HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:21:04 GMT

In <6041.2ac30240@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <5345@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:

>It would take a lot more than a 20% improvement in Windows to achieve the
>smoothness of the Mac OS even on a Powerbook. We have high-speed 386
>machines (25 and 33 MHz) that can't match the smoothness of the PB100.

Are you saying that PowerBook 100 running System 7 on the 68000 CPU
runs smoother than a 33Mhz 386 running Windows 3.1?  Either the PB is 
equipped with 100Mbs of Ram or the PCs are using totally outdated SVGA
drivers.

<Microsoft counting bundled copies>.

>But guess what? MICROSOFT STILL COUNTS THOSE BUNDLED VERSIONS! Argh!

>> I stand by my statement:  There are more Windows 3.1 copies running on
>> 386/486 than System 7 copies running on 030/040. 
>Well, you'll just have to be wrong then. <grin>

According to an Apple ad in The September edition of Byte they've sold and
*bundled* 4.000.000 copies of System 7.  (System 7 was released early 
summer '91).

According to Microsoft they sold and bundled 3.000.000 copies of Windows 3.1
during the *first month* of its availability.  They are now selling
1.000.000 copies *per month*. (Windows 3.1 was released spring '92).

Inflated figures(Apples' or/and Microsoft's) or not, I stand by statement.

>> Those Windows 3.1 sales figures [Applications] won't fall.
>Yes they will.

Nope (eventually of course but not in the next 2-3 years).

<Right/Wrong deleted>

>We're both right. See my previous posting.

>> Your Windows developer is probably still programming with Windows 3.0 Real mode 
>> compatability in mind and thus needs handles.  

>Nope. They tossed off Real mode long before 3.1 was announced.

Congrats!  You *can* use handles if you want to, but you don't *need* them
anymore.

Ugh!




--

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:28:25 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Wolfgan Strobl writes:

Can your Mac read/write 5 1/4" diskettes?

Well, Wolfgang, yes, there are several external 5 1/4" drives available
for the Mac that can read ProDos and Dos formats.  But why the 
hell would anyone want to use 5 1/4's when 3.5s are smaller, and more
durable.

Besides, remember who was first on the block to use 3.5 drives and who 
followed the trend

Chris Tsirbas
tsirbac@brise.ere.umontreal.ca
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:08:22 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 <TOMSTER.92Sep27210027@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:

>A non-ASCII .txt file?  Whoever created that should be shot!  

Well, we could start with IBM, then.  Have you ever heard of EBSDIC?

>For those of you who have never used a DOS
>machine but are lamely attempting to hack on it anyway, '.TXT' means
>text.  '.DOC' means document (formatted for the printer).  These
>are conventions.  Live with them.

Why should the *user* be responsible for telling the *operating system* 
what the file type is?  A decent OS should be able to figure that out 
for itself.  Even UNIX doesn't require me to call a textfile "FOO.TXT".  
This is even more of a limitation considering the ridiculously short 
file names DOS allows and the prohibition on mixed-case, punctuation 
marks, etc. in DOS file names.  (I've heard that OS2 no longer does these
things, so even IBM must recognize that these "conventions" are ridiculous.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!Read/New/Followup
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:27:22 GMT

Since the CLI advocates have been a little slow, I'll add some fuel to the
fire.  Here's what I consider to bee the best points regarding the CLI:

1. Wildcard Operators: * ? []

   Copy multiple files:  copy  mydata*.*  ../alt/*.*  (MS-DOS)
   or copy select files: copy  mydata?.c  ../alt/*.*  (MS-DOS)
   or copy from available list:  myudata[abcd].c ../alt/. (UNIX)

   This sort of thing requires that you planned ahead a little to use it.  It's 
   not nearly this easy if you wanted to copy all of mydata.*.* except mydataa.c,
   mydatab.c, and mydatac.c.  Now you really have to start thinking.

   On a Mac you would only have to display your source window by name or kind, select
   all (Opt-A) or some (click once and drag), then deselect those that you might not
   want copied (shift-click to deselect).


2. Pipelining: |
 
   By collecting a set of small multi-purpose utilities, new commands can be
   constructed by sending the output of one operation into another.  A complex
   operation can be constructed with little effort:

   example:  sort file1 | filtera | filterb > outfile

   This type of operation can give you some quick functionality that might
   not otherwise exist.  The downside is that each process doesn't really
   communicate with the next.  Errors or malfunctions propably won't be
   handled with any grace (if at all).  To really make use of this you
   probably need to be adept at programming and be well versed in the 
   function/operation of each utility that you are using. 

  
3. Batch operations:
    
   String things together and you have a functional program:

   ls *.obj > objfile
   clear < objfile
   mkdir objlib
   copy *.c objlib/*.*

   With some conditionals and loops you can really get things going.  But you always
   have the problem that there is no good error handling.  You wouldn't want to give
   someone else a batch file and expect that it would always work OK.
   
   For repeated operations, a batch file can come in quite handy though.  

   On a Mac, you might elect to get one of the macro execution program that will give
   you many of the benefits that a batch CLI would.  It will be easier to use no
   doubt, but you'll have to preplan a little bit just like the DOS users.


   
CLI based utilities are certainly easier to program, since they do less.  On the other
hand, a little more work with a good GUI based utility will certainly pay off with
fewer errors and lower training costs.

[MGM]

P.S. Bill, if you've got a Mac with two monitors running on your desk, then you 
certainly don't have any reason to be sorry.  Too bad the PC users don't know how
good you've got it.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 01:19:04 GMT

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"?
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Segodnja volka obnimal?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 22:57:35 GMT

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:
> >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.)

Flaming a non-english-speaking netter for spelling mistakes is tantamount
to admitting defeat. Surely you have a better argument than that?
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Nazedgi@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Ivan@yalevm)
Subject: Mac's Doomsday
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:59:42 GMT



Being a former PC user and now a Mac convert I've come to the following
conclusion:  The majority of Mac users just don't get it.  If Apple really
wants to lure a significant amount of PC users it will have to do something
more than proclaim the superiority of the Mac hardware and software. 
They'll have to enter a cut-throat competition:  Dell is doing it, Compaq
is doing it,  Big Blue is doing it.  And I'm not talking about
middle-of-the-road solutions like the Performa line,  I'm talking about
really powerful computer at cheap prices.  Right now, you can get Windows
workstations for less than $2000 (including a monitor) that would blow away
all but the fastest macs, the Quadra line. Now, I'm not saying that Windows
is even close to the MacOS (heck, it's not even an operating system), but
it will certainly give you a good run for your money.  For the average PC
user, Macs look pretty,  but incredibly overpriced. 

Apple computer is a financially healthy company with huge cash reserves. 
They can afford to cut their profit margins without sacrificing quality or
performance.  If they could offer competitive prices to PC users, many of
them would jump into the Mac bandwagon.  Apple would increase their
marketshare and hence would be able to keep their profit margins down. 
Apple must act quickly because soon another formidable competitor is going
to enter the race:  Windows NT.  Bill Gates already succeded in turning a
lemon like Windows into a hit.  God only knows what he'll do with a true
gem like Windows NT.  Bill Gates is the predator and Apple may well be one
of his most coveted preys.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:28:22 GMT

In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> > Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  

> Name *ONE*.

Non-critical embedded applications: point of sale units, for example (cash
registers, coupon machines, automatic tellers, etc), or bulletin board
systems. In both cases the user interface is irrelevant (you can't use a
mouse at a terminal, and a bitmapped display over a modem is problematic)
and price is the overriding concern.

Multiuser applications, running UNIX. A Mac is pretty much a workstation.
Even with A/UX it's better suited to a desktop role than timesharing or
a fileserver.

Of course, none of these involve running DOS or Windows except as a way to
launch the application in the first case.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:05:08 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Oct1.173813.14662@leland.Stanford.EDU>  writes:
>Edward V. Wright writes
>> ... The NeXT is a nice machine,
>> but way above most people's budgets.  If NeXT came out with
>> an entry- level machine -- something comparable in price and
>> performance to a Mac IIsi -- I would buy one.  But until that
>> time, I probably wouldn't buy a NeXT even if I could afford it,
>> because until that entry-level machine is introduced, NeXT
>> software development is never going to take off.
>>
>
>I basically agree that a NeXT is above most people's budgets; but the
>power it offers is likewise above most people's needs.  For those who
>need the power that a machine in the 486 or Quadra range offers, I
>think the NeXT is an excellent choice, with very good
>price/performance. 


Agreed.  You get what you pay for.  The NeXT is an excellent choice over a  
high-end 486 or Quadra, and even a serious contender for, say, a IIci.   
But if you're doing word processing, buy a Classic.  Heck, the NeXT  
doesn't even have a decent word processor (sorry Cliff :).

Doesn't anyone in this group remember purchasing an early Mac?  It was  
that I'm-out-on-a-limb-because-I-believe-in-this-machine feeling.  You  
bought the Mac because it was better than the PC, and you couldn't care  
less if Apple croaked the next day:  you had a *cool* computer (and I did,  
and still do).

Well, about a year ago that was how it was with the NeXT.  NeXT customers  
were out on a limb.  But now NeXT's software base is moving towards that  
magic 1000.  Still far below the Mac's, but significantly higher than,  
say, software _for_ the Quadra.  It's user base is expanding, and will  
expand even faster with the introduction of NeXTSTEP/486.  I hardly think  
the NeXT will ever take over the Mac in sales.  But it has and will  
continue to change the industry.  An OOP GUI.  Pre-emptive multitasking  
for low-end use.  Display PostScript (ATM).  Numerous software development  
advances.  The OD.  Even...3-D interface buttons.  It was the NeXT that  
put these things, and a lot more, in the limelight.

I'm a CS major, so perhaps I'm biased, but I think a machine that inspires  
and changes the industry is far more important than a machine that  
dominates the industry.  Apple continues to influence--no doubt about  
that--but Apple's no longer alone in this arena.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
From: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn)
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. NeXT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:27:58 GMT

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> The Mac has a *huge* advantage over the NeXT: it is legal!  The NeXT
> (at least, the ones they sell here) are not FCC certified for home
> use.  Why is this?

Mainly because it's too much of a hassle to get the official certification.   
I know several people who have NeXT's in their home, and none of them (or  
their neighbors) have noticed any problems due to interference from a  
running NeXTstation.

It's somewhat misleading to say that the NeXTstation is illegal (even if it  
did cause interference).  It's just that you would have to do something  
(spend $$ for sheilding?) so that your perfectly legal NeXT system does not  
cause interference for whatever neighbor is complaining about it.

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 1 Oct 1992 21:28:04 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct1155116@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU
(Thomas Richard Dibble) wrote:
> That was the point.  I just did some horrendous task and now want to repeat
> it.  I did not know I would want to repeat it when I started the task.  I
> know that now.  Therefore, I did not start up my macro recorder.  Now.  How
> do I repeat that sequence of events with only a few mouse and/or keyboard
> clicks on a Mac.  On my pc, i press up-arrow, <enter>.

  Did you install doskeys or one of its equivelents utilities? Can the Mac
User not use an apple event recorder?

---
 The Evil Tofu
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:27:40 GMT

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.

> 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.

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

> Furthermore, it isn't a standard shortcut for Windows.

If it was a menu item in any application, it would have a shortcut
automatically.

> 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.

> ( 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.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:40:50 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct3.164204.28284@leland.Stanford.EDU>, spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
> Bill Coleman writes
>> I was under the impression that DPS was actually kinda slow.
>> At least it appeared to be a bit sluggish on the old NeXT cube. 
> 
> The old cube was slow.  Period.  

Really? I remember reading all about all the cool hardware technology that
was built into the cube to make it fast. And it had more processing power
than the Mac II I had. Perhaps it was just to much to expect decent 
performance.

> Check out the latest models (or do you think we should still judge Macs by 
> the standards of the original 128k mac?).

Sadly enough, there's an awful lot of folks who do. 

Unfortunately, I don't have access to a recent-vintage NeXT.

>> QuickDraw GX will be fast, fast, fast! I saw demos at
>> the Developers Conference. Wow.
>> 
> 
> It'll be great if its as fast as promised.  But lets wait and see the  
> actual production version, under real use.  If you can't make a demo  
> _look_ effective, you're not worth your salary as a salesman.

Well, this was the DEVELOPER's conference. As far as I know, there were few,
if any salesmen present. Certainly no salesmen were presenting QuickDraw GX.

Actually, some of the Noise 101 demos from last year were pretty cool, since 
they couldn't get them to work! That's often the case for cutting edge demos

Me? I'm no salesman.

-- 
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: leonardr@netcom.com (Leonard Rosenthol)
Subject: Re: Chooser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:33:07 GMT

In article <yjc-041092221747@b61539.student.cwru.edu> yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan) writes:
>In article <3mqzg9k@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman
>Johnson) wrote:
>> |> [discussion about large networks]
>> 
>> Well, nonetheless the Chooser is a poor way to do this. But its
>> nice to have the ability.
>> 
>  A nicer way (IMVHO) would be to select which printer to use from the Page
>SetUp or Print Menu.
>
	The problem with doing it in Page Setup is that the current print
architecture does NOT lend itself to swapping printers in the middle of 
a print operation (like Page Setup).  Doing it on the Print item is possible -
or you could just use easyPrint (or DTPrinter) and a hierAppleMenu INIT to
put a printer list in your AppleMenu.

	The "New Print Architecture", which is part of QuickDraw GX provides
a much clenaer way to print - the chooser is history!!  You can even change
the destination of a document AFTER it has been "imaged".

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol			Internet: 	leonardr@netcom.com
Director of Advanced Technology		AppleLink:	MACgician
Aladdin Systems, Inc.			GEnie:		MACgician

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! .NOT.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:30:57 GMT

In article <_y!p9df.marquis@netcom.com> marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
> It depends on what you mean by applications.  It would be difficult to
> argue that anything, on any platform, is easier to write a simple
> application under than Visual Basic.

Xlisp, TK, Smalltalk, Actor, ...
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:39:01 GMT

Bill Coleman writes
> >> The NeXT is still a little short in this area, and some people
> >> just don't WANT TO WAIT for the NeXT application market to 
> >> improve.
> > 
> > Ah yes.  Don't I remember hearing this argument from DOS people,  
> > sometime back in the mid-1980s sometime?  Something about the mac  
> > having nice features but not having many apps?
> 
> This was true in 1984 and 85. By 1986, the applications were 
> there in force for the Mac.
> 
> The same hasn't been true for the NeXT. It's been four 
> years, and we're just starting to hear about applications 
> in beta test.

You just haven't looked recently.  Or perhaps I've been running 'beta  
test' apps for the last two years?
Yes, there are still gaps; I'd be the last to deny it.  But they are  
rapidly becoming fewer and further between; the shipment rate of new  
apps has been quite high since the beginning of the year.

As for 'four years', I'd argue that its really only been two years:  
ie since the shipment of the NeXTstations in early 1991; In this  
sense the underpowered, overpriced original cube was to current NeXTs  
what the Lisa was to the mac.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy