HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:14:31 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct12.073453.3052@tamsun.tamu.edu>, sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu
(Steve Fuller) wrote:
> 
> In article <6161.2ad576d0@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> >In article <FISCHER.92Oct6031152@steiner.iesd.auc.dk>, fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
> >> If IBM sucks, how come Apple is going to use their chips and is
> >> developing their new OS with 'em? Does this mean that 3 years from
> >> now, "Apple suck" will be true?
> >
> >* Apple isn't using IBM's chips. They are using Motorolas chips. Motorola is
> 
> Sorry Bill, You are wrong. The PowerPC 601 is an IBM. Motorola is licencing
> the architecture. The later models (603,604,620) will come from both. 
> 
> >  basing their chips on IBM's architecture. In actuality, the PowerPC
> >  is a simplified version of the RISC 6000 architecture. And tons faster.
> pssst. The Power architecture (ie R/S 6000) is pure IBM.  

The first PowerPC chip is a scaled-down version of the R/S 6000; there are
opcodes in the R/C 6000 that are not in the Power PC chip, and according to
what I read somewhere (I can't recall where.), there are a few opcodes in
the Power PC chip that are not in the R/S 6000.  Keep in mind that the
PowerPC development team consists of people from all three companies
(Apple, IBM, and Motorolla--in alphabetical order).

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Formating Floppies (Was: 7.1 vs.OS/2)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:58:45 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 <1992Oct14.220542.5822@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>	Well, one thing I can do with my IBM that I can't do with
>my Mac Quarda is format floppies in the background while doing other
>things.  OS/2 allows me to be doing something else while formatting.  ON
>the Mac, you just sit there.  (Well, it's not MY Quadra, but where I
>work.)

Okay, try this experiment.  Open your PC box, find the floppy-disk 
controller circuit, and remove it from the motherboard.  Now format
a disk in the background.

No, this is not a stupid comparison.  The PC uses that circuit
to format floppies, which is why it can do it in the background.
The Macintosh uses the CPU to format floppies because it does not 
have a special circuit to do that task.  This has nothing to do with 
the magical superpowers of OS2, preemptive multitasking, or anything
of the sort.  It's a hardware limitation.

Of course, Apple could put in a disk controller circuit capable
of formatting floppies.  I'm not sure it worth an extra $5 or $10
per machine, considering how little most people use floppies these 
days.  I do know that the "Macs cost too much crowd" would probably
jump all over them if they did it, though.  More "unnecessary hardware"
Apple is "forcing" you to buy.

  



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: John T. Chapman <jtc1@cornell.edu>
Subject: PC vs. Mac - A new(?) viewpoint
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 20: 08:14 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: jtc1@cornell.edu
Organization: Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:58:29 GMT

I've been a casual observer of this discussion of which is better/faster/
stronger, Mac or PC (68xxx vs 80xxx), for a while now. Perhaps this has 
already been discussed; if so, I apologize.

However, I feel that most of the discussions (and non-discussions, i.e.
flame-wars) have been focusing on exactly the wrong features and 
drawbacks of each machine.

Frankly, when talking about performance of a computer, I feel the focus 
should be on end-use application and not on MIPS or clock speed or 
whatever. This suggests that people interested in finding out whether a 
PC or Mac (or Amiga or NeXT or Sun or...) is best (for them) should 
instead be debating about software development and design, rather than 
hardware.

Sure, hardware architecture has a great effect on the way a system runs. 
However, even if the system and hardware are configured for Warp Speed, a 
poorly written application will flounder along. Similarly, a well-written 
program will cruise along on any compatible platform, gaining in 
performance as the hardware improves.

Given this, however, we run into the real crux of the argument; namely 
that software is where there is the largest variations cross-platform. 
Thus, a bigger headache begins.

Opinions/Comments?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John T. Chapman                                     jtc1@cornell.edu
  Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
  Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe the word you're looking for is 'Aaaaaaaaaaaaa'."
                                             - Penguin, Batman Returns
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@rs6220.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.030331.22081@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
|> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <6114.2acc7f7e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> 
|> >>But the experienced graphic user interface user has the same advantage.
|> >>He can anticipate results, plan ahead, and keep an accurate model of
|> >>the human-machine system in his head.
|> >I'd just argue that with the mouse, you can't pipeline commands to begin
|> >with, that the machine response time is larger than with a CLI and that
|> >time expended on physical motion is quite large.
|> 
|> and remember..I find the worst thing with using a mouse is that I have to keep
|> removing at least one hand from the keyboard to move the stupid rodent, and
|> this totally destroys my 'command flow', and GREATLY amplifies the required
|> effort,

Oh? It doesn't do that to me... I wonder why it does that to you...

|> especially as my work desk is piled with approx 10 layers of coffee/
|> printouts/books/etc, and the mouse is usually at the BOTTOM.... and ever tried
|> using a mouse on you're lap when you need that extra little bit of room...

Oh, _THAT'S_ why! :)

Every try typing when your keyboard is buried under your books (say)?

Its teh same priniciple.

|> 
|> Yes folks...My editor of choice is VI, 

ARGH!

|> and I love it,

double ARGH! :)

|> it's the only editor in
|> which I can edit source code ( C, if it matters.. ) and talk on the 'phone
|> at the same time.

This has never been much of a concern for me. :)

|> It is also useable at 2400Baud, try that with a GUI..

Ow. Your right about this. But why VI? You could use other editors at
2400, tho not GUI ones.

[pardon me if I hate vi :) ]

[deletia- command completion]
|> 
|> and I just love the csh commands such as !-8/s/foo/bar/ ...... try that with
|> a GUI..

I just gotta ask. Just what does that do? :)

|> and remember, a MicroVax(tm) will easily handle 20 or more CLI term's, but
|> imagine 1 Xstation.... B-)

CLI terms ain't difficult. :)
-- 
			- 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: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:07:45 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <runeh.67.718925253@dhhalden.no> runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
>If MAC's are so damned clever, how come that our Mac's try to boot from
>the scanner? Actually, we have to make sure the scanner is off whenever 
>we have to restart the Mac (which happen quite often), or else the Mac 
>reports a disk error!

It sounds like you have a poorly implemented scanner or buggy driver
software for the scanner.  This sounds like the scanner vendor's fault.

>Besides, why can't that shitty System 7 catch Divide By Zero errors?
>Mac's the only machines I know of which totally crashes when an application 
>divides by zero.

This is a wonderfully IGNORANT question, or else very poorly phrased.  The
default for the math environment on the Mac is to flag all 0/0 results (and
various other math errors) as NaN's (not a number).  It is then up to the 
programmer to decide how to deal with this.  By setting the correct flags, 
I believe that it is possible to have the program crash whenever 0/0 is 
encountered.  This is generally NOT the desired behavior, however, from 
either the programmer's or the user's standpoint.

From a programming standpoint, it is much more useful to be able to check 
for 0/0, 0^0, etc. after the fact, and then act accordingly.  This saves 
having to pre-check every division for a x/0 condition, etc.  Being able
to see my sprintf return NaN's tell me: (1) where things went wrong 
approximately and (2) what went wrong (assuming that calls are not being
made directly to the FPU [x/0, 0^0, etc]; I believe that this limitation 
is due to the design of the 68881).  This feedback is much better than the
"core dumped" message that I get from UNIX.

From a user's standpoint, the programmer should implement proper exception 
handling to appropriately handle any errors.  One nice thing about this 
is the program can sense infinities, etc, without additional hassle, since 
the math environment understands these concepts.

Jess Holle
From: soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:46:30 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1992Oct13.040531.20757@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:

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

>>``Pre-emptive multitasking'' usually means the operating system decides
>>which waiting process gets to use the processor.  The process priority
>>can be used to determine how many time units or how long the process
>>uses the processor.

>Okay, this is about the third definition of preemptive multitasking
>we've heard.  By this one, the Macintosh is preemptive multitasking
>also.  The OS decides which waiting process gets to use the processor
>whenever a call to GetNextEvent or WaitNextEvent occurs.

Wait on a bit, Edward's left out my prior paragraph:

>>From my understanding, ``cooperative multitasking'' means that programs
>>have to cooperate to create a multitasking environment, i.e.  programs
>>have to delibrately relinquish control of the processor to give other
>>programs a chance to do work.  The operating system has no effective
>>ability to determine how much processor time each program receives, so
>>setting processor priority is not useful in a cooperative multitasking
>>environment.

I believe this describes the Mac OS well, but it poorly describes the
Amiga OS.  Will Edward try to use this definition to argue that the
Amiga OS is a cooperative multitasking OS?

In my earlier article, I should have been more precise about my
definition of a pre-emptive multitasking OS:

  1. The operating system decides which waiting process gets to use the
  processor.

  2. The operating system decides how many time units or how long the
  process uses the processor.

  3. The operating system forces tasks to stop using the processor.

The Amiga OS has (1), (2) and (3).  Using Edward's assertion, the Mac
OS has (1).  However, tasks also wait for the use of other resources,
such as disk or printer access.  From my experience with Macs, I am
unable to do anything else while a file is being copied or while
printing a document.  If the Mac OS is pre-emptive, then it is a very,
very weak version of preemption.  Furthermore, I don't believe the
Macintosh OS has (2) or (3).  From my viewpoint, the Amiga OS is a
pre-emptive OS, while the Macintosh OS is not a pre-emptive OS.

If Edward wishes to argue about definitions, he should supply what he
believes are the attributes of both a pre-emptive multasking
environment and a cooperative multitasking environment.  I dislike
having my cards on the table while he keeps his close to his chest.

(Ho-hum.  This looks like one of those long tedious threads arguing
about definitions and semantics.)

Regards,

---
Soh Kam Hung, Network Management Research,     | h.soh@trl.oz.au  
TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia | +61 3 253 6638
From: sward+@CMU.EDU (David Reeve Sward)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:04:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.YeotQRS00WBOE7T_9x
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 7-Oct-92 Re: More Defense
of CLI (th.. by Edward V. Wright@convex. 
> >He did say "relatively little".  Don't forget that most UNIX users are
> >probably competent programmers and wouldn't have as much trouble coping
> >with shell scripting as the typical Mac user would with Hypercard
> >scripting.  Fundamental shell scripting skills are invaluable for
> >making your own customized utilities, quickly and safely, without
> >writing a line of C code.
>  
> Well, if the average UNIX programmer knows "relatively little"
> about scripting, then the average Macintosh C programmer probably
> knows "relatively little" about Hypercard.  However, you've made 
> an interesting concession here: that you have to be a competent 
> programmer just to get by with the UNIX interface.

Hardly.  He just said that "most UNIX users are probably competent
programmers" *NOT* "you have to be a competent programmer to be a UNIX
user".  There's quite a difference there.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Palette manager (was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:01:39 GMT

In article <92287.191926RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:
|> OS/2 as of March 92 (GA or version 2.0) has no palette manager.

You mean there's NO way to change the palette? Even on
an 8 bit display?

|> Version 2.00.1 (32bit graphic engine) due with the service pack has a
|> very nice one (much nicer than what is available in Windows, comparable
|> to Mc).

Can you give me more details, or do I have to wait until its
released?
-- 
			- 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: RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Palette manager (was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:06:35 GMT
 <92275.135853ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> <6105.2acc370e@hayes.com>
 <1aot96INNch@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <6139.2ad1cd7b@hayes.com>
 <1avro0INNdl0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <gjtztbq@rpi.edu>
 <1b1qo2INNh2k@matt.ksu
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria

OS/2 as of March 92 (GA or version 2.0) has no palette manager.

Version 2.00.1 (32bit graphic engine) due with the service pack has a
very nice one (much nicer than what is available in Windows, comparable
to Mc).

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: Try this for fun (Was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:08:00 GMT

In article <7186440878-37216@ledoux-gw> mtc@ledoux-gw (Mike Cutter) writes:
>In article <6107.2acc59c5@hayes.com> from [2 Oct 92 14:16:36 EDT] you wrote:
> |> In article <1992Oct01.120625.11908@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |> > In article <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu> kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) writes:
> |> >> >Preemptive multitasking?
> |> >> For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue. You can't word
> |> >> process in the background.
> |> > 
> |> > Ever printed a large, complicated document in a page layout program or
> |> > structured graphics program? I can work while I'm doing Postscript rendering
> |> > (a very CPU-intensive task) without hassles. I couldn't do that on a Mac,
> |> > or for that matter in Windows 3.1.
> |> 
> |> Ever tried it?
> |> 
> |> There's no technical reason why a Postscript rendering couldn't be performed
> |> in a non-preemptive multitasking environment without significant impact
> |> on other applications. 
> |> 
> |> I'm not familiar with Mac applications that do Postscript rendering on the
> |> desktop computer. (LaserWriters do the rendering for printing) However,
> |> there is no reason they couldn't cooperate with other applications during
> |> this long process.
> |> 
> |> After all, MPW can share time with other Mac apps while it is compiling....
>I have an Apple Stylewriter.  It does not support Postscript.
>I have Adobe Illustrator. It supports Postscript. 
>My Mac will cheerfully print Postscript documents to a non-Postscript 
>printer, without even slowing down noticeably.

That is interesting. When we attempted to print about 20pg long  document
from a pagemaker on a Mac IIci and Stylewriter, it took about an hour to start
printing a first page. And the computer slew down considerably. To the point
that it was useless. In fact for about two days we tried (many experienced staff
people) to find out, why it doesn't print it. 
Noone suspected it really prints it, but it just takes an hour to wait (!!!). 
When we finally gave up trying and walked away and came back after an hour, 
the first page just started to be printed...

Our technical and software staff confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the
software nor hardware ohter that it is sooo terrribly sloooow...


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: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: What I *LIKE* (and didn't) about MS-DOS & Windows
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 05:43:24 GMT

In article <30bC025Q26Bq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> rwb00@loon.as writes:
>Of course, there is lots of Windows freeware/shareware, too. And most people

I spent a great deal of time and effort searching all of the major MS Windows
ftp sites this past April (as a favor for a friend).  They were PATHETIC as
compared to their Mac counterparts.

First off, the number of free/shareware programs was MUCH lower, by orders 
of magnitude.  This was to be expected, since Windows has not existed in 
any REMOTELY usable form for very long (it is just now remotely usable 
at best).

The sites had other failing as well, however.  These started with the 
ubiquitous !@$# 8.3 filenames, which made it impossible to determine by 
name what I might be gradbbing.

To make matters worse, almost all of the sites that I checked had no 
sub-directories, so it was necessary to wade through all the files to 
pick out interesting items.  The Mac archive's directory structures are
not perfect, but they are rather well organized.

To the best of my recollection, the BEST of the sites had only 1 line, 
VAGUE abstracts describing each file, compared to Mac sites which 
generally have a whole paragraph regarding each file.

To add insult to injury, file transfers under Windows proved to be so
slow and Terminal's terminal emulation so clunky, that I ended up 
transferring all of the items to my Mac and writing them to DOS floppies
there.  (I'll leave out the long trials that we had trying to fix COMM
port conflicts).

After all of this HELL, all of the programs proved to be worthless except
one that charged >$100 (hey, it wasn't anywhere near THAT good) shareware 
to prevent an annoying modal dialong from popping up every 5 minutes.

>will need something more sophisticated then Write. Would you also immediatly throw
>away the Paint program ? The Clock ? The Calculator ? 

First off, the Mac comes with a clock and a calculator.  Second, I have
thrown out the calculator in favor of a freeware one (that behave much
like an HP 15C).  Free/shareware paint programs are available.  The only
reason I've ever used one was for designing a picture in a program I was
writing.

>To have some programs to play around with the moment you get your machine
>up and running seems to make a lot of sense - to argue that its best not to
>include some small applications and games seems pretty short sighted.

The biggest reason that Microsoft does it is that they are SELLING Windows,
so they can afford to include nearly worthless applications.  Also, Apple 
gives its OS away with each Mac.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if 
Microsoft didn't upgrade any of the bundled programs at all or even 
unbundled them eventually.  Apple used to bundle software when there was 
a lack of Mac software and Microsoft, in SOMEWHAT the same situation, did 
the same thing when it released Windows 3.0 to get more people to jump on 
the Windows bandwagon.

Jess Holle