HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, not the dream OS?
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:23:46
Organization: ZikZak Corporation
	<1993Jan24.025441.13350@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu's message of Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:54:41 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:54:41 GMT, jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) said:

  JMH> On 386's here, there have been a couple of observations about OS/2:

  JMH> 1)  It takes MINUTES to load Word and Excel.
  JMH> 2)  There is no nice little watch cursor or any other feedback that
  JMH>     things are actually being loaded.

Hmm.  Why is that?  Could it be that the spinning watch/hourglass of
quasi-multitasking system means that the user can do nothing until the
cursor is an arrow again?  Remember:  os/2 is a *real* os; it operates
the *entire* system, not just the parts that are left over from
ancient 8088's and 68000's.  You should not see a "Stop what you are
doing and wait for me to finish this" signal in it.  That is The Point.

Beyond that, yes there should be some feedback.  I thought it was os/2
but maybe it was nt betas that put the hourglass on when the cursor
was inside a window which was busy loading something (or on top of an
icon which was being loaded).  The hourglass, of course, disappears
when the cursor moves away from the point of inactivity.

  JMH> 3)  There is no easy way to see what programs are all running (at least not
  JMH>     an obvious one).
  JMH> 4)  It is very easy to confuse iconicizing with quitting and thereby
  JMH>     inflict marvelous thrashing upon the disk until the swap space is
  JMH>     full.  The Mac has been accused of this problem, but the worst that
  JMH>     happens there is leaving one copy of each program running (which the
  JMH>     Finder will let you quit at the click of OK when memory runs low).
  JMH>     New users often leave 5 copies of Word running.

This does sound like a problem which needs to be fixed.  Actually,
both of these are the *same* problem which need to be fixed.  Now:  go
write a letter to Mr IBM...

  JMH> These are the observations of novices, professors, etc.  Perhaps they
  JMH> will suddenly love the machines and all confusion will cease in the
  JMH> near future.  In the mean time, OS/2 is SO easy to use?????  It doesn't
  JMH> seem so.


  JMH> Jess Holle

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/****************************************************************************\
| "I sometimes used to try to catch her, :	FROM:   tomster@wpi.wpi.edu  |
| but never even caught her name."	 :	TO:	who(m)ever reads it  |
|	---- the cure			 :	CC:	programming language |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
From: cad234@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("S.W.Donaldson")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: read mac disks on a sun or pc
Keywords: mac sun pc disk
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:23:10 GMT
Organization: University of Strathclyde


  Can any body tell me of a program/utility that will read and write to 
mac disks on a sun workstation or a pc.
   (please mail any replies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Douglas Taylor)
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:47:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.191905.7372@wixer.cactus.org> bcombs@wixer.cactus.org (Brian Combs) writes:
>
>Yeah, I can hear the guys on comp.sys.amiga.advocacy right now...
>
>
>"The Amiga **is** a real computer!  It's not a toy like everybody says!  I'm
>not kidding!"
>

 You know, at least the Amiga users bother to read the competition's mail be-
	fore making stereotypical remarks; obviously, you cannot say the ame
	about yourself.  And, as a side note, I can do everything I want on
	my Amiga; from running Mac applications, to IBM applications, to Amiga
	applications, all at the same time... thanks to EMPLANT, ATOnce Plus,
	and, of course, CBM.

>
>;-)
>
>Brian
>-- 
>Real Programmers don't comment their code.   |  Brian Combs   Austin, Texas
>If it was hard to write,                     |  bcombs@wixer.cactus.org
>It should be hard to understand.             |

/============================================================================\
| L. Douglas Taylor InterNet: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |    IMPORTANT:    |
|=========================================================|   This message   |
| Guildenstern: We cross our bridges when we come to them | has cost the Net |
|   and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our | hundreds, if not |
|   progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a |    thousands,    |
|   presumption that once our eyes watered...             |    of dollars    |
|                                                         |     to send.     |
\============================================================================/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: 20 Jan 93 16:34:40 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:12:03 GMT

In article 0sJsXB2w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca, jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>In a message written on 20 Jan 93 16:34:40 GMT, 
>johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>If you have a reason to think otherwise, lets have it. But
>just insulting Amigaheads isn't very nice.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I have to agree.  That message was written late at night when I was in a 
>relitively bad mood.  I apoligize to all the Amiga USERS who read that 
>message.

Now, now, this a newsgroups for fanatics. I call Amigaheads Amigaheads,
Macheads Macheads, PCheads PCheads, NeXTheads NeXTheads and so on.

The term seems to fit. If you don't like it,come up with something better.

(that could be a thread on the order of "nasty Mac names") :)
---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 23 Jan 93 15:15:27 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <aggie-220193173415@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu>  writes:

>To paraphrase what I've said elsewhere: yeah? so what good is it? I find
>popping the menu with the mouse click to be mostly useless. 


At the risk of getting into another war with people who don't understand the  
inherent advantages of a menu button:

On large screens (say, 17 inches and larger), menus are on the perimeter,  
and are tough to get at from the screen center where the mouse usually is,  
unless the mouse is set at an unusually fast setting, or there's some  
big-menu gimmick.  Sun, NeXT, and other workstation vendors have dealt with  
this problem for a long itme.  For X-Windows, the answer is putting menus  
into windows, so they'll be closer to user focus.  For the NeXT, the answer  
is to make a menu button that calls down the menu automatically, so it'll  
*always* be at the user focus.  The Mac is the only large-monitor  
manufacturer that hasn't addressed this situation yet, but I imagine they  
will eventually.


>I wasn't clear
>enough, though. What I meant is: How many app's actually use the second
>mouse button for SOMETHING other than bringing up the app's menu? As far
>as I know, only one, the commercial X application by Pencom [?Pensoft?].


NeXT uses it for nothing but the pull-down menu.  Software makers (other  
than Pencom et al, who have a use for it) are heavily advised against using  
it for anything custom.  That's what we in the computer world call  
"consistency".


--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:43:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.033947.29819@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes
>>What you just said is wrong.  It's like saying that since an SE/30 has
>>32 bit quickdraw, all of it's mono pixels are 32 bits deep.  Guess
>>again.
>
>>Or better yet, try and learn something about what you are talking
>>about.
>I got an even BETTER idea.  How about READING Mac & IBM info?
>Especially the Hardware 
>Color Support/Display section to whit:
[...]

Look.  Don't make yourself look like a fool anymore than you have.
The IIci only has hardware support for 8 bit video onboard.  What the
article you wuoted was saying was that 32 bit QD is included on all
the new machines roms.  That is irrelevant to what we were discussing.
The IIci video ONLY IS CAPABLE OF 8 BIT COLOR.

8 BITS IS ALL IT MOVES PER PIXEL.

THE NeXT COLOR STATION *ALWAYS* MOVES 16 BITS PER PIXEL IN IT'S COLOR
SETTING.

THE IICI NEVER MOVES MORE THAN 8 BITS USING IT'S ONBOARD VIDEO.

GET A CLUE.



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                                   	   howard@netcom.com
		  You will not find excess in the jungle
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:53:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1k2227INNq4r
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>NeXT has been using SCSI-II since 1989.  

That's a pretty good trick, considering that the SCSI-2 specification was
still in a massive state of flux in 1989.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:11:32 GMT

In article 1jq628INN545@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
>In article <f-k39qq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>
>>They do if they want to change the login tiff. If the preferences
>>panels can do this, then I will withdraw my objection.
>>
>Oh, fer crying out loud.  Somebody write a friggin applet to do this.
>Should take an hour or two.  Would have full NeXTSTEP compliance, a
>correct open panel, correct mouse button behavior, and probably
>drag and drop.
>
>(My NeXT is getting packed up this weekend or i'd do it myself.)
>

If you can get NeXT to include it with the system, that would do it.

If not, it's not really very relevant- if they haven't got it, they
can't use it.

---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor)
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:18:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.205213.8189@rchland.ibm.com> tmaas@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Anthony Maas) writes:
>In article <ocaoXB1w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca>, jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>|> 
>|> I've use a couple nexts, and I wasn't very impressed.  The speed is 
>|> nothing compared to a Quadra because of the overhead of the NeXT os.  The 
>|> interface is annoying, as well as the two button mouse.  There is nowhere 
>                                         *****************
>
>Two buttons too complicated?
>

You know how it is. You spend an hour agonizing over which button to push,
just to learn that they do exactly the same thing. Then you forget and
have to repeat the process. :(

Terry Wilcox




Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:11:39 GMT

maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>Huh????
>Have you read what you said closely? You have just admitted that, indeed
>native mac apps do not cope with pre-emptive multi-tasking, even under AUX.
>the MacOS runs as one process under AUX and within that one process
>cooperatively multitasks. Don't talk about thinks you don't understand. As
>for why it's not trivial to fit in pre-emptive multi-tasking, one simple
>reason is that the ROMs and the toolbox are not re-entrant.
READ the article that provoced the responce:
>> If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software 
>would                                                                     
>> have to be rewritten to accomodate it.  You will never ever ever see 
>> pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.                               
>                                                                       
>No, it wouldn't.  Most mac software works just fine under A/UX, which
>does                 
>offer premptive multitasking.  While it doesn't currently offer
>preemptive                                                          
>multitasking between multiple Mac applications, I see no reason why it  
>couldn't be written to do so.
The point was that non-premptive apps will NOT prevent the Mac from
developing a premptive OS as the first post indicated.  Point in fact 
PowerOpen (A/UX 4.0) is a premptive OS and will be the OS for the first
PowerPC {Which intresting is rumored to be from IBM in early 1993.}.
Pulling out THEMES and IDEAS out of posts are always a problem but it help
reduce the length of these threads.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:33:22 GMT

In article 27672@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>In article <=yh3s2_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article 21753@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>>In article <1jhck1INN507@pith.uoregon.edu> rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>>>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>>>>DisplayPostcript?  Not very, I'd wager.
>>>
>>>A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
>>>NeXTstation Turbo Color.
>>
>>Not terribly surprising that. I suspect, given large enough quantities
>>of RAM, it will do fine. However, that's a lot of power you seem
>>to be recommending throwing at stuff like word processing.
>
>It takes a lot more to go fast than RAM.  You need system bandwidth.

I know. But from what I've heard the main speed problem for NeXTs now
is their RAM requirements.

But now that you mention it, the ISA bus will probably be bad for it.
(its bad for everything else on those systems also, tho, so it is not
that critical that this is so)

>>>>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>>>>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>>>>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
>>>
>>>Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
>>>an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
>>>functionality.  DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
>>>Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
>>>10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Well, at least I have 1 NeXThead who is willing to say that Display
>>Postscript is slow compared to QuickDraw.
>>
>>Of course, QuickDraw does much less (I think you exagerrate a little..
>>QuickDraw can draw noncontinuous lines :) ).. but does this guy need or
>>want the abilities Display Postscript would net him? (which seem
>>to be mostly a better programming environment, and better wysiwyg
>>for postscript printers)
>
>I don't think anyone is advocating the use of NeXTSTEP for simple
>wordprocessing.  A Mac Classic does that pretty darn well (I did it on
>a Mac SE for 3 years).  We were advocating it for developing custom
>software at the same time as doing group business applications.

How bout spreadsheets? Databases? This is the sort of thing the origional
poster wanted to convince his boss to use Macs for.

---
			- 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: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Grumblings about Mac performance
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:58:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: geraldo.1juscuINN8qf
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Distribution: world
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


Even though I program on Macs, etc.  I have one gripe:  Macs are becoming
sluggish in the performance arena.  Intel is routinely making chips that
are twice to three times as fast as the ones in the Quadra line.  Unless
the PPC 601 comes out soon, the '586+ (I hate calling it Pentium, reminds
me of a radioactive element :-) will become the standard because of its
speed and Microsoft's NT marketing.

I do like Motorola's line of processors.  They are not as wierd as Intel ones,
and work very reliably.  I just do not like seeing the fastest Mac Apple
sells for about $10,000 being outran by a $5000 tower, or even a
$2500 486/66.

Some people in the Mac arena say that "speed is not everything".  This
saying is true up to a point.  Yes, speed is not everything,
but when a run of the mill 80486 MS-DOS machine nails a Mac to the wall,
things need to change.  Apple needs to stop making '030 machines, and
crank out some '040s.  I heard that next month that this is going to
happen, but this is rumor.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the PPC and the 060 will not be released
until 1994.  By this time, Intel will have the 586 firmly entrenched
and debugged.  Ugh.

-- 
       ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  (Douglas Floyd)
       Disclaimer:  I speak for myself        Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

Windows NT is a great reason to WISH for a destructive virus.
From: tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:21:12 GMT
Organization: Drexel University, Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
: In article <1993Jan23.012910.4168@netnews.noc.drexel.edu>,
: tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry) writes:
: >maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
: >: 
: >
: >: How about getting sound out of X-Windows?
: >: Ever tried writing X code that handles 24bit images? On my mac I can
: >code
: >: in one color model that works on all displays. On X I get a choice of 5
: >: color models.
: >: And what about this fun system of pallette lack of management.
: >: OS/2 Windows fares no better in most respects.
: >: 
: >: Maybe you mean NeXT is better than Mac in these regards---can't say.
: >But
: >: your implied claim that most UNIX environments are better for
: >programmin
: >: than Mac is ludicrous. Maybe they're better for character based apps,
: >but
: >: not for graphical/sound apps.
: >: 
: >: Maynard Handley
: >
: >Lets see. On my NeXT, in about 15-20 minutes I can write an App that will
: >show
: >a rendered object , with sliders to control size and position, rotating,
: >and changing color. And just for hoots, I can hook up a print menuitem
: >which will send that image to be photorealistically rendered , with the
: >task
: >split among all the NeXT's on the network.
: >
: >As for sound, I can create a program which will record and play sound,
: >and
: >display the graph of the sound in a scrolling view. And I can do it
: >without
: >writing a single line of code. Total time:two minutes, at most.
: >
: >I can also write a simple word processor, with fonts, rulers,
: >cut/copy/paste,
: >and drag+drop color for the text. In about two minutes, without writing
: >any
: >code.
: >
: >Beat that on a Mac.
: 
: This is a fascinating followup. You will note that my post (in followup to
: an earlier post) talks about X-windows. It was based on a claim that most
: every GUI for UNIX was a better programming environment than a mac. Since
: most everyone of these GUIs is based on X, I discussed X. Now we get this
: rabid NeXT type going on a tangent about how great is OS is. Maybe so,
: maybe so. But please, dude, in future keep your reply relevant to the
: thread, otherwise you only make yourself appear like a nutcase.
: 
: Maynard Handley

You were talking about programming under UNIX.

The NeXT runs UNIX.

Yes, you were talking about X, but you said that programming under UNIX
(not X) is not better for writing "graphical/sound" apps.

I laid out a few examples of writing "graphical/sound" apps on the NeXT.

Which, again, is Unix.

Was I _so_ far off the mark? I don't think so.

--
Jonathan W. Hendry
Anderson Financial Systems "Programmer-in-Exile" :)
jon@afs.com
<set loose the marmosets!>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: NeXTstep for PowerPC --- THE ONLY CHOICE
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:37:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.152901.17653@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:

>The Taligent OS is a hybread(sp) of Mac OS, OS/2, A/UX, and AIX.  From what
>little is out there it appears that Taligent OS will use some of the object
>libraries from ALL the OSes.  So it take a lot SHORTER time then people expect.
>{They do not have to write ALL the code from scratch.}
>I am unclear if PowerOpen is the name for the Taligent OS but if it is
>it is about a year ahead AHEAD of scedule.

PowerOpen is a reworking of AIX. OS/2 is moving to a Mach kernel but won't
be Unix. Mac OS and A/UX have a hazy future. Taligent (pink) is completely
different from all of the previous OS's listed.

They are writing it from scratch, in C++ (ick). At the earliest, it'll ship
in 1994. That's at least a year away. PowerOpen will likely ship before
Taligent's product.

Terry Wilcox


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy