HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Distribution: world
From: asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel)
Organization: Odyssey Ultraware, Inc
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 17:18:15 CDT
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)

You'll just have to look at Christian Smith's note.

Thanks for the comic relief.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mflafeer@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:02:42 GMT

>It was a very odd article.  For one thing, the NeXT machine they
>profiled was extremely short on necessary RAM for a UNIX box.
>It also cost about half what the others did.  Had they used a 
>less-cripled machine, they might have achieved a less biased
>review.  Still, it was interesting to note the price of the Quadra
>and the price of the NeXT, and then compare what you get for it.
>
>Very interesting indeed.
>
>kaya@world.std.com
>

Oh no! the NeXT vs Mac thing again.

I am currently working on a project (which I will continue after graduation)
that involves a 20-30 computer network and a number of custom apps. 
Obviously we're looking at NeXT and Macintosh and Windows. There are no
programmers or staff or computers yet, so we are completely free to choose
whichever platform is best. We will be buying 20-30 brand new machines,
hiring brand new programmers, etc.

Even though we are not bound by any past investment in hardware or software
we are probably going to choose the Macintosh. Well, at least the Mac is 
leading in the polls right now.

Hardware cost is an important decision, and as far as power stations are 
concerned the NeXT is cost competitive on paper and in the educational market.
But this is not true in the real world. There are Mac dealers around that
sell hardware at tremendous discounts. All the NeXT dealers we talked to
want almost list price for their hardware. So who cares if NeXT list prices
are low or if their edu prices are low?

There are many other issues besides the price of a NeXT vs. the price of
a Quadra. Our research so far includes real world hardware prices, software
prices, software development costs, productivity, etc. It included input
from NeXT people, Mac people, and Windows people. And we'll probably choose
to go with Apple.

-M.Firoze Lafeer
mflafeer@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca
Organization: Not Really, Inc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:28:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.205744.5339@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> csmith@gmuvax2.gmu.edu  
(Christian Smith) writes:

> d) There is NO guarantee that programs written for or compiled on a NeXT will
> work under NeXT Step 486.  New software perhaps, but not the stuff already  
out
> there.
> 

Let's not start this argument again. The stuff already out there will have to  
be (for the most part) recompiled. Since most of the existing software is  
written for NeXTSTEP 2.X, the stuff that does get recompiled will likely be  
updated for NeXTSTEP 3.X.

Terry Wilcox

-- 
Terry Wilcox		| 'Next to the originator of a good sentence 
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca	| is the first quoter of it.'
NeXTmail welcome	|  - RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Douglas Taylor)
Subject: Re: illegal mac emulation
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:15:35 GMT

 Actually, in passing, I would like to mention - the Amiga has had the descen-
	dent of the Atari Spectre emulator for a while :A-Max, A-Max II, and
	II+.  they don't do color, but, as I can personally attest right now,
	they are airly adequate for Macintosh emulation...

 The Reason For This Post: since this is advocacy, and I can't and won't sub-
	scribe to a plethora of mac newsfeeds, could someone be so kind as to
	tell me which PD terms are the best for a minimal system (I am using
	about three megs and 3 floppies - I don't want to tamper with my Ami's
	hard drive...)

 Obligatory Mac Advocacy: I just wish that Amigas had HALF the available foreign
	language specific software that the Mac has... end obligation.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini, Urbana Illinois
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:55:40 GMT

jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:

> I do, and so do alot of other users.  Apple constantly has to compare 
> their machines (yes, even CPU power) to IBM/Clones so that they can 
> products a cost comparable machine.  Who wants to pay $4000 for a 
> Macintosh Classic that can be demolished by a $2000 486 PC with a 500mb 
> HD?  Apple has to price those machines accordingly, so that the Classic's 
> decendants prices are comparable to the prices of other machines inthe 
> same processing category.  Macintosh is a great computer, you know it, I 
> know it and all of the other people in this conference know it, but the 
> outside world of first time computer users isn't going to buy a Mac LC 
> when a 486 PC can load up Word for WIndows FASTER.  

I think this is just a little bit of an exageration, now isn't it?  I
don't think a Mac Classic ever cost $4000, they sell for under US$900
here, if you can find one.  Also, I have yet to see a '486 with 500MB
of hard drive for US$2000.  Mind you, I've seen one with 100MB for this
price.

In any case, despite what you claim, Apple's low end machines seem to
be selling incredibly well.  Just look at the success of the Performa 
line.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western
   religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
   Western science." -- Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jmunkki@vipunen.hut.fi (Juri Munkki)
Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for video writes
Reply-To: jmunkki@vipunen.hut.fi (Juri Munkki)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:36:05 GMT

In article <9301110827.AA15645@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> ULMO031%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (Raynaud) writes:
>I wrote a benchmark on a very precise point : the speed at which
>a computer can write to the video RAM.

Most people know that the only thing that benchmarks reveal is the
speed at which the computer performs the benchmark. This has often
nothing to do with speed in other applications.

>This characteristic is
>specially important for every-day applications, as it determines
>the responseness of a User Interface. It is also a limiting factor
>for motion video (using QuickTime or other system).
>
>The speed depends on several factors :
>
>1) the speed of the CPU running the program
>2) the speed of the link between the processor and the video memory
>3) the conflicts with screen refreshing

You have completely forgotten graphics accelerators. Simple video
access times do not give you the whole picture.

>The (partial) results show that 2) is the most important point,
>while 1) and 3) have some influence. It is remarquable that a
>Macintosh LC is faster than a Macintosh IIfx (this explains why
>Apple can demonstrate excellent QuickTime on a Mac LC on the 12"
>color display).

You give no indication of what your benchmark actually does. Did
you write directly to screen memory or did you use quickdraw routines?
I suspect that you just write directly to the screen in a very tight
loop. If you do this, you can just forget about any improvements from
the accelerated video cards. Also, the code will fit nicely into the
tiny instruction cache on the 68020.

Furthermore, if you write a pixel at a time, you will not see the
degrading effects of running with a 16 bit data bus.

>bits/pix  1       2       4       8       16      32
>(Mb/s)   6.64    5.53    3.49				si built-in
>(Mb/s)   4.58    4.58    4.58    4.19     4.19    4.34	fx Supermac 8/24 PDQ
>(Mb/s)   4.69    4.69    4.69    4.69			LC built-in
>(Mb/s)   8.30    7.38    6.64				ci built-in

Real life experience tells me that the fx should be clearly faster than
any of the others. Yet you get the lowest performance on that machine.
I think this reveals a lot about your benchmark.

>I would be very interested to have the exact same measures on IBM
>systems. I am working on it but I have no coherent results yet. I
>expect ISA video cards to perform even worse than NuBus, and Local
>Bus video cards to perform quite as fast as built-in video on Macs.

The architectures are quite different. Either the benchmark will have
nothing to do with real life performance or it will depend on the graphics
routines that are used.

-- 
  Juri Munkki					       Windsurf: fast sailing
 jmunkki@hut.fi					      Macintosh: fast software
From: jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:19:04 GMT
Organization: The Draco Unix System [BBS]

In a message posted in the comp.sys.mac.advocacy group 
soubyran@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Soubyran Richard) writes:

>Who cares about performance and benchmarks... You all sound like
"My father is bigger and stronger than yours"
"My car is faster than yours"
"My Apple ][+ is better than your Vic-20, Com64, IBM PC, etc..."
 
Once again... who cares about thoses lines... The real best
computer is the one you feel better with. It's the one that make
you do what you want to do the way you want it.
 
I rest my case.
 
Back to you Brad...
>

I do, and so do alot of other users.  Apple constantly has to compare 
their machines (yes, even CPU power) to IBM/Clones so that they can 
products a cost comparable machine.  Who wants to pay $4000 for a 
Macintosh Classic that can be demolished by a $2000 486 PC with a 500mb 
HD?  Apple has to price those machines accordingly, so that the Classic's 
decendants prices are comparable to the prices of other machines inthe 
same processing category.  Macintosh is a great computer, you know it, I 
know it and all of the other people in this conference know it, but the 
outside world of first time computer users isn't going to buy a Mac LC 
when a 486 PC can load up Word for WIndows FASTER.  


---
jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
The Draco Unix System [BBS]

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini, Urbana Illinois
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:04:26 GMT

jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:

> OK.  There may have been a little exageration in my message, but us as 
> Macusers are on the short end of the stick, there are only 11 million 
> macs out there (Tops) as opposed to around 85 million PC's!  We as the 
> smaller computer personage constantly need to compare our machines to the 
> machines in the DOS world, in price, compatibility, and yes POWER.  I 
> recently heard that Byte or whatever did a workstation comparison and 
> used the Quadra 900 in the testing.  Not a 486DX etc, but a Q 900, this 
> says to me that we are becoming more and more powerful.  I find specs 
> like this fascinating, as well as the comparison of Mac's to IBMs in 
> power.

Point taken.  However, the fact that Macs continue to sell well despite
being basically incompatible with the rest of the market (yes, there's 
soft pc, but people don't buy macs to run dos programs) points very strongly 
to Apple's success.
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Familiarity breeds contempt--and children."  -- Mark Twain
From: davids@cats.ucsc.edu (Dave Schreiber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:40:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan9.205008.17305@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
[...]
>WRONG. Here is the relevent sections from my Mac & IBM info article
>(Avalable anonymous ftp on sumex-aim.stanford.edu(36.44.0.6) in the
>/info-mac/report directory as mac-ibm-compare.txt)
[...]
>80286   16      16      16     24      ?      Protected Mode & segmenting
[...]
>286        ~ 68020 {286's hardware segmenting vs. 68020's 32-bit ALU and the 
>fact that both these chips come before their MMU [80386, 68030] successors.  
>The protected mode of the hardware segmenting is used by OS/2 1.0 though 1.3 
>and Windows 3.X. The use of the hardware segmenting and its 16-bit nature put 
>the 286 between the 60000 and 68030 in features.  Side note: 286 is almost 
>gone as a CPU.}
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you.  The '286 lacks so many of the
'020's features (32-bit data bus, 32-bit ALU, 32-bit addressing space, 
an instruction cache) that to consider them equivalent is too big a 
stretch for me to make.  The '286 does have hardware segmentation, but
the '020 has a peripheral MMU available (in both paged and segmented
versions), which I don't believe the '286 has.


-- 
Dave Schreiber  "Look.  Don't touch."  davids@cats.ucsc.edu (until 6/20/93)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jinho@iti.gov.sg (Tan Jin Ho)
Subject: OCE
Organization: National Computer Board, Singapore
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:08:30 GMT

Just what exactly is OCE ? What does OCE include ? Is it correct to
call it 'Windows for Workgroup for the MacOS' ? If not, what more can it
do ? 

Also, why the word 'Open' ? Does it mean that third-party
developers can replace parts of OCE ? Or does it mean that OCE conforms
to some standards (duh... does it interoperate with OSF DCE ?).

I guess it's not OMG's Object Request Broker kind of thinggie...
So what is it ??? 

Very curious,
Jin-Ho
jinho@iti.gov.sg

P.S. Are there OMG-related researches/work done on the Mac ?
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: taligent contact info
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:35:05 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com


Does anyone have contact information for Taligent?  I'm curious about the  
system, and was wondering if they had developer seeding yet.  (the WSJ  
today mentioned they were ahead of schedule.)

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Travis.Heath@launchpad.unc.edu (Travis Heath)
Subject: MacWeek address wanted
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:33:23 GMT

Internet: Travis.Heath@bbs.oit.edu.unc

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: ULMO031%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (Raynaud)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Benchmarks results for video writes
Date: 11 Jan 1993 02:27:22 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



I wrote a benchmark on a very precise point : the speed at which
a computer can write to the video RAM. This characteristic is
specially important for every-day applications, as it determines
the responseness of a User Interface. It is also a limiting factor
for motion video (using QuickTime or other system).

The speed depends on several factors :

1) the speed of the CPU running the program

2) the speed of the link between the processor and the video memory

3) the conflicts with screen refreshing

The (partial) results show that 2) is the most important point,
while 1) and 3) have some influence. It is remarquable that a
Macintosh LC is faster than a Macintosh IIfx (this explains why
Apple can demonstrate excellent QuickTime on a Mac LC on the 12"
color display).

Here are the results I got when running my program on the Macintosh
I can get at :

      Macintosh IIsi and built-in video

bits/pixel       1       2       4       8       16      32
x resolution    640     640     640
y resolution    870     870     870
memory (bytes)  69600   139200  278400
speed (Mb/s)    6.64    5.53    3.49

      Macintosh IIfx and Supermac 8/24 PDQ video card

bits/pixel       1       2       4       8       16      32
x resolution    640     640     640     640      640     640
y resolution    480     480     480     480      480     480
memory (bytes)  38400   76800   153600  307200   614400  1228800
speed (Mb/s)    4.58    4.58    4.58    4.19     4.19    4.34

      Macintosh LC and built-in video

bits/pixel       1       2       4       8       16      32
x resolution    512     512     512     512
y resolution    384     384     384     384
memory (bytes)  24576   49152   98304   196608
speed (Mb/s)    4.69    4.69    4.69    4.69

      Macintosh IIci and built-in video

bits/pixel       1       2       4       8       16      32
x resolution    640     640     640
y resolution    870     870     870
memory (bytes)  69600   139200  278400
speed (Mb/s)    8.30    7.38    6.64


If you have comments or if you are interested in the program, feel
free to write to me or post a follow-up.

I would be very interested to have the exact same measures on IBM
systems. I am working on it but I have no coherent results yet. I
expect ISA video cards to perform even worse than NuBus, and Local
Bus video cards to perform quite as fast as built-in video on Macs.

Alain.

E-Mail: ULMO031@FRORS12.BITNET
AppleLink: RAYNAUD
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: aaron@noproblem.uchicago.edu (Aaron L. Bratcher)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:37:56 GMT

> As of version 3.0's standard mode, Windows provides hardware-level  
memory
> protection.  MacOS, which always runs in Supervisor mode, didn't provide
> any kind of memory protection prior to System 7.

Check your facts. Neither platform provides memory protection. Windows NT  
is supposed to provide this, and Apple is working on a microkernel that  
will provide memory protection, preemptive multi-tasking and threading.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:05:47 GMT

jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:

>The current System Software version (7.x) does not allow each program a 
>certain amount of time with the processer.  The time that background 
>programs can get for processing comes when a foreground program calls an 
>OSevent, which allwos background programs do to their stuff.  PowerMac/PC 
>and their OS will allow pre-emptive (verses the macs current 
>non-pre-emptive) multitasking.  This will be OS level Multitasking where 
>all programs are given a certain amount of CPU time.  The OS will also be 
>based on a Kernal, which means that if one application crashes, it should 
>not bring down the entire system.

As far as I know, I don't think Apple is limiting pre-emptiveness to the
PowerPC Macs.  There will be a preempting multitasking system for both lines.
-- 
               -  Ishir Bhan -  ibhan@husc.harvard.edu  - 
                                     - - - 
           "The sky and the impossible explode..." -The Cure
From: yuanj@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Why Instantly on Windows, not on Mac?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:24:10 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Why would the Window application get launched almost instantly when the icon is
doublly clicked on while Mac applications usually takes some time?  On my LC,
the MS Word 5.0x takes about 20 seconds to launch!  It is very annoying!
From: veloso@husc9.harvard.edu (Manuel Veloso)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: StyleWriter II
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:45:56 GMT
Organization: Harvard University
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-XXMessage-ID: <A76DE3DA90011817@humcr3.harvard.edu>
X-XXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 12:53:46 GMT

In article <3HiLwB1w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca> Jeremy Kalanuk,
jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca writes:
>Anybody heard of a rumored StyleWriter II printer due out soon?  I've 
>heard rumors, but I haven't heard specs or anything that would make me 
>wait and by it instead of buying the SW now.  Any help would be 
>appreciated..  Thanks
>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kaya@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:15:43 GMT

In article <12JAN199317250247@vxcrna.cern.ch> mmunoz@vxcrna.cern.ch (MUNOZ,MARC./DG) writes:
>In article <FPu3wB1w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca>, jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes...
>>tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) write:
>> 
>>I think this is just a little bit of an exageration, now isn't it?  I
>>don't think a Mac Classic ever cost $4000, they sell for under US$900
>>[more]
>> 
>>here, if you can find one.  Also, I have yet to see a '486 with 500MB
>>of hard drive for US$2000.  Mind you, I've seen one with 100MB for this
>>price.
>> 
>>In any case, despite what you claim, Apple's low end machines seem to
>>be selling incredibly well.  Just look at the success of the Performa
>>line.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>OK.  There may have been a little exageration in my message, but us as 
>>Macusers are on the short end of the stick, there are only 11 million 
>>macs out there (Tops) as opposed to around 85 million PC's!  We as the 
>>smaller computer personage constantly need to compare our machines to the 
>>machines in the DOS world, in price, compatibility, and yes POWER.  I 
>>recently heard that Byte or whatever did a workstation comparison and 
>>used the Quadra 900 in the testing.  Not a 486DX etc, but a Q 900, this 
>>says to me that we are becoming more and more powerful.  I find specs 
>>like this fascinating, as well as the comparison of Mac's to IBMs in 
>>power.
>Was in Nov. BYTE. They compared a Quadra 900, a Compaq 486DX and several U**X
>workstations (Iris Indidgo, DECstation 5000/120, a Sun, an HP/Apollo,NeXT and 
>a IBM-RS????) for CAD purpouses and DTP. Very interesting article. The Mac was 
>second for DTP, the Compaq second for CAD.
>MArc

It was a very odd article.  For one thing, the NeXT machine they
profiled was extremely short on necessary RAM for a UNIX box.
It also cost about half what the others did.  Had they used a 
less-cripled machine, they might have achieved a less biased
review.  Still, it was interesting to note the price of the Quadra
and the price of the NeXT, and then compare what you get for it.

Very interesting indeed.

kaya@world.std.com
From: bowman@reed.edu (BoBolicious)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.oop.macapp3
Subject: Re: New MacApp 3.0.1 Bug Document
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:08:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan13.020825.18197
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <726880231.8497229@AppleLink.Apple.COM> MACAPP.TEST@AppleLink.Apple.COM (MacApp SQA Team) writes:
>The latest version of the MacApp 3.0.1 Bug Document is now available on
>AppleLink.  It can be found in the following location:
> 
>Developer Support
>    Developer Talk
>        Macintosh Development Tool Discussions
>            MacApp Discussion
>                MacApp Technical Updates

Could someone stick this on ftp.apple.com as well, for those of us who don't
do AppleLink?  Or send it to me?

thanx,
bobo              In seeking the unattainable,
bowman@reed.edu            simplicity only gets in the way.
"On Monday, numbers floated everywhere, and the world was full of 
approximations."  -- Spencer Heinz, _The Oregonian_, 1/5/93