HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:35:18 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <YeotQRS00WBOE7T_9x@andrew.cmu.edu>, sward+@CMU.EDU (David Reeve Sward) writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 7-Oct-92 Re: More Defense
> of CLI (th.. by Edward V. Wright@convex. 
>> >He did say "relatively little".  Don't forget that most UNIX users are
>> >probably competent programmers and wouldn't have as much trouble coping
>> >with shell scripting as the typical Mac user would with Hypercard
>> >scripting.  
>>  
>> However, you've made 
>> an interesting concession here: that you have to be a competent 
>> programmer just to get by with the UNIX interface.
> 
> Hardly.  He just said that "most UNIX users are probably competent
> programmers" *NOT* "you have to be a competent programmer to be a UNIX
> user".  There's quite a difference there.

If we take the assertion that most UNIX users are competent programmers,
then the question certainly follows -- why?

It could be that UNIX is the best possible environment for programming, and
subsequently attracts programmers. (NOT! <grin>)

It could be that UNIX is completely unpalatable to non-programmers, and
hence drives away all but competant programmers as users. (AHA!)

And it could be that some of those competant programmers have figured out
that what is easy for the novice is easy for the expert, and we're using
Macs intead. <grin>

-- 
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: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: corporate propaganda
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:48:27 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy

In article <1992Oct14.172929.7412@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>,
derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) wrote:
> 
> 
> In the October issue of AIXtra "IBM's magazine for AIX Professionals"
> is the article by Alan E. Model entitled "Ringling School Combines
> Art with RISC Technology".
> 
> The entire article if full of words of how this school works on IBMs
> and Macintoshes. He praises the value of their machines in the
> computer graphics. He says "That's why animation students spend a lot
> of time studying in our PS/2 lab"
> 
> And to prove that they do it he shows a photo of students working
> ... on AMIGAS!!!
> 
> What do you say?

That if they had shown the Mac lab instead of the PS/2 lab, you would have
seen Macs instead of Amigas.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:30:34 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <bpvz0vl@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec304.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> In article <6154.2ad47f65@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> |> Unfortunately, some items do not. (eg floppy disk formatting) Therefore 
> |> preemptive tasking is looked at as a Good Thing. In actuality, what is
> |> really needed is Good Multitasking -- regardless of the technology.
> 
> Indeed, but pre-emptive multasking would help, and it would make
> it much easier to implement aps with good multitasking.

No, it isn't that preemptive tasking helps, it is just that there are many
more examples of passable preemptive tasking systems than non-preemptive 
ones.

If Mac designers had some foresight, they would have built track formatting
into the floppy disk controller. Then you could format floppies in a
cooperative tasking system with no ill effects. 

> |> Finally, multithreading is overblown. I for one don't want to have to
> |> deal with threaded applications. I've written one, and it was a bear to
> |> test and debug.
> 
> I disaggree. Multithreading is worthwhile for several reasons. It makes
> it easier to implement apps that can manipulate multiple documents
> simultaneously. 

I disagree. I don't see how it makes this any easier.

Indeed, based on my experience, I can see how it would actually make things
more complicated. When you unleash concurrancy in an application, you have
to fight to keep your common data structures protected. If your junior
programmer misses just ONE of those spots -- WHAMMO -- you've got a nasty
bug that may take you weeks to fix.

I'll keep as much multithreading out of my applications as I can. Thank you.

> |> No thank you. I'd just as soon keep my applications as single threaded as
> |> possible. 
> 
> Okey dokey. Pardon me if I don't.

OK. Just don't say I didn't warn you....

-- 
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: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:21:22 GMT

In article: <1992Oct8.021111.17968@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> David Meiklejohn writes:

> By the way, I'm actually typing into a CLI (shell) window within the OpenLook
> GUI running on an X terminal.  I don't really see the point of this CLI vs
> GUI stuff when it's so easy to use both approaches at once.  I often browse
> through files using the file manager on the Sun, complete with icons, etc.,
> then type a command into an open shell window, and possibly cutting and
> pasting filenames from another shell or application.  I do the same on my
> Amiga at home.  It only seems to be the Mac users who don't want to use a CLI
> as an integral part of their GUI environment.

By the way, I'm actually typing into a GUI window (xrn) with the OSF/Motif
GUI running on an X terminal.  I can really see the point of this CLI vs
GUI stuff when it's so hard to use the CLI for file management.  I'd die to
have a good GUI file manager like Finder on the Mac, complete with icons,
etc.  I can do this stuff on the Mac in the next office, and my GS as home.
It only seems like the old-gaurd computer users who insist on a CLI as an
integral part of their GUI environment.

If you really wanted a CLI as an integral part of your OS, then you would
probably be attracted to systems other than the Mac (or you'd purchase
a third party CLI for your Mac).


[MGM]
From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:35:44 GMT

mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:

> wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) wrote:

> > Speak for your own desktop.  I can safely say that an Amiga will dorn my
> > desktop for many...many....years to come!
> > I'd take the first Amiga (A1000) over the first IBM or Mac *ANYDAY*!!!!
> > At least it would be in color, multitask (pre-emptive, too), and play
> > some GREAT games.  Can either of the first IBMs or Macs do that?
> > HELL, can *ANY* of their most recent ones do that?????  Who's clueless?

> Well, if all you want is a game machine....

  Yes, indeedy. if all I wanted was a game machine, I would buy an Amiga,
since their games are so outstanding compared to those available on other
platforms.

  And if I wanted more than a game machine, a machine capable of getting a
great deal of useful work done, with a massive base of business, educational,
presentation, multimedia, sound and entertainment software, used extensively
in the video production and music industries, and with the most compact and
efficient real-time pre-emptive fully multitasking operating system around
(hardly the hallmark of a games machine), I would buy an Amiga, since for X
dollars spent their capabilities are so outstanding compared to those
available on other platforms.

Ciao, Mike.

> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
> |one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:58:05 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct13.034620.3505@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) wrote:


> Speak for your own desktop.  I can safely say that an Amiga will dorn my
> desktop for many...many....years to come!
> I'd take the first Amiga (A1000) over the first IBM or Mac *ANYDAY*!!!!
> At least it would be in color, multitask (pre-emptive, too), and play
> some GREAT games.  Can either of the first IBMs or Macs do that?
> HELL, can *ANY* of their most recent ones do that?????  Who's clueless?

Well, if all you want is a game machine....

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steve Fuller)
Subject: PowerPC (was Re: IBM SUCKS!)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:12:09 GMT

In article <6197.2ad9c684@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>This is not what I heard from Apple at the developers conference. Apple isn't
>using the IBM R6000 chips. They are using the Motorola chips recently
>developed by the Apple/IBM/Motorola consortium. THe 601 isn't compatable
>with the R6000. It has a similar architecture, but completely different
>instructions. 
[....]
>True, but the PowerPC 601 isn't an RS 6000. It is a completely new chip.

Some of your facts are wrong.
1. They (PPC601) are not really Moto. chips. They are mostly IBM designed.
2. The PowerPC line (601,603,604,620...) *are* binary compatable with R/S 6000.
3. PPC is sortof a low-cost, second-generation R/S 6000.

Here are some facts gleaned from the newspaper:

2.8 million transistors.
A Motorola 88110 bus. 
Symmetric multiprocessing.
32K byte cache.
50 and 66-megahertz versions.

The 601 is being manufactured at IBM's Burlington, Vermont, plant using IBM's
.6-micron complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process. 
IBM and Motorola are working on the 603, 604, and 620 at Somerset, a new
facility in Austin, Texas. 

/s Steve Fuller        sfuller@tamu.edu        Texas A&M's UNIX Helpdesk
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: BinHex
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:46:43
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: mmunson@animal.es.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:12:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.201236.14612@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:

   Can anyone tell me where to I can get a copy of BinHex?  I've got
   Stuffit.  I'm still having difficulties FTPing to/from sites
   outside of my area.  Is there C source available for BinHex?

Have you tried the stanford server?  I think its 'argus.stanford.edu',
in the info-mac directory there should exist a copy of BinHex (I think,
I haven't pulled anything from there in quite some time).

		---- 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: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:48:42 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct6.210041.19546@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
> In article <BvIGCM.Ixs@rice.edu> jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>
>>Whoopee.  Accelerate that creaking 1986 technology.  Love that 24-bit
>>addressing, no Color QuickDraw, max 4MB of RAM, no sound chip machine.
>>Emulating a Mac Plus is about as interesting as building a 286-based
>>PC clone.
> 
> This is really interesting. First I hear from many people that Mac
> is a viable platform even in b/w (color is available for the Mac for
> not so long) and then I hear that this machine is not worth anything.

Funny thing. All those color Macs work just fine in black and white.

The Mac Plus was discontinued almost two years ago. (Exactly so in a few
days) Yet, the Amigoid in the original posting claimed his emulator was
faster than a IIci. 

Jim was correctly pointing out that this wasn't true, that the Amiga didn't
do what a IIci does.

Mac Pluses are certainly worth something. On the used market, they sell
for around $600.

I think the final sentense fits perfectly. Emulating a Plus is about as
interesting as a 286 clone. There are still a lot of people using 286
machines.

> When I am supposed to buy a Mac for one of the officers and she
> wants b/w, should I get her color? No. She wants b/w and I will get
> it for her, even if someone thinks it is not interesting. She is
> supposed to work on it. She is not interested in the interesting
> computer.

So, get her a color Mac and set in to b/w mode.

> All advocates of Mac who claim that b/w Mac is not an appropriate
> Mac, should face the fact that disregarding them would cut the number
> of considered Macs (here color ones) down to the number of Amigas. 

Since the Mac LC (and II) has been the hottest-selling Mac for over a year,
the number of color Macs appears to be significantly higher than the total
number of Amigas.

Indeed, the color Mac sales for the past year probably exceeds the total
Amiga installed base.

-- 
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
From: johnsd2@rs6220.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:14:20 GMT

In article <4eoxNRS00YV949Gsxy@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
|> 
|> Yes, Windows and OS/2 can have multiple monitors.  And no, it's not as
|> nice or as easy as in a MacinToy (as per Re: Essence of flame:-)).  It's
|> mostly a hardware thing remember.  PC's probably could have defined a
|> better standard, but today, most people prefer to go to a big monitor
|> rather than two monitors at 640x480 (or whatever), although I'd love to
|> have two big monitors, rather than just one.
|> Anyway, here are possible setups:
|> 
|> Monitor one    Monitor two
|> XGA            XGA
|> 8514           VGA
|> VGA            EGA (or maybe MDA, monochrome text)
|> 
|> Of course, I've never done any of this, but I've heard it done.  For the
|> most part, the only people I really see using two monitors are
|> programmers who have the debugger in text mode, running in monitor two,
|> and the app running in monitor one.  It's a nice setup.

But it it is VERY limited. Programs have to be SPECIFICLY written
to use this feature. On the Macintosh programs do not. But they
can be- Think C has an option which makes it stick its debugger windows
on annother montior if you like.

|> I think that neither OS/2 nor Windows has the ability to virtualize
|> monitor 2 as part of monitor 1, producing one big monitor (a la mac). 

They don't, from every account I've heard. There is supposed to be
a board that lets u use 4 vga monitors, but they all have to be 4-bit
deep and the same size. It isn't very usefull.

Incidentally, it doesn't "virtualize monitor 2 as par of mointor 1",
they are internally represented as separate (which is why they can
have different depths), but QuickDraw knows how to deal with multiple
monitors. Hence if you are so inclined its trivial to make (special) use
of an extra monitor- you walk the monitor list until you find the
monitors you want, then open windows in that part of the global space. But
if you aren't the user can explicitly put windows on other monitors.

Its real neat.

|> I'm not sure how the XGA/XGA setup works though.
|> It'd be nice if we had that, so that's another item to add to my jealous list.

Feel free. What item # would that be? (just curious..) :)

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: 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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:56:03 GMT

In article <6169.2ad59050@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.030331.22081@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
>> 
>I don't think this says very much about the mouse, but more about your work
>and personal habits. 

>I had the same complaint when I originally developed Mac software on an 
>Apple Lisa. It took about two months to get used to the editor where you
>HAD to use the mouse. Now, I would never go back.

That is the whole difference between you and for example me.
I would hate if I was forced by the machine to do something.

I expect the machine to do what I want and not the opposite.

>have to, since many of these DOS machines I'm required to work on don't
>have decent editors like the Mac, and I'm reminded why I like the Mac so
>much)

Decent editor in my opinion lets me work as I want and not as the editor wants.
Your opinion my vary of course.

>> Yes folks...My editor of choice is VI, and I love it, 
>
>YUCK!

I think that vi is accepted by much higher number of people than any of the
editors of Mac. You my concider your unhealthy stomach reaction a curiosum.

>> and I just love the csh commands such as !-8/s/foo/bar/ ...... try that with
>> a GUI..
>
>Why bother? 

What is your point?

>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: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:13:19 GMT

In <ewright.719176981@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>>1) Windows comes with some applications!!!  A Word
>>processor!!!  A painting tool!!!  While they are not
>>exactly MS Word or MacDraw, they suffice and get the 
>>average user off the ground.  

>Windows Paintbrush is just about unusable.  The meager
>paint tools work okay, but there's a major bug in the 
>save command.  This causes a black stripe to be added 
>down the right edge of some paintings when they are saved.
>You can't just edit it out, because it comes right back
>next time you save and reopen the document. 

I've just tried that on three different versions of 
Paintbrush, and couldn't reproduce it.

Btw, did you know that there's a major bug in the 
calculator DA in the Mac OS? For certain numbers,
the multiply command causes the machine to reboot
immediately. This makes the calculator tool a
very dangerous tool to use. Beware!

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re:  A-MaxII+ ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:06:03 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <root.02j9@rkamiga.UUCP>, root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) wrote:
> 
> In article <ibhan.718900395@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
> >>>  That's correct.  QuickTime requires Colour QuickDraw, which in turn
> >>>requires at least a 68020 (and probably the 256K Mac II Roms) for its
> >>>bitfield operations.  At one point, there was a plan to port QuickTime
> >>>to 68000 machines by porting Colour QuickDraw, but now that Apple no
> >>>longer makes 68000 machines, I don't think they'll bother.
> >
> >>So they've dropped support for the 68000 classic?
> >
> >Depends what you mean by support.  They still support it, they just don't
> >make it any more.  There's no real point to having QuickTime on a Classic,
> >since a classic doesn't have any color.
> 
> I wasn't really considering QT, but I was wondering about all those people
> who fattened Apple's pockets by buying the Mac Classic in the last 2 years.
> 
> That's a fairly short run for an established computer company.
> 
> I would hate to be someone who bought a Classic 6 months ago and now finds
> that he has to throw it away and buy a Classic II.

I'd hate to be someone who thought that just because a computer is
discontinued and a newer model came out, he would have to throw it away and
buy the newer model.  Just because a model is superseded doesn't make it
not work or obsolete.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:00:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <16WZ02D.261m01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> rwb00@loon.as writes:
>So its a FEATURE of the mac that no useful software is bundled with it ? 

As if Windows comes with any useful software!  The average free/shareware
programs for the Mac are much more useful.

MS Write does not have a parallel in Mac freeware.  It, however, is 
something that VERY few people can consider useful.  Almost everybody 
needs something more/different.  It makes MUCH more sense for the user 
to purchase a word processor that suits their likes and needs.  If I
HAD Windows, one of the first things that I would do would be to remove
MS Write from my hard drive.

Jess Holle