HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:05:56 PDT
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
Reply-To: butthead
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5


In article <BvG7G8.86D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
>>Bill Coleman, AA4LR           
> >> I strongly agree with all the above.  After working alot with Unix I can
> >> really see the Macs weaknesses in these areas. A marriage of the Mac user
> >> interface and Unix functionality would be an unbeatable combination.  
> >It's called A/UX. So far it hasn't sold much.

Probably 'cuz it won't run on most machines and it's too expensive!! (If
it would run on my system and it was inexpensive I'd run it.)

> Wrongo.  AUX 3.0 is better than before but it's still a kludge of the Mac OS
> and Unix.  Almost as bad as Windows running on top of DOS and with alot of
> the same weaknesses.  But then you knew that didn't you.
> -Terry
> 

A/UX 3.0 is a UNIX kernal that runs the mac OS as a process. (Or series of
processes.) It does not run "on top" of the mac OS as "kludge" would seem
to imply. Did you just learn the word "kludge" and decide to try it?  I
suggest you read comp.sys.amiga.advocacy and learn how to properly define
"kludge".

And exactly WHAT weaknesses does it share with Windoze??  I'm waiting!!! 
As anyone will tell you, UNIX is infinitely better than MS-DOS in any
incarnation, and Apple UNIX has the best of UNIX AND the mac Finder AND
X-MOTIF. Unless you're going to tell me that Windoze's file manager is
better than the Mac finder.  AND the whole thing is memory protected,
System 7, and preemptive to boot!!  Was that statement just a brain fart
or what!?

Terry, you'd like this guy in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, He's named Marc Barret...



 David Vandeven    ********************************************************
Systems Progammer  *   "I don't believe in Pinochle, I don't believe I'll *
    Deadhead       * try: I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the    *
    Cyberpunk      * Frizzle Fry!"  (dvan@spumco.cts.com)      *PRIMUS!*  *
Zen Agnostic Guru  ********************************************************
From: greg@applelink.apple.com (Greg Marriott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More info on system 7.1 and $$$
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:34:38 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1686DA9D3.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) wrote:
> 
> In article <30983@goofy.Apple.COM>
> greg@applelink.apple.com (Greg Marriott) writes:
> >Nope.  System 7.1 is NOT a bug-fix release.  System 7.1's
> >focus is world-ready software.  As such, U.S. users don't
> >have much incentive to upgrade, at least until the plug-ins
> >start to be released.
> [...]
> Does this mean that all versions of 7.1 will ship with
> world-script included? If not, then 7.1 <> world-ready software.
> the entirely seperate product known as world script is
> world-ready software.

There is only one version of 7.1.  It will be packaged in many
different ways, one of which is an upgrade kit meant for users
of 7.0.x who wish to upgrade to the latest version of the system.

The original plan was to not release 7.1 in the U.S. (or other
countries not requiring WorldScript technology)  The plan was
changed because many users surveyed wanted a way to upgrade even
if it offered them nothing new (except a higher version number).
Instead of charging U.S. users a LOT of money for WorldScript and
other stuff they don't need, we created the new upgrade kit.

Complain all you want about being charged for a system with little
or no improvement over what you've already got.  Nobody's holding
a gun to your head and forcing you to pay.

BTW, I disagree (quite strongly) with the policy of charging for
the base system software.  Time will tell if this is a big mistake
or a little mistake (but I definitely think it's a mistake).

Cheers,

Greg Marriott
Blue Meanie
Apple Computer, Inc.
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: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:58:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.230945.7683@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau) writes:
>>>In <strobl.717018085@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>
>>>>Well, I just yesterday made that very mistake, by dropping something on 
>>>>the editor icon without noticing that I had selected a full range
>>>>of files instead of a single file. The computer was busy for the
>>>>next twenty minutes and I had to spend an additional five minutes
>>>>to close all these unwanted windows. Yes, this was on a GUI
>>>>(neither Mac nor Windows). I don't think that an equally capable
>>>>GUI protects an user from shooting himself into his feet better
>>>>than a CLI. 
>
>	Y'know, on a Mac under Sys7 you can just press command-option-esc
>and kill any program, no matter what it's up to.  Maybe you should switch...

Does it belong to the GUI? Does it have a menu option or a button?
I was almost convinced that Mac interface is consistent...

>- Drau

Regards,
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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Whither Apple? (Wither Apple?) 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:46:07 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.

Okay, despite the cynics and critics obsessed with such tech-nerd
trivia as protected memory and preemptive multitasking, we all 
know that the Macintosh operating system is superior to anything
else on the market and no one else shows any signs of catching
up.  But what of the future?  Will Apple continue to keep its
product identity, or will it become just another PC company?

Right now, Apple is modularizing its operating system.  New
features will be offered, as they become available, in the
form of plugins.  All very well and good but, apparently, we
will now have to *pay* for these plugins.  

Apple apparently will make these plugins available for Windows/DOS
machines as well.  Quicktime has already been ported to Windows
and rumor has it QuickdrawGX will be also.  So in the future, when
Apple introduces a new system software component, you will be able  
to buy it for the Macintosh or buy it for the PC.  That's not a
compelling reason to buy a Mac.  

The only thing that's sure (well, reasonably sure) to be available 
only on the Mac is the current operating system core.  But that core 
is not going to change very much in the next few years, and if Windows 
keeps improving, how much advantage will a Mac (with Apple plugin system
extensions) have over Windows (with Apple plugin system extensions)?

Well, there's the Finder, of course, but it shouldn't be too hard
for someone to write a decent Finder for Windows.  And the consistency
of the Macintosh interface across programs, but as we know from the
debates here, there are a lot of people who still don't realize the
value of that.
   
Apple is taking a tremendous risk.  Few, if any, hardware companies
actually make money on software.  In trying to do so, will Apple
wound its own hardware line?  Is Apple going to lose its product 
differentiation because of this?

Then there's the new, low-cost LC Apple that Apple will reportedly
introduce next year.  This 68030 will have a list price, with hard
drive *and* monitor, of under $1000.  Not bad, even by cheap PC
standards.  Unfortunately, Apple may be cutting some corners to
bring it down to cheap PC standards.  MacWeek says it would be
the first Mac without builtin networking and have a cruddy IDE
drive instead of a SCSI disk.  Even a manual eject button on the
floppy drive.  The software may be Macintosh but the hardware,
except for the Motorola processor, sounds more like a cheap PC.
Is Apple going to lose its hardware product differentiation?



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 05:45:54 GMT

Peter da Silva writes
> The NeXT is a significantly better system than MacOS, OS/2, 
> AmigaOS, and most X-windows based UNIX boxes. Too bad it's
> priced like HP calculators used to be.

Two points:
1. NeXT has not yet learnt the lesson that Apple is barely coming to  
grips with: that its hard to extract a premium for superior quality  
when you're trying to gain market share. 
2. The NeXT is a very powerful computer, with high quality  
components.  Try to build up a system of equivalent power and  
functionality on another platform, and you'll see that the NeXT is  
quite competitively priced.  Mono NeXTs are much cheaper than  
Quadras, for example, and color NeXTs are essentially equally costly  
as Quadras.

Conclusion:  In terms of value for money, NeXTs are not 'expensive;'   
in fact, I think they're one of the better deals around _if_ you need  
the power and functionality that NeXT offers.  However, I do wish  
NeXT was more aggressive in its pricing, especially at the low end; I  
think they stand to gain significant market share if they can bring  
their entry-level system below $3000 (street).  But, given the high  
level of power and functionality that they offer, NeXT do not have a  
huge margin in which to maneuver.


--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: okidz@ccs.northeastern.edu (Oki D Zakaria)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:54:17 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <ewright.717460182@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>In <1992Sep21.003831.15049@physics.ucla.edu> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes:
>
>
>>>>		%tar xvf mytar.tar *.jpeg   ; to put all jpeg files in a file
>
>>>It's easy to make a drop-launch program for this.
>
>>That may be true, but *I* don't know how to do it.  That negates this 
>>argument completely.
>
>Really?  If just one person doesn't know how to do something,
>that negates its value as a method for doing something?  Well,
>there are a lot of people who don't know how to do "tar xvf
>mytar.tar *.jpeg." 
>
>In fact, it appears that you are one of them.  If you check
>the UNIX man pages, you'll see that the "x" flag means "extract."
>This command line does not put all jpeg files into one tar file,
>it extracts jpeg files that are already "tar"'d. 

All right, it was my mistake. It should have been 'c', sorry.

(Hmm, it's really easy to make a mistake in CLI).


Oki Zakaria
From: tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about Performa?
Keywords: New line of Mac
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:13:08 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Let's talk Performa 600s, boys and girls

I just read the specs on the 600s in Byte magazine, and I am pretty
sure that Apple has crippled it and that it is not as powerful as
the IIVx will be.

First of all, the famous Performa 600 accelerator slot.

This is not a Cache slot, it is a dedicated accelerator slot.
It cannot be used as a cache slot for the simple reason that it's
bus to the CPU is designed in such a way as to support only a 
board with a separate processor on it, effectively replacing or cutting
off the existing CPU.  This slot cannot address the high speed static RAM
of traditional cache cards, so that option is closed to Performa owners.
Secondly, the Performa has Mono sound (it basically has the same sound
chip as the LCs), I doubt very much that the IIVX will have mono sound.
As for expansion:  the Performa 600 has only a single 4-slot Ram expansion bank
(four Megs of Ram are soldered onto the Motherboard), therefore, if one wants
to upgrade to 68 megs, one must use ultra-expensive 16Meg simms.  Also, please
remember that in such a configuration one must fill all the slots with equivalent simms at the same time.  Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the max. memory for the intended users would  be 20 megs using affordable 4meg simms.
Next, the Performa uses standard Nu-bus slots, rather than the New-bus 90 slots
found on the Quadras.  Also, I believe that the Performas will have standard SCSI rather than SCSI II implimentation.

So here is my fearless prediction:

We know for a fact that the IIVX will have a FPU built in and a cache.  I pre-
dict that the VX will also have stereo sound, the capacity to drive monitors larger than 14 inches, VRAM expandable to 24-bit colour, and possibly SCSI 2 and 
NuBus '90 implimentation.  I do not believe that Apple would be as stupid as
to release a Mac II at a higher price that simply has an FPU and a nicer box.

BTW, I saw a picture of the Performa 600 in the new Issue of Byte.  It is not as
nice as a real Mac, but its a bit more aesthetically pleasing than your StandardPC box.

Chris in Montreal
One last thought:  Another possible difference, much like the IIsi and ci, the Vx will definitely have 68030 burst mode, while the Performa will probably not.
IIsi owners take note:  Your machines are actually better than the performas, you can add a cache to speed them up, not so with performas.  Boy am I relieved.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:35:43 GMT

feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.210630.24713@times.aux.apple.com>  writes:
>>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:


>>NeXT wins this one, but barely (I've seen Q700s street for less than
>>$4245 with display -- edu should be better). Note that, at least at
>>U. of Illinois, the $3851 price did not include a keyboard or
>>NeXTStep (at all -- you HAD to buy it separately, or so the computer
>>store people and their price sheet claimed).

>WHAT?  NeXTs all come with NeXTSTEP free.  And a keyboard.

AHHHH.. he's talking about the Starting Point Kit.  Big deal.  It's
a necessary item when you're buying a NeXT.  You can theoretically
buy the CPU and not get the SPK, and you will still get the OS on
the CPU's hard disk.  If you want the CD-ROM with all of the OS on
it, and if you want a power cord, and if you want docs and a
keyboard, you must buy a SPK.  It lists for $225.  Big freakin'
deal.
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
From: patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:22:45 GMT

In <ibhan.718039215@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:

>I'm a college student about to buy a computer, and I'd love to buy a NeXT,
>but frankly, I think they're just too expensive.  Sure, they may be a
>better deal than the approx $3000 Mac I'm about to get, but with Macs you
>can get color with a machine as low-end as the LC.  With the NeXT, you
>have to find the money for a NeXT Station Color, which may be a really
>nice system, but it's also really expensive.  At least on the Mac, you
>don't need to buy a Quadra to have color.

You couldn't love the NeXT that much. For a couple hundred dollars
more you could get a pretty capable machine. Remember, color is
nearly useless and will remain so for awhile.

Pat Breitenbach		patb@mcl.ucsb.edu
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whither Apple? (Wither Apple?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:24:53 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 <1992Oct03.041847.20854@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>I would like to suggest that the main advantage to the Mac is not the O/S,
>the GUI, or any of that stuff. It's the applications. The Mac has more high
>quality applications than any other PC. 

Except that you'll be able to run those same applications on PowerPCs.
Not only the ones from Apple, but also the ones from IBM.  

And what about future software?  IBM's agreement with Apple gives them 
the right to use the Macintosh interface for the PowerPC. But IBM's PowerPC 
operating system will include the OS2 interface as well.  Since programmers 
widely believe that Windows and OS2 are "easier to write for" (i.e., it's 
easier to pass off crap on the users), will most programmers write Macintosh-
style applications for the PowerPC or OS2-style applications?  Is this a
problem for Apple?

Then there's Bedrock, Apple's new application framework, that supports
simultaneous development for Macintosh and Windows.  Bedrock will replace
MPW, and possibly TCL as well.  This means that most programs developed 
on the Mac will be developed for Windows as well.  They'll probably even
appear at the same time.  Is this a good thing?  Is Apple shooting itself
in the foot?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:32:47 GMT

Douglas Floyd writes
>>>> Don't forget to add ~$500 for the required CD-ROM drive for
>>>> the Next.

>>> What do you mean? The newer NeXT Turbos will come with NeXTSTEP
>>> 3.0 on them, therefore you don't need the CD-ROM to install it.
>>> (Assuming, of course, you don't want to update for bug fixes). 

>> I think this statement speaks for itself. You will either need
>> a CD-ROM or reliable access to one.

> This is not a valid comparison.  NeXT is running a GUI, an object
> oriented platform and UNIX.  For A/UX, you need a CD-ROM.  Do not
> compare System 7 with a UNIX OS without looking at what takes
> up the space.

Speaking as a NeXT user, its not all that unfair.  A useable system  
based on NeXT will need _occasional_ access to a CD-ROM.  For people  
considering whether to move to NeXT, they have to be aware of these  
potential costs (in fact though, loaner CD-ROMs are not hard to get  
at, eg from user groups).  Of course, NeXT buyers would get a  
substantially better package if they bought a NeXT than if they  
bought a System 7 mac like a IIci -- so much better IMHO that even if  
they bought the CD-ROM rather than arranging to borrow one when  
needed they'd still be better off (and the price difference would  
still be pretty small).  If the comparison is with a Quadra, then  
buying a NeXT _and_ a CD-ROM still ends up being cheaper than a  
Quadra 700 without a CD-ROM.
Its long been Mac users' argument to DOS users that yes, you pay more  
when you get a Mac, but you also get a lot more.  I'm making the  
exact same argument here.

Where the comparison becomes unfair is when you consider that pretty  
soon just about everybody will need reliable access to a CD-ROM.   
With the size of software packages continuing to grow merrily, pretty  
soon CD-ROM will be the only viable distribution mechanism.  Seen how  
many floppies come with you typical software release these days?  And  
trying to do any kind of multimedia without CD-ROM won't get very far  
(why do you think Apple is beginning to build CD-ROMs into machines?)   
As usual, NeXT is simply ahead of the curve ;-).

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:57:17 GMT

In <1992Oct3.162848.27424@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Ishir Bhan writes
>> I read something about that.  It said basically what you
>> are saying.  That even though menus inside windows and
>> floating menubars (like the NeXT has) may seem convenient
>> and nifty, they reduce your speed by requiring more accuracy. 

>The NeXT has a very effective solution to this problem.  Hold down  
>the right button, and the current app's menu appears under you  
>cursor, wherever it might be.  You can then drag down to whatever  
>choice you want to make.  Your need for accuracy is now zero, since  
>you don't have to hit the bullseye, the bullseye hits you.  And speed  
>is no longer an issue, since you don't go to the bullseye, the  
>bullseye instantly appears where you want it.
>Takes a little getting used to, but once you have, most people get  
>rid of the floating menus entirely and rely solely on the pop-up  
>ones.
>Oh, and lefties can reverse the buttons.
>--
>-

I generally agree with everything you post but I don't think
this feature is very effective. First of all, having the menu pop
up in a different location every time I use it seems to throw
me off for a few milliseconds. Second, one still needs to hit
the correct menu without having one side bounded. Third, 
hierarchical menus aren't quite as effective IMO (Microsoft
even went as far as not putting them in their apps after
user testing). Fourth, I find the NeXT menus rather small making
it just a little bit tougheer to hit. The fainter font adds
to the difficulty just a tiny bit more. 

I still think the Mac menus are a lot better but I don't use
screens bigger than 16 inches very much. 

Just my 2 cents.

>Stefano Pagiola
>Food Research Institute, Stanford University
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)

Pat Breitenbach		patb@mcl.ucsb.edu
From: winer@husc11.harvard.edu (Adam Winer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:47:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.winer.718328858

johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article <CKD.92Oct5132952@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>|> Peter> == Peter da Silva <peter@NeoSoft.com> 
>[deletia- type/creator details]
>|> 
>|>  Peter> How would you repeat (say) a print command, with all options the
>|>  Peter> same, on a different file?
>|> 
>|> A properly-written application should preserve print options as
>|> defaults, so that if you set your YakWriter for draft mode with an extra
>|> sledge and print "The Khan and I", if you then print out "Khan With The
>|> Wind" it should still be in draft mode with an extra sledge, and you can
>|> just hit the OK button (or return) to print it.

>This isn't exactly true. the printer settings are stored on a document
>basis, not an application basis, or a system wide basis. 

Not true: the application writer decides whether printer settings will
be stored on a document basis or an application basis.  A system wide
basis, is impossible in an easy way.
-- 
Adam Winer		| The number you have reached is imaginary.
WINER@HARVARD.EDU	| Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and
                        | try again.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy