HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:41:54 GMT
Organization: MSD software vault #9 @THD

In article <ewright.718050893@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Oct1.212710.31862@news.th-darmstadt.de> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
>
>>In article <6072.2ac8373c@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de>, wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
>
>>What guys with what stopwatches ? Since I know that there are studies with
>>guys'n girls with stopwatches where it is NOT true (I choose at this point
>>to mention, that I did study Software Ergnomics very recently (done since
>>July)) the poster above was either merely making something up or extra-
>>polating from Apple Newsbulletins or somesuch.
>
>Is "ergnomics"  anything like ergonomics?  How can you spend an
>entire semester studying a subject and not even know how to spell
>it?  (You've used this spelling several times, so obviously it's
>not a typo.)
>
Hey Edward I am amazed that you are obviously capable of deciphering 
just slightly garbled information. That puts you very much ahead in
your age-group. Maybe you'll enter primary school early.

Nat!
-- 
 -----   Email: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de  -----
                "Bang that bit that doesn't bang"                 
 Album of the month: "Psalm 69" Ministry

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:40:24 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 <8elX6ue00VRBA9iL5w@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:

>I have yet to see one of these famous studies - I saw someone mention
>that Apple had done studies showing that mousing was faster than
>typing, 

Well, if you haven't seen the studies, why don't you do just what a
good student should do -- go down to the library and look them up.
No, I won't give you a hint where to look.  I could, but that would
be unfair, because learning how to look things up is part of an
undergraduate's education.

In the meantime, tell us what studies support *your* opinions.  
You imply that any study you haven't seen probably doesn't exist,
but you haven't shown *us* anything. 

>i just did the example on the mac and a similar example in a shell to
>my unix account
>mac: 17 seconds

Well, you've just shown that, like most sophomores, you really
haven't any idea how to conduct a scientific experiment.  You
have a biased subject, a biased observer, and worse, the subject
*is* the observer.  
 
>somebody please show me where these alleged studies are, 

No, I don't do other people's homework.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:48:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.232740.24363@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <6112.2acc701e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> > I don't understand your reasoning. You're saying that the Mas is better for
|> > real work than Windows, but you still think Windows is "better designed." 
|> 
|> The Windows *GUI* is better designed. The display management and command
|> metaphor, and the system software components that implement it.

Why? C'mon, don't just assert. We're Macheads, we won't believe you! :)

|> > I don't see how this can be. If you had a completely differnt implementation
|> > of Windows that worked exactly the same way, it would still suck dead
|> > gerbils.
|> 
|> If you had the Windows GUI on top of (say) OS/9 (a 6809/68000 O/S that showed
|> up in the early '80s, and is currently used for CDI) It would blow the Mac out
|> of the water in every category.

Why? Do you mean current Macs? Or something like a System 7 Mac Plus?

|> But here seems to bethis rule that good GUIs get crummy operating systems...
|> or cost a bomb (like the Next, say).

Yup.
 
|> > Furthermore, it isn't a standard shortcut for Windows.
|> 
|> If it was a menu item in any application, it would have a shortcut
|> automatically.

Yeah, but its not STANDARD. Why should you care? because if the same
command has DIFFERENT shortcuts in different apps, you will get
them confused. (or I will, at least. I do.)

|> > I wonder why you chose "Print Draft" as an example, when Windows doesn't
|> > even have this as a standard (or even optional) item.
|> 
|> Because I haven't used Windows in a few years, but I use a Mac every day.
|> I could have used "Frooble Sigquack" (ALT<RS>). The point wasn't the
|> specific option, but that there is a standard way of generating the
|> shortcut. I found that a really nice feature, and miss it.

Ok.

|> > ( I can give tons of examples to the contrary, but you seem to be aware of
|> >   those as "implementation issues." )
|> 
|> That's because you're looking at too much of the system (applications, for
|> example, and design guidelines) and calling them part of the GUI.

Unless you are just takling theory, you can't separate them. It's
all connected. You dont have a GUI wo/ apps, or design guidelines.
You maybe have a GUI idea...

If you are just talking theory, go right ahead and separate them. But DO
be specific about which elements you are talking about, so that we know.

-- 
			- 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: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Macs are the best!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:53:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.101249.18966@email.tuwien.ac.at> Peter Purgathofer <purgi@iguwnext.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> Look at Nisus. It can do a lot of what grep can do, it can even do more
> than grep can do, and you will always know what it does. 

And I'll have typed "grep" and the command will have completed by the time
your first file requestor has popped up.

I've tried a numbert of GUI replacements for CLI tools on my Amiga, and I've
pretty much deleted them all. There are some things a CLI just works better
for. And vice-versa of course... I'd never stand a command-line oriented font
editor.

> AND: You cannot only find, but also find and replace beyond the
> boundaries of one file. (show me that unix tool)

for i in *.whatever
do ed - $i << \!
commands
w
q
!
done

> >emacs :-)

> :P

Emacs isn't a CLI tool anyway. And the version on my Amiga uses the mouse.

> Dont tell me, its not there yet. I didn't say the mac has every possible
> software. I said, GUIs (well, what I mean is the principle of direct
> manipulation) is far superiour to CLI. 

Depends on what you want to do. Otherwise why hypercard?
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Segodnja volka obnimal?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:34:17 GMT


I can think of a lot of reasons why a generic computer system
would be selected for a process control system.   But almost
none of them really apply to the normal uses of personal
computer systems.  Most creators of control systems, or Value
Added Resellers are considering the cost of producing thier
system.  Purchasing a flexible user interface may not be in
thier best interest. 

Perhaps my definition of important work is different than yours.
I can recall seval Nova eposodes that featured important design
and control experiments (Particle investigation (Search for the
Top Quark, Analysis of Heart Flutter, etc.), in which Macintosh II's
were the principal machine for the scientists involved.

My own experience has shown that given a choice, most users would
pick a Mac over a PC w/Windows.  The Arizona State Univ. Electrical
Engineering wing has Mac II's on nearly every desk.  Only a few
users choose to stick with the PC technology that they started 
with.

Even a Motorola, Engineers are increasingly going with desktop and
portable Macs.  For a long time, if you wanted a Mac instead of a
PC, you were treated like you were asking for a toy instead of a
serious computer.  People wanted Macs so bad that they would purchase
on on thier own.  Within a year, the attitude changed on what a
Mac could do.  Now you're somebody if you carry a PowerBook, and a
nobody if you carry a Notebook PC w/Windows.

Maybe the folks in your area of interest havn't discovered the Mac 
yet.  Give them time.  You'd be amazed at the changes in attitude
that a year or so can have once a Mac is introduced into the scene.

[MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Oct1.202130.27323@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Oct3.042710.11799@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:22:57 GMT

DB> == Dariusz Bolski <derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> 

 DB> I have something more than 700 commands in my PATH (programs,
 DB> utilities, scripts).  How many commands can you add to a menu?

Well, you don't need to add cp, mv, rm, ls, or any of those, because
they're mouse commands or Finder menu commands anyway.  Same with cd,
newfs, reboot, shutdown, mkdir, find...

Now, of those 700 commands, how many do you use regularly?  How many of
the ones you use regularly aren't in the list above?  Add an editor and
that's most of *my* day.
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:23:20 GMT

In article <ibhan.718038875@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
>peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>>In article <qdkzdx#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>> This conversion, incidentally, is only done when the app is switched
>>> into the background.
>
>>Why is there such a thing as the "background"?
>
>Because humans are usually only able to deal with one application at a time.

No, Mac users are only able to deal with one application at a time.  :-)

Skip Sauls
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu




Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:15:10 GMT

In article <CKD.92Sep26204129@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> No, an Amiga >EMULATING< a Mac *Plus* in black and white is 10% faster
> than a Mac IIci running in color.

So? It's still an amusing and counterintuitive result.

> Big deal.  I like color, I like having 32-bit clean ROMs for when I get
> enough money to go past the 8M RAM mark, I have a video card so the
> machine's not using main RAM for video, I've even got a 128K cache card.

Uh-huh. I've *got* color. I've had 32-bit clean ROMS since 1986. Oh, not
for MacOS, for AmigaOS. And, um, I would estimate that for most multitasking
situations my 16 MHz Amiga 3000 running AmigaOS is faster than *any* Mac
running System 7.

> Raw speed isn't everything.

No, but it does cover up a multitude of sins.

Oh, for a *real* Mac emulator for the Amiga. One that used AmigaOS underneath
to provide a reasonably snappy response. Or... if the Mac OS was a bit better
I'd probably be *using* a IIci instead. The graphics libraries on the Mac are
excellent. The rest of the system software, well, it's a hack.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok)
Subject: Re: Why the fuss???
Organization: Inst. f. Thermodynamik u. Waermetechnik (ITW), U. of Stuttgart, FRG
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.145933.3643@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u2005681@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>Hmmm....
>Having just read this news-group for the first time I have come to the
>conclusion that it should be called loony.advocacy.comp.sys.
>Why do you people get SO excited about a computer? All computers are
>pieces of plastic and metal (with a few semi-conductors thrown in) that
>are going to be out-of-date in the next few years anyway. Why bother
>foaming at the mouth about any particular brand?

Because it's fun doing so - sometimes. Why do you think alt.flame
exists?

And now for a message from our sponsors: 
Now available!
               NERD CARE
the facial cream that gives you that pale serious honest desk worker's
look. Tired of people looking at your tan wondering how little time you
probably spend in front of your computer? Is your boss getting
suspicious?
               NERD CARE
helps.
Available in "pale", "whiter shade of pale", and "light mint green". Ask
for it at your local computer store.
(Courtesy of Garry Trudeau, one of the best American cartoonists)


-- 
*************************************************
*	Those stupid, horse-brained masses! 	*
*			OPUS on honker surgery  *
*******************************************HSK***
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec306.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:56:14 GMT

In article <strobl.717768907@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
|> In <ftjz3=k@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rs6219.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> 
[deletia- Cut&Paste annoyingness]
|> 
|> >I know about that. That's implementation stuff; the user should
|> >not see it. Its supposed to ACT like you were copying something
|> >to a clipboard, then pasting it back somewhere. Unlike Excel,
|> >where "copy" means "select until I do something else"...
|> 
|> Its NOT supposed to act like you were copying something to
|> a clipboard, then pasting it somewhere. The Human Inferface Guidlines
|> may say so, but why should Windows try to stick to that simple
|> model? In my opinion, the users decision whether to paste something
|> as text, picture, or as some object that has an internal construction that
|> depends on an agreement of the two cooperating applications,  belongs to 
|> the user, and it is better to give him the ability to delay
|> that decision until he actually *uses* (i.e. pastes) the object.
|> 
|> Often, this decision is an implied consequence of into what
|> application the paste goes. I.e. if I'm going to paste my
|> just cut out formula into my text processor, it's probably a
|> picture. But if I paste it into my spreadsheet, I'll probably
|> want it as a macro or a function definition. 

Nonetheless, it should (as I understand it) behave like you were
copying something to a clipboard, and pasting it out again. That
you can paste the same data in different formats matters not at all
to this. Frequently, as you mention, the format is determined by the
application being pasted to. The difference between the Macnitosh
"copy all formats to the clipboard, paste whichever is appropraite"
and teh Windows "don't copy anything to the clipboard until it is needed
or the clipboard-owning app exits" is internal. (and has nothing to do
with the Excel cut+paste problem I was complaining about)

[deletia- About Apple Menu like features]
|> 
|> Well, I prefer icons on my desktop denoting running applications
|> and icons inside windows denoting startable applications. On
|> my home machine, I have a notepad, the calendar loaded with my
|> generic calendar file, a alarm clock and a few other things in
|> my autostart group, all running as icons (some static, others
|> displaying usefull info) on the bottom of my screen. Everything
|> I need is not more than a single click away. 

In which case they are always in memory, even if you aren't
using them. Of course, all those thigns sound very small.

I'd rather be able to drag&drop onto ResEdit, MacWrite II, DownLine,
TeachText, etc...

-- 
			- 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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:22:50 GMT

In <6077.2ac84675@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <strobl.717717643@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>> 
>> You got me wrong. The fact that Windows had good multi-application
>> support long before the Mac did, dosn't mean that this advantage has
>> to be exploited in each and every case.

>The Mac had good multi-application support in 1987. When did Windows get
>it? 1991? 

1985.

>Oh sure, you could run multiple applications in Windows 2. Problem was,
>there WEREN'T any Windows applications to run....

Well, somebody in my family still uses an old, 4.77 MHz XT clone I 
sold him years ago, to write and print medical reports. He still
uses Windows 1.0, and the tools which came with it.

Most of the time, he only uses Write, but sometimes, he
is running Write, the calculator, the calendar and the cardbox
at the same time, heavily cutting and pasting between all the four.

But you where talking about version 2. I'd estimate that a good part
of the applications we see advertized for Windows 3.x had been written
for Windows 2 and where only slightly modified for Windows 3.

Your statement that there "weren't any Windows applications"
during Windows 2 times is a gross exaggeration, from my own
experience.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: toj8j@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (T.S. Eliot)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:40:37 GMT

In article <0elb_xS00VRB4=YItF@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>> WindowShade-    Double click window title bars, and watch them roll up
>
>> SpeedyFinder-   Lots of things. It makes your floppy icons display
>
>> SoundMaster-    Everyone's favorite :) Plays sounds on certain
>
>> MaxApplZoom-    This one is wild. It reprograms the Apple High-Resolution
>
>> Wild Magic-     Comes with QuickTime. This fudges things so that apps
>
>> Just TRY to make a batch file do THAT! :)
>
>comparing apples to oranges, i should say :-)
>but you can do all that stuff in a real operating system like os/2 as
>long as you have the right hardware (sound card for sounds, etc.)

I hate to point this out but you've squirmed out of one argument into
another ...

Macs don't need any special hardware costing $$$$$ (maybe just $$$, I
haven't kept up with the market for IBM-compatible periphs) to do any of
the above [okay, with the exception of the Apple Hi-Res card--but then you
don't need MaxAppleZoom WITHOUT the Hi-Res card...].

In the interest of fair debate, let's stay on the topic, hmmm?

tj
   

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 16:28:48 GMT

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.
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:23:03 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 18520@javelin.sim.es.com, mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:
>
>My own experience has shown that given a choice, most users would
>pick a Mac over a PC w/Windows.  The Arizona State Univ. Electrical
>Engineering wing has Mac II's on nearly every desk.  Only a few
>users choose to stick with the PC technology that they started 
>with.
>

This may be true when someone else is paying....but current sales figures
(from someone elses earlier post) show PCs outsell Macs by 5 to 1
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:53:02 GMT

In article <dpenner.717568208@ee.ualberta.ca> dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner ) writes:

>Even putting all else to the side, one has to admit the IBM are the INDUSTRY
>standard control device.  How many major factories, power plants and process
>control systems do you see macintoshes tied to ..

>ALMOST NONE.

We have maybe a couple around NASA somewhere.  We tested LabView for
some stuff...hmmm...not being a hardware type I don't recall the stuff
in particular but I think it was running a IEEE 522(?) card and a 1553
bus controller.  This was years ago and I haven't seen anything since.

Personally I think most of our process control stuff ended up on
workstations running custom software/hardware with either SAMMI or
DataViews graphical U/Is.  In fact the system I'm working on is a
spacecraft ground support equipment similar to process control in that
we take telemetry and command functions based on that data in (near)
real time.

In fact you can find both Mac based GSEs and AMiga based GSEs about.

>   Darren E. Penner               | dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca   | Opinions are my

Nigel Tzeng
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy