are formatted out of the box. You don't
need to format them at all :-)

But believe it or not, once in a while even a Mac floppy (actually mostly
Mac floppies) can become unreadable. Then you can throw it away or try to
reformat it.

Or for what reason did Apple put that option in the menu if noone would ever
use it ? Just to fill space ? Or to get some letters for their users saying:
"Hey, I noticed it!"

And specially to Eddy (sp?): I also used some other features of my Mac. I don`t
 spend some $5000 for a machine (price of a IIsi in Germany) and never use it.

Michael Bode.
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 11 Oct 1992 14:51:23 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes:
>>>>>> On 7 Oct 1992 18:26:56 -0500, nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) said:
>>>> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>Nan> [ some System 7 features vs. OS/2 features...]

>>>>If you change something in document A that you've pasted into
>>>>document B, the changes get updated in B.
>Nan> Hmm, sounds like DDE, no?

>But does DDE/OLE work over a network, today?  DDE sounds more like

No, since networking hardware is not generally builtin to most systems.
Mac has the advantage of builtin networking (LocalTalk) on all models,
therefore it makes sense to provide some support in the OS.

>Nan> I know in WPS you can sort the icons of a folder in
>Nan> name/size/date/etc order, also you can setup the
>Nan> date/time/currency formats.

>The WorldScript services of System 7.1 allow one to mix scripting
>styles ...

WordScript sounds nice, probably won't be of much use to people in the
US.

>[ big, long, hairy multimedia interface document deleted]

>Frankly, as a Mac User, I think that MultiMedia (on either platform)
>is hype.

Me too, if I wanted to listen to music, I turn on the CD player, if I
wanted to watch a movie, I turn on the TV.

>>> Of course, OS/2 has quite a bit of features that MacOS doesn't
>>> have: pre-emptive MT, memory protection, multithreading, OO GUI,
>>> REXX, etc.

>In what way is the WPS OO?  In it's implementation?  Who will care?

In both its implementation and behavior, I might add the correction that
the Finder is also OO in some ways, see my other reply to Dan Johnson.

>Nan> As to the benefit of memory protection, I think lots of Mac users
>Nan> here would disagree with you.

>Count me in.  But I know why.  Most people who don't know why don't
>care.

Whether they care depends on how often their machines crash, some have
stable machines and won't care, some have the opposite experience.

-- Nan
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:28:10 GMT

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct6222702@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>In article <ibhan.718394592@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes>
>   >Well, I won't go into all the reasons why it's impossible to 
>   >time yourself in an experiment like this -- I would have thought
>   >that was obvious.  However, if you set up a proper experiment,
>   >with an unbiased subject and unbiased observer, you will probably
>   >find the same thing as everyone else who has performed this experiment:
>   >using the menus is faster, although, to the user, cmd-C and cmd-V
>   >*seem* faster.
>
>Oh, really?  Is that what they found?
>I think it's time to bring up the list of survey results.  Seems to me there
>were just as many surveys saying the opposite as there were supporting your
>statements.

There is a difference between a "survey" and an "experiment."  A
"survey" is when you ask people what they think; an "experiment" is
when you measure what is actually happening.

You are correct in that there are surveys showing that users think
using command keys is faster.  There are also experiments showing that
mousing is faster.

In his book on interface design, Tognazzi writes: "We've done $50
million of R&D on the Apple Human Interface.  We've discovered, among
other things, two pertinent facts:  1) Test subjects consistently
report that keyboarding is faster than mousing.  2) The stopwatch
consistently reports that mousing is faster than keyboarding."

There may be some argument for preferring keyboarding because it seems
faster.  After all, subjective values are important.  The feeling of
speed is important to some people; that's one of the reasons for the
popularity of sports cars.  However, if you wish to claim that
keyboarding is _actually_ faster than mousing, the ball is in your
court; let's hear about the _experiments_ that show this.

  --dave

-- 

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: af733@yfn.ysu.edu (Ryan James Smith)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:16:38 GMT


Lets not forget the SE/20.  I don't know how short lived they
were but I thought it was a joke when I heared about them.
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Ryan(Ryno) Smith    ||  There are some who call me...Tim.
af733@yfn.ysu.edu   ||
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:05:50 GMT
 <1992Oct9.212807.13564@leland.Stanford.EDU> <6182.2ad988cb@hayes.com>
 <1992Oct14.234816.19447@leland.Stanford.EDU> <6222.2addc11d@hayes.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <6222.2addc11d@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) says:
>
[much trivial stuff about not-every-bug-causes-a-memory-violation deleted]

>> Memory protection certainly does not substitute for a stable system.
>> Applications should not crash.   Unfortunatley, they sometimes do --
>> even on a Mac.
>
>Sad to say, but true.
>
And that's exactly the point where memory protection is extremely valuable
for the user not for the programmer.

Memory protection is only valuable for the programmer _until_ the program
is sold. _After_ it is sold it is as valuable for the user as it was before for
 the programmer.
You will believe me the first time some weird game or shareware utility or
Microsoft app crashed the system while you were doing real work in another
session.

Clearly if the system itself crashed noone will help you. And if the bug in
your app will make it computing wrong numbers memory protection won't help
you.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy