HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Mac
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:28:01 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <celZfi200VRBQ=B5NR@andrew.cmu.edu>, fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>> command-option-escape in sys7...
> 
> the difference being that when an application crashes on sys7 it is
> likely to hang the entire system, so command-option-escape is only of
> use if it locks up internally, 

My experience is that most applications lock up internally, and if they
do damage part of the OS, they don't usually blast the whole thing. So,
the command-option-escape is a nice back door so you can trash a hung
application and have an opportunity to save your other work in your other
applications before you reboot.

It's an escape hatch, but not a guarantee of safety.

Hardware memory protection would be better, of course. Someday in the
next couple of years, the Mac will have this, too.

-- 
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.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:09:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UelOGFC00VAt0Dqqcw
	<6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> If you develop for DOS, your applications are easier because they
> do less. Hence, you aren't comparing equivalent things.

bogus
completely bogus
there are a lot of very good apps out there for dos, and they do just
as muc as a mac or windows app, except draw pretty.  often they do
more (find me a better cad package on the mac than autocad for dos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep28.202604.20391@news.th-darmstadt.de>
	<CKD.92Sep28203551@loiosh.eff.org> <70_p#8g.marquis@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:17:07 GMT

Roger> == Roger Marquis <marquis@netcom.com> 

 Roger> Canvas and Nisus are 'programs' not GUIs.  The point is that the
 Roger> OS should be able to do this to avoid repition.  If a particular
 Roger> program implements a history or an undo feature that's nice but
 Roger> it's not the OS that's doing it.

Unix doesn't provide command history, the shell does.  It's not the OS
that's doing it there, either.  (Also, in System 6, the OS came with
MacroMaker, lame though it was.)
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: sienko@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Tanya Sienko)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software Emulation
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:42:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bv8rIB.Arr
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan) writes:

>  Isn't there a licensing problem with all forms of Macintosh Emulators?
>Are'nt the Macintosh OS system software only licensed to run on authorized
>hardware platforms? I thought it said so somewhere in the fine print.


ell, I'm not sure about the others, but there is no problem on the NeXT.
The software doesn't really emulate the whole Mac operating system, and you
don't see anything like the mac desktop in the emulation, it just runs
software that normally runs on the mac.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.192418.4356@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
>In article <Bv786v.9q5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jmo50888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
>(Josephine M. Otter) writes:
>> No.  An Amiga >EMULATING< a mac IIci in black and white is 10% faster 
>than a
>> mac IIci running in color.
>
>What a coincidence.   A IIci running in black and white is faster than a 
>IIci running in color.  (About 20 to 30% faster, at least if you use the 
>built-in video at 8 bits/pixel.)

Thank you for information. (No pun intended). This is first time someone
said that (or rather I hear this). I guess, I am going to check that,

>- Dale Adams

Regards,

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
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:01:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: spumco.D2150025.o13rcb
Reply-To: whoever posted this thread first
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5

Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of the basic features
that define a REAL operating system.  Where is Memory protection?  A
system level scripting language that isn't third party?  Preemptive
multitasking?  Command-line shells?  All these are things that Apple has
been promising us for years.

OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to workable GUIs. And
whether the base consumer wants such technical functionality or not, these
are features, and features are what sell systems/software to the unwashed
masses. Apple should realize that OS/2 and Windows NT are its direct
competitors.

Apple is delivering exiting new technology continuously, but some of the
basic features are lacking in its current software.  I was hoping 7.1
would change that.  I think the System 7 GUI paradigm is superior to any
I've ever worked with.  But I'd like to have certain OS functions
available so I can create all the tools I had available to me in UNIX on
the Macintosh.  If the OS were more functional, better software would be
written, and Apple would sell more computers.

I, for one, am disappointed.  I run XENIX w/Open Look and OS/2 on my 486
and  System 7.1 on my Mac, and although the software is much better on the
Mac, System 7.1 does not compare favorably for power.


 David Vandeven    ********************************************************
Systems Progammer  *   "I don't believe in Pinochle, I don't believe I'll *
    Deadhead       * try: I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the    *
    Cyberpunk      * Frizzle Fry!"  (dvan@spumco.cts.com)      *PRIMUS!*  *
Zen Agnostic Guru  ********************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:21:09 GMT

Carl> == Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> 

 Carl> I know that.  It's the same in OS/2 and in Windows.  What if
 Carl> you're gonna run a disk utility, or a communications thing, or
 Carl> something which doesn't have a file?

Disk utilities I only run a couple times a month at most (not counting
my backup program).  So I put them in the Utilities folder.  So maybe I
click twice to open the Utilities folder (or open it from the Apple
menu), click once to turn down the triangle for the Norton 2.0 folder,
then double-click on the app.  Wow.  Five whole clicks.  Wears my mouse
finger out just SO fast :-)

My comm program sits on the desktop, because I use it daily.  I could
also put it in the Apple menu, I've got plenty of room left.  My SLIP
driver has an alias in the Startup Items folder, so I don't have to
double-click it at all :)
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CUA. Yuck.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 08:39:16 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>>>* Human Interface Guidelines and standards sufficient to form consistancy 
>>>  between applications (Not, Perhaps)
>>
>>HIG in IBM world is CUA (Common User Access), current spec is CUA 92.

>Heh.  I did testing over the summer of a software product that was required
>to be "CUA Compliant."  One of the interface niceties that resulted was
>that the scroll bars in some windows ...

[ funky scrollbar implementation ]

I doubt very much what you saw was "CUA compliant", if you want to know
what CUA really looks like, get the CUA demos from hobbes.nmsu.edu,
directory /pub/os2/2.0/dos/demos.

-- Nan
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:59:20 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep28.170518.24213@times.aux.apple.com>, coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge) writes:
> md85-epi@byse.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen) writes:
>>In article <6034.2ac1db35@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>The Apple / HP/MS suit were about overlapping windows, wouldn't Apple 
>>>also being suing NeXT and Sun? Did you notice that they aren't?
> 
>>Copyright is something you don't lose by not suing.
>>If they win against Microsoft&HP they might decide to sue NeXT and Sun.
> 
> Copyright is something you _do_ lose by not suing. Patents do not have
> to defended, but copyrights bring with then a burden to defend. 

Actually, both must be defended with lawsuits. If someone infringes your
patent, the patent office won't do squat. You gotta get a lawyer and go
to court yourself.

If you permit someone to infringe on your patent, what's the point of having
it?

-- 
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.
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Chooser
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:16:42 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <3mqzg9k@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman
Johnson) wrote:
> |> 
> |> Yeah, it could be more organized, but OS/2 doesn't have anything like
> |> it.  Here on campus for example, there's an Appleshare network which
> |> runs over the TCP network.  It's broken down into domains.  Whenever you
> |> use chooser, it lets you know all the servers and printers which are on
> |> at the time.  I have yet to see this in a PC.  That's mostly why I like
> |> it.
> |> 
> 
> Well, nonetheless the Chooser is a poor way to do this. But its
> nice to have the ability.
> 
> -- 
> 			- 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.

  A nicer way (IMVHO) would be to select which printer to use from the Page
SetUp or Print Menu.

---
 The Evil Tofu
From: winer@husc8.harvard.edu (Adam Winer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:41:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.winer.717896512

spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Jim Burmeister writes
>> Besides, you can only interact with one application at a
>> time, so why is  it so bad for a multi-tasking OS to show
>> only the menus for the active application?  I am fairly
>> certain that the NeXT does this, (even though it doesn't use
>> a menu bar), and the NeXT was certainly designed for multitasking.
>> 

>That's right, only the menus for the active application are visible;  
>the relevant menus appear at a user-selected (but usually top left)  
>position as soon as the app is selected.  two nice features of the  
>NeXT arrangement: 1. tear-off submenus; if you use them a lot, just  
>'tear' them off and place them anywhere you want on the screen; 2.  
>holding down the right mouse button makes the current menu appear  
>under the cursor; you don't even have to go to the menu (in fact,  
>many users specify that menus should appear off-screen and only use  
>the right-button menus) (lefties can invert the buttons, BTW).

There are some good shareware extensions that add these capabilities
to the Mac (though the authors probably stole the ideas from the NeXT)
They're a couple: I think they're called TearOff and BeHierarchical.
Somethin' like that.

-- 
Adam Winer		| The number you have reached is imaginary.
WINER@HARVARD.EDU	| Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and
                        | try again.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:45:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.717785119
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 <UelOGFC00VAt0Dqqcw@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:

>bogus
>completely bogus
>there are a lot of very good apps out there for dos, and they do just
>as muc as a mac or windows app, except draw pretty.  often they do
>more (find me a better cad package on the mac than autocad for dos)

Autocad for the Mac.

What's that?  You didn't know... PC World didn't mention that
Autocad was available  for the Mac?  Well, who'd'a thunk it?
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:17:44 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct1.163559.988@yvax.byu.edu>, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
> 
> Almost every desktop publishing software in existence on the Mac has  
> problems and must use hacks to overcome them.  

Well, a least almost every desktop publishing program exists on the Mac.
<grin>

I think what you meant here was that DTP SW on the Mac that must generate
Postscript for its results has to have hacks to overcome the problems. The
problems are in the area of the QuickDraw / PS translation. Some DTP SW
has just punted and generates most of the PS itself.

> True enough.  Then again, a PC writing directly to the screen kills a Mac  
> IIci.  So what?  It's a question of power versus speed.  IMHO, DPS is a  
> wonderful advancement over QuickDraw.  I just want to see how fast Apple's  
> new QuickDraw will be.

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. 

QuickDraw GX will be fast, fast, fast! I saw demos at the Developers
Conference. Wow.

-- 
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.
From: nastasi@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.l.nastasi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Summary: I like to indulge...
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Oct1.141606.6620
Organization: AT&T

In article <19df1rINNhsd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

> And no, I don't slam the Mac, at least not in this group, since this is
> a mac.advocacy group I though the Mac users should be able to indulge
> themsleves and enjoy their fantasy that Mac is better than PC.  ;-) I'm
> only here to keep some people honest, to correct misinformation in case
> someone decided to spout off nonsense.


Well, go away!  This is a Mac playground!  :-)

> I'm not against Mac users advocating their machine -- and they do have
> certain points that deserve advocating, just requesting that they 
> advocate with reason and facts. 
> 
> My only intolerance is against misinformation.
> 

We don't care about misinformation just as long as it's
ADVOCATING THE MAC, get it?  :-)   Besides, this group will
hopefully keep the religeous drivel out of the technical
groups!

All kidding aside, I grew up on machine coding an RCA 1802
with 256 bytes, (yes I said BYTES) to play with and developed
Z-80 code using CP/M.  Even though the Mac has it's limits
I like the fact that I can spend more time on the task at
hand as opposed to endlessly tweaking my system.

Pleased keep this group, misinformed or not!  BIG :-)!

Cheers,
Joe Nastasi
AT&T, Middletown, NJ
(908) 957-6365 7am-4pm EST M-F
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Imside Macintosh manuals
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:30:53 GMT

I was in a bookstore the other day, and I noticed that there is a new set
of manuals titled Inside Macintosh: xxxxxx.  There are several versions
of the manual that cover topics such as the File System, Memory, Event
handling, etc.

Are these meant to replace the existing Mac volumes I - VII?

I'm in the market for some new manuals of my own, but I'd like to bet
getting the latest thing if possible.  Can anyone comment on these
books and/or recomment what series would be the best for programming?

Thanks in advance.  [MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:00:43 GMT

In <1992Sep27.224917.12461@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Wolfgang Strobl writes
>> I agree that it is a good idea to design different user front-ends
>> tailored to the specifics of the various GUIs, when designing an
>> application which has to be ported to different platforms.
>> 
>> But on the other hand, I understand the desire of an application
>> developer to have his application look and work the same on all
>> the supported platforms. This makes application documentation
>> simpler, the education of end-users is simpler,

>Exactly.  Developers do this for their own convenience, not that of  
>users.

No, you misunderstood me. The users convenience is the developers 
convenience, in that example. The application is much more important
than the specific system it is running on. The time when you could
lock a user within a single vendor system and its platform has gone, 
IMHO. Why should a user have to be forced to be retrained every
time he chooses to switch systems?

>> and it may
>> sell a few more apps during that, in addition.

>How so?  Are you more likely to say:
>1. "I'll buy app A, it works the same way as app A on another 
>     platform that I never use"; or
>2. "I'll buy app B, it works the same way as the other apps that I
>     use on my platform".

This doesn't work that way, at least not in companies with
more than a few people. They're likely to say: "Application W 
seems to work quite well on Platform W, so let's order them
for our A-machines, too."

>> Also, these apps are very often used
>> on a 1 user, 1 app base, i.e. many users launch them in the
>> morning and leave them just before they switch their machine
>> off, without having switched to another app in the meantime.

>Now there's an interesting argument.  "My machine is so crippled that  
>I can only do one thing at once.  Therefore its ok if my apps all  
>work differently."  

You got me wrong. The fact that Windows had good multi-application
support long before the Mac did, dosn't mean that this advantage has
to be exploited in each and every case.

Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but such blatantly false logic as
shown in your above comment asks for such replies.

>Maybe once you get a computer that can in fact do  
>more than one thing at once you'll see exactly why consistent user  
>interfaces pay.

Thank you very much for that very helpful suggestion. I've started
my programming work on a 7090, switched to MVS later and I'm using
Windows/NT just now. During other times I use Windows 3.1, OS/2 PM
and Motif/X/Unix. Does that qualify?

Sincerely,

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important wo
From: bob@nutmeg.ntu.edu.au (Robert Watkins)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:11:37 +0900
Distribution: world
Organization: Information Technology, Northern Territory University

In article <00mJ02PM24j001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge) writes:
> 
> In article 18520@javelin.sim.es.com, mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:
> >
> >My own experience has shown that given a choice, most users would
> >pick a Mac over a PC w/Windows.  The Arizona State Univ. Electrical
> >Engineering wing has Mac II's on nearly every desk.  Only a few
> >users choose to stick with the PC technology that they started 
> >with.
> >
> 
> This may be true when someone else is paying....but current sales figures
> (from someone elses earlier post) show PCs outsell Macs by 5 to 1

That may be true, but you must remember that many organizations go out and buy
PCs to maintain continuity. That 5:1 ratio is decreasing each year as Apple
increases their market share.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:55:39 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
	<1992Sep23.162447.16331@dragon.acadiau.ca>


bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>run of the mill PC clone. (Nan -- can you do this in OS/2?) But, if you
>pressed the issue, rapid PC-zealots would assert that "no one has any
>use for more than one monitor." Go figure.

rabid pc-zealots, like rabid mac-zealots, are out of touch
figure what you need for the job
use it
everything has its place
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Fredonian Computer Network 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:09:45 GMT

>>In <strobl.717018085@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>
>>>Well, I just yesterday made that very mistake, by dropping something on 
>>>the editor icon without noticing that I had selected a full range
>>>of files instead of a single file. The computer was busy for the
>>>next twenty minutes and I had to spend an additional five minutes
>>>to close all these unwanted windows. Yes, this was on a GUI
>>>(neither Mac nor Windows). I don't think that an equally capable
>>>GUI protects an user from shooting himself into his feet better
>>>than a CLI. 

	Y'know, on a Mac under Sys7 you can just press command-option-esc
and kill any program, no matter what it's up to.  Maybe you should switch...

- Drau
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA