HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:37:16 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-141092165107@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185818.3475@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com
>
>The keyboard is a more efficient way of communicating written language, not
>instructions.  I do not agree with your conclusion; your premise is flawed.
> GIGO.

Do you honestly think there aren't any instructions which are more
efficiently specified using written language?  Consider not only all the
instructions you would want to give, but recording a series of
instructions and communicating instructions as well.

--
Steve Kanefsky
Date:  9 Oct 92 10:39:46 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Distribution: comp
From: jopa@tkk.tele.fi (Jorma Paananen)

johnsd2@jec304.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> No. Quickdraw could act like they were all one monitor. You request
> the "screen size", it would give you a box that contained all the
> monitors, and so on. It doesn't; if you ask for a general
> screen size you just get the bounds of teh main monitor. You have
> to fool around some more to get anything bigger than that.

No need to foold around. Using that screenBits.bounds gives the bounds
of the main monitor. If you need a box that contains all the monitors
you use (**GrayRgn).rgnBBox. (should be documented in IM or TN, I can't
check it now) 

Jorma jopa@th.tele.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:44:26 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 <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.

>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.

Perhaps you'd like to talk about Newton?

>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.

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...?

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:23:01 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.

>>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. 

>Apple...bundle something already!

You mean like Hypercard?  Unfortunately, many people
are trying to talk Apple into unbundling Hypercard
(and even the system software) in the name of "cost
cutting."


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Some misc. stuff
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:15:33 GMT

In article: <81700@ut-emx.uucp> Douglas Floyd writes:

Douglas>   A friend of mine who got a Quadra 950 w/128 megs of RAM,
Douglas> a gigabyte HD, 24 bit color, and a built-in CD-ROM asked me
Douglas> if ejecting his RAM disk would cause his SIMMS to pop out.

Douglas> This person turns the machine on by turning the key to
Douglas> Secure, and then On, like starting a car.  He did not
Douglas> know that the little triangle key started up the machine.

Douglas> What do you do w/ people like this?


It sounds like you're ragging on your "friend" becuase he/she isn't
an immediate computer expert.  I'm sure I could quiz nearly anyone
on subjects outside their area of knowledge and make them look
silly.  But that's where a friend is supposed to help out.  You
know something about the Mac that your friend doesn't, so help out
a little.

With the kind of power that the Quadra packs, I wouldn't be suprised
if your friend becomes a power user within a month.  Then you'll 
look back at the good old days when you didn't have a clue what
a RAM disk was, or why you'd want one.

[MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: boyd@apple.com (scott boyd)
Subject: Re: Apple Buttkicker -- when can I buy one?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:01:51 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <92288.100748U59985@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U59985@uicvm.uic.edu>
wrote:
> Apple Buttkicker-My dream machine. Maybe we can get Apple to rename
> the PowerPC?

I'll see what I can do.  At the very least, I'll start using it in my
documents :-)

scott
boyd@apple.com
the x-men
macintosh system software
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:37:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: gvl.1992Oct9.203740.29684
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA

In article <92283.165157ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>Perhaps he thinks more of how the UI works to the user, not to the programmer.
>WPS sees the icons on the screen as objects i.e. things that have some
>properties and can perform some actions. What actions an icon or a group of
>selected icons can perform do you see by clicking on it with your mouse. What
>properties it has you see in its settings notebook. And interaction between
>icons is by drag/drop. The Mac OS has this partly but its not consequently
>used. In System 6 you can`t print a document by dropping it on a printer icon.
>Don`t know about System 7. But I`m pretty sure to format a floppy in System 7
>you have to select the floppy icon and then hunt in the menu bar for a format
>option. In OS/2 you click on the icon with your right mouse button and select
>from the objects menu.

Let me be the first to point this out.... :-)

On the Mac you format a floppy by sticking it in the drive.  The Mac
sees that the disk is unreadable and asks if you want to initialize
it.  You say Yes.  It's been this way since the beginning, and hasn't
changed under System 7.  Why bother with a menu item?

As for printing by dropping onto a printer icon:  nice feature, but
one that didn't make it into System 7.  I have a little application
to do exactly this, though.  Hardly ever use it.  I'm glad Apple gave
priority to more important features.

>The difference is: in MacOS you ask the computer (i.e. menu bar) what can I do
>with that object (and anything else I see on the screen). In OS/2 you ask the
>object you want to manipulate "What can you do?"

This sounds interesting, and I should take a look at it the next time
I'm near an OS/2.  Sounds similar to the way painting tools work in
some Mac programs.  Isn't it a problem if the object has a lot of
possible behaviors?  Is it set up like a menu?

  --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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: clock speed & MIPS Motorola<->Intel?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:10:17 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 <92289.151702ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>Try to do the things you want to do on the 50MHz 486 and on the LC II if they
>are the same price.... And no (unexpensive) possibility to do networking on 
>that machine. (Guess what fruit is on the case)

You still haven't figured out how to hook up a LocalTalk connector, huh?

Well, considering this is from a "Mac user" who thought you had 
to choose a menu item to format a blank disk, I'm not surprised.
  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Originator: kchang@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:09:55 GMT

In article <UepPgfu00WB2Ndenoa@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 9-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
>and Window.. by Daniel N. Johnson@vccnw0 
>>> Also Carl:
>> |> HAHAHA!!  Chicago font is a piece of SHIT!
>>  
>> Well, I like it fine, but then I have to taste. :)
>> To each his own. Im surprised you find this so improtant. I thot
>> Mac users were the people with font fixations. :)
>
>Yeah they are, but how could you live with a font _that_ ugly?!?!?

Chicago never struck me as ugly. Its form was pretty much dictated by
function: a somewhat condensed (to fit on a 9" screen), highly
legible font that remains legible when grayed out (and since the original
Macs were B&W, this means legible with every other pixel missing).
And the result succeeds: you can still make out the menu bar halfway across
the room. It's not a very readable font: don't ever set a book in Chicago,
for instance, unless you want to blind someone.

The standard DOS font, on the other hand, is ugly without any redeeming
qualities. :)

Kenneth Chang
kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu
(also kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu)
-- 
  Kenneth Chang           | National Center for Supercomputing Applications
  kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu    |                 Consulting Office/(217)244-1144
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Everything's entertainment in America eventually" -- Tracy Ullman
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:23:27 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct6.233314.20838@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
> In article <6138.2ad1c9cc@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>In article <D2150025.phghrd@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
>>> Have YOU ever used an Amiga? 
>>
>>Yup. I actually played quite a bit with an Amiga 1000. 
> 
> And you make up your opinions based on that experience????

No, not entirely. I don't "make up" opinions, I form them. There's a difference.

> When was that, may I ask?

About the same time Peter da Silva used a Mac.

>>Face it. Preemptive tasking doesn't make that much of a difference to the
>>user. There's little or no perceptable benefit.
> 
> It depends if the user wants to work fast or not.

You missed the point. There's no difference in speed between the two 
technologies. You work just as fast with a cooperative as with a preemptive
system. (Yes, I know, there are special cases where cooperative will have you
waiting -- like when formatting a floppy. My point is, when you look at the
overall picture and not special cases, there'se little or no benefit to the
user)

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

I've worked with OS/2 recently. Comparing it to Windows 3.1 on the same
machine, I'd say that cooperative multitasking was much, much faster. Of
course, OS/2 gurus would be quick to point out that my OS/2 was memory-starved.
Well, Windows 3.1 wasn't.

You keep missing my point.

My point is -- the user DOESN'T CARE what kind of technology a computer
uses to multitask. Preemptive or Cooperative, it makes little difference.
It just needs to multitask WELL, regardless of the technology.

I am NOT saying "Preemptive multitasking is a BAD THING." Not at all. It
can be a good thing. What I'm saying is that users don't appear to 
distinguish.

If they did, Amiga's and OS/2 (and NeXT) would have a much larger share of
the market. They don't.

(Yeah, and OS/9 would have been much more popular than CP/M.)

-- 
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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:50:38 GMT

In <6182.2ad988cb@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.212807.13564@leland.Stanford.EDU>, kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:
>> In article <6167.2ad589f4@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>A) An OS with memory protection to protect you when applications crash
>>>B) An OS whose applications don't crash.
>> 
>> A leads to B in this case.  By having memory protection the
>> programmer is able to examine a crashing program and thereby
>> fix the bug.  Of course, it is possible to fix the bug by other
>> means, but they take longer and are less reliable.  

>You didn't include the rest of my posting. I pointed out that memory protection
>is useful for the DEVELOPER, who expects to have frequent crashes. Memory
>protection may or may not help to target the actual bugs. 

>But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The USERs apps
>shouldn't crash. Period.

This is a very shortsightened reasoning. The users applications SHOULD
crash, IMHO, as long as they are buggy. Memory protection in the
end users system gives developers a strong incentive not to release
buggy applications. 

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: millsm@nextnet.csus.edu (Matthew Mills)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Power PC inquiry.
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:34:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: csus.1992Oct16.163422.23469
Organization: California State University Sacramento

I know this is a little bit off the subject but this seems to be the
only newsgroup that cmay be able to answer this question.
  I would like to know what the Power PC designers are planning for
their expansion bus.  Are they thinking about sticking with NUBUS? Are
they considering the PCI interface? or are they going to "grow their
own" bus?

Matthew

-- 
| Matthew Mills                       | To do is to be - Socrates 
| Technical Lab Assistant (CSUS)      | To be is to do - Plato
| mail-> millsm@csus.edu              | Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.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.
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:29:37 GMT

In article <jopa.718627186@tkk.tele.fi>, jopa@tkk.tele.fi (Jorma Paananen) writes:
|> johnsd2@jec304.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> > No. Quickdraw could act like they were all one monitor. You request
|> > the "screen size", it would give you a box that contained all the
|> > monitors, and so on. It doesn't; if you ask for a general
|> > screen size you just get the bounds of teh main monitor. You have
|> > to fool around some more to get anything bigger than that.
|> 
|> No need to foold around. Using that screenBits.bounds gives the bounds
|> of the main monitor. If you need a box that contains all the monitors
|> you use (**GrayRgn).rgnBBox. (should be documented in IM or TN, I can't
|> check it now) 

Exactly. This is the fooling around I meant. Of course, if you want
to be smart about it, you would walk the graphics device list to
find the "best" monitor and use that monitors bounding box.

But the point is just that a Mac with multiple monitors  does not act
like it had one monitor (spanning them all) in all cases. The screenbits.bounds
is an example- (most) things using this will only refer to the main
monitor.

-- 
			- 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.
From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 11 Oct 1992 00:18:47 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <Eep=77u00WB8Mikopz@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido
<cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Fine, keep System 7.0 only for Macintoshes, while the rest of the world
>is trying to get operating systems which are _platform_independent. 
>Look at Unix and NT.  Both run on different platforms.  NT will be
>released on other platforms eventually.

Apple has already announced that they are basing System 8.0 on a
microkernel. This will put them one more step toward putting their
system on different platforms, such as PowerPC.

At the same time, Taligent is working on a software system which can
be viewed as the successor to the Macintosh OS. It already runs on
Macintosh hardware and it will run on Intel and PowerPC hardware.

>Currently, OS/2 has been shown running on an RS/6000 in addition to
>the PC's.  OS/2 has already been shown to run on the Mach kernel, so
>evidence is showing that it too will be designed to run on multiple
>platforms.

At Unix Expo, IBM demonstrated DOS running on IBMs version of Mach. It
also demonstrated the OSF/1 single server, an X-Windows server, and
user-level device drivers. IBM claims to have OS/2 running on Mach, but
has not demonstrated it to the industry.

I've not heard the claim about OS/2 running on an RS/6000. 

>But sure, if Apple wants to keep System 7.0 for only their hardware,
>go ahead.

Clearly, Apple is expanding their horizons. System 7.0 will be for
Mac hardware only, but I don't think you can conclude that future
Apple software will be for Apple hardware only.

>> >Bill, you keep saying that features like preemptive MT have negligible
>> >benefit to the user and therefore are a nonfactors, I disagree, maybe
>> >users are just not aware of the potential of preemptive MT, 

>> Or maybe they are aware of what a dog preemptive multitasking
>> really is.

>Tell that to Apple!  They are going to preemptive eventually, so maybe
>they just want to get rid of people like you.

There is truth in both your positions. Preemptive multitasking will make
things harder for the average user (read non-computer-geek) to understand.
For many of these users, the capability is not that important. The cooperative
system provided by multifinder is adequate.

At the same time, preemptive multitasking will make it easier for the
programmer (read computer-geek) to program the macintosh. And,
multithreading will make it even easier to write macintosh
applications. 
-- 

Stephen Kurtzman             | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu      |  the change was sudden and complete"
                             |                              -- Maggie Roche
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: corporate propaganda
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:29:29 GMT


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?

Dariusz Bolski
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy