HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (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 23:33:12 GMT

In article <ewright.719271093@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> In <5_4zwmg@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rs6216.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> 
|> >You can (of course) implement a multitasking arrangement with no
|> >user interface, so that your program just sits there and
|> >computes (or what have you) without comment about it, and the user
|> >can switch to annother app or whatever. Its better, however, to
|> >put up a movable modal dialog with some text in it saying what the
|> >app is doing, and a thermometer, and use the watch cursor, and
|> >so on. This requires code. More than one line of it. Now do you
|> >see what this has to do with multitasking?
|> 
|> Oh.  I see.  You only have to write code for that interface
|> because of the Mac's (boo! hiss!) evil, nasty cooperative
|> multitasking.  If the Mac had preemptive multitasking, you
|> don't think that interface would require any code?  Interesting 
|> notion, even if it's not, uh, solidly grounded in reality.

(sigh) No. You said make a macintosh Multitask requires 1 line
of code.

See that it takes more yet?

(Im perfectly willing to admit that making a pre-emptive system
multitask well- with a user interface and all that- requires
code too. But thats beside the point)

However, I am a little suprised you'd accuse me of being ungrounded
in reality, considering your amazingly inclusive little definition of
co-operative multitasking...
-- 
			- 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: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:21:57 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Oct9.005105.3425@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:

>No special software or tricked-up display drivers are required.  And you

>In fact, the Mac OS handles monitors so effectively, that you can get
>a Pivot (tm) display that actually sits on a swivel base that turns
>the monitor from a landscape orientation to a landscape one.  The
>software automatically recognizes that you are rotating the monitor
>and dims the current picture, and fades in the new one.  The applica-
>tions that are running automatically resize thier windows the fit
>properly.

Well actually the Pivot does require a 'tricked up display driver', the
applications don't automatically resize their windows (the pivot code does and
it doesn't always work quite right unless the applications are written just
so) there's not really any Mac system software support for changing the
desktop's shape dynamically - that's why you have to reboot after changing
things in the monitors cdev.

	Paul
-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
	
       	So far the Republican's economic policy is best described
		     as "C'est la vie Capitalism"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jhhardy@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (J. Hardy)
Subject: Re: trepidations of a longtime Mac user
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:37:59 GMT

In <1992Oct9.015213.4074@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jstc_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (j. collins) writes:

>In <81327@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:


>>  The Dell 386-33 I have has only froze up on me a total
>>of five times in the three months I had the thing.

>I have a Mac IIci running system 7.1b7 right now and before that I had
>it running system 7.0.1.  In all the time I have owned my machine,
>roughly nine months, it has crashed on me twice.  

As long as we're complaing...  :)

I've been word processsing on computers for 13 yrs now.  I've used CPM, MS-DOS,
UNIX in several flavors, and an old trs-80 that a roomate had.  Since I've
been in college for most of that 13 yrs (ich, have I been in that long?  time
to get a life)  I've spit out a fair bit of paper.  I've never had any problems
with losing files.  I treat my 10 yr old MDOS machine like hell.  I treat the
51/4 floppie with utter diregard.  Most of the time theyre not in a sleeve
and frequently they get covered with dust or sosme such.  In 13 yrs I've only
lost about 3 files.

About a month ago I started using the macs on campus.  Since that time I've 
lost about 20 files, and utterly trashed 3 disks.  How you ask?
By having them in the mac drive just long enough to copy files to and from the
hard disk.  I do all the work from the hard drive copies for fear of destroying
even more disks.  Even the trs-80 wasn't this unreliable!  My DOS machine didnt
have any ort of problem until this last cross country move.  At that time, as
you may have noticed, I started having a few keys stick.  Not bad for 10 yrs.

>>  I like the Mac, and have been a Mac fan since 1984.  But
>>when programs crash like cars in a Demolition Derby, it
>>is time to move on.  I cannot trust the Mac for any work
>>that is vital to me at all.  If I do anything that is
>>vital, I use a sun or the NeXT.

>I won't say anything about the NeXT, for I have not used them that often,
>but as for sun's, I work on them all the time and I have locked up the
>sun workstation that I work on more often than I have my Mac.  Still I use
>both of them for vital work, and only once have I had a crash that affected
>my work, and that was my own fault for not saving before I started to do
>something else.

I count on a mac spontaneouly crahing about once every two hours.  About
1/5 of those will be hard enough crashes that i have to turn the machine off.

>>This is probably one of the reasons that Macs are not
>>used for vital work.

>Reality check is needed here.

Oh?  let me know if you find reality.

>>Here my call:  The Mac needs an OS that has
>>memory protection.

Some marginally durable disk drives wouldn't hurt either.

>agreed.

>-justin m. collins <jstc_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>

jim hardy
jhhardy@ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:31:35 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 <44=L02Je266k01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge) writes:

>>>We all applaud the Apple engineers who did this research. But others have
>>>done research, also. You seem to be saying that there is only ONE way
>>>to do a good user interface, and Apple did it. 

>>Please show me where I have said that

>You infered it - thats why it says "You seem to be...".

I inferred it?  How would you know what I inferred?  Strange,
but I don't remember inferring any such thing -- although you
did.

Oh, you mean I *implied* it.  I don't remember doing that, either.
Again, please show me where.


>Well, if we all agreed on a definition of "good", there would be nothing to
>talk about in this group. I use both systems, and find that Windows is by
>in large as "good" as a Mac. 

Well, there are some people who'd claim that Andy Warhol was as "good"
as Leonardo da Vinci.  If you're saying, "Well, I'm a Windows bigot,
and I believe *everything* is subjective, so there's no use arguing
with me," so be it.  But some of us would like to see interface design
*advance*, not move back to the DOS age.


>If you use a Windows system that is crashing that frequently, then there is
>some problem that someone needs to fix. 

Yes, indeed there is.  But I see no sign that Microsoft will ever
fix it.

However, your implication that this is an unusual situation is
just plain wrong.  Every PC user around here has agreed that this
is "par for the course."  The Tech Support people at Ventura,
Microsoft, etc. say there is no way to fix the problems with
the current software, although they have offered some "work
arounds" to make the problems easier to live with.  Moreover,
the general attitude seems to be that this is sufficient.  As
long as you can continue to work -- at whatever efficiency --
the problem is "solved."

>The Windows system I use hardly ever crashes (same as the Macs here). 

That's the same line I've heard from every PC salesman -- before the sale.


>I haven't noticed that Windows programs are any more bug prone then 
>Mac programs. 

Take off the sunglasses.
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:02:07 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct13.064506.14933@sbcs.sunysb.edu>,
dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct12.172533.180288@ua1ix.ua.edu> bcleve@ha10.eng.ua.edu (Brian D. Cleve) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct12.122559.6360@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
> 
> >>Sigh....  You imply that the Quadras can run System 7 just fine today, but 
> >>could not some time ago.   The Quadras have never had a problem running 
> >>System 7.0.1, the OS they originally shipped with.  This is the same 
> >>version of the OS they are shipping with _today_.   
> 
> >Applauds Adams in his insight, that most people over look because they are too
> >busy looking at their favorite machine be it Mac, IBM, Amiga, etc., and agreeing 
> >with prejudice that all others do not stack up. 
> 
> 	What was that thing that Apple released, called the System 7
> Tune Up? Wasn't that the program to upgrade the original Quadras to the
> latest version?

No, it wasn't.  It was a general tune up for systems 7.0 and 7.1 to cut
down on memory usage, add a little speed, and fix a problem that had
existed for a long time (under system 6 and even earlier), but that didn't
show up until system 7 was in wide use.  It appears that you would rather
spread false rumors than bother to learn what you're talking about.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:17:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct8.181724.21049
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>Of course, I've never done any of this, but I've heard it done.  For the
>most part, the only people I really see using two monitors are
>programmers who have the debugger in text mode, running in monitor two,
>and the app running in monitor one.  It's a nice setup.

What I find useful with two monitors, in addition to the above, is displaying
two documents at full screen size.  For example, I may want to edit one
while viewing another.  In general, many of the benefits of a large
monitor can be achieved with multiple monitors.

Furthermore, cost can be good this way.  For example, I never have to work
with more than 640x480 color.  By having a 640x480 color monitor hooked up
to a 24 bit card, and a 640x480 monochrome monitor hooked up to a
monochrome card, I get to have enough display space to see two documents
when word processing or programming, without having to buy extra 24 bit
pixels that I don't need.  I haven't checked recently, but when I bought
the color monitor a couple of years ago, the cost per pixel went up as
monitor size went up, fast enough to make my solution much cheaper.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:28:07 GMT

In article <6167.2ad589f4@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>A) An OS with memory protection to protect you when applications crash
>
>or 
>
>B) An OS whose applications don't crash.
>
>I choose B. 
>

A leads to B in this case.  By having memory protection the
programmer is able to examine a crashing program and thereby
fix the bug.  Of course, it is possible to fix the bug by other
means, but they take longer and are less reliable.  

Yes, memory protection is of little use to the typical user.  But,
it helps provide a more reliable system for the user and is therfore
important.  

I bet that system 7 would have come out 9 months to a year earlier
had the Mac had basic memory detection.  The biggest delays in
getting system 7 out the door were bugs.  Memory protection makes
bug detection much easier.

Those who argue that memory protection is not worthwhile are IMHO
crazy.  The Mac is great.  I love it.  I hope to use one for years.
However, Apple should make the Mac preemptive and protect memory.
Granted that most users could care less, but the long term future
requires these basic os techniques.  Apple should bit the bullet and
just do it.

Peter Kocks
kocks@chemistry.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:41:54 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

johnsd2@rs6220.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.030331.22081@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:

[Deletions.]

>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.

not really, I find that all the auto-repeating characters get in all sorts of
places.... ;-)

>|> 
>|> 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 :) ]

all praise the great _V_I_

>[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? :)

execute the command 8 back in the command history with bar substituted for foo,
simple, really...

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

>CLI terms ain't difficult. :)
I will assume you mean under, say, X???? in which case THEY ARE...
If you do not, then I agree, CLI's are easy, that's the whole point...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:01:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.kerpTFK00WBO06yXxr
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 15-Oct-92 Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2
and Window.. by Edward V. Wright@convex. 
> But memory overwrite (and maybe memory read) bugs are the *only* type 
> that memory protection guards against!  Which is why I think *well-
> written applications* is essential for interactive multitasking systems 
> for the common user.


Well DUHHH!  None of the memory protection advocates are advocating bad
programming!  Wouldn't the world be a happier place if we all had
perfect programs?  This is my final conclusion: memory protection
advocates are pessimists and deal with the reality that there are some
poorly written apps out there, sure memory protection will only protect
against memory overwrites, that's still one less factor of all the
potential crash factors; those who say it's not important are optimists
and think that all applications should be written perfectly.  That's a
much taller request.  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:43:19 GMT

In article <#9tzcma@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <4eoxNRS00YV949Gsxy@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>|> I think that neither OS/2 nor Windows has the ability to virtualize
>|> monitor 2 as part of monitor 1, producing one big monitor (a la mac). 
>
>They don't, from every account I've heard. There is supposed to be
>a board that lets u use 4 vga monitors, but they all have to be 4-bit
>deep and the same size. It isn't very usefull.

Why is this not "very usefull[sic]"?  Granted, the Mac method of adapting
to different bit depths is more convenient (and it allows you to still use
internal video in conjunction with a video card), but most people who
realize from the start that they need multiple monitors (they *did* buy
a quad-VGA or quad-EGA card, right?) will probably buy 4 of the same type
of monitor as well.

This doesn't sound at all like a real limitation.

>Incidentally, it doesn't "virtualize monitor 2 as par of mointor 1",
>they are internally represented as separate (which is why they can
>have different depths), but QuickDraw knows how to deal with multiple
>monitors. Hence if you are so inclined its trivial to make (special) use
>of an extra monitor- you walk the monitor list until you find the
>monitors you want, then open windows in that part of the global space. But
>if you aren't the user can explicitly put windows on other monitors.
>Its real neat.

Internally, *all* video cards would have to represent them as separate,
since each monitor will have its own video memory associated with it, right?
In the case of the quad-VGA cards for use with Windows on a PC, the
4 screens are virtualized into one large screen with a resolution
of (4*horiz res)x(vertical res), giving you a playing field that's four
times as wide.

Granted, it's most cool that QuickDraw deals with varying bit depths
across monitors, but I think it's mostly a non-issue in reality.  Heck,
I still know precious few people with multiple-headed Macs or PCs at all.

I'm not really advocating the PC here; I'm just trying to present correct
information.  I own and use a Mac.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
Support the 27th Amendment: The right of the People to enjoy low-cost
cable television shall not be infringed.    (not.)
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:03:17 EDT
Followup-To: 10234118@loireferences:  <strobl.718809464@gmd.de>

Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.718809464@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> In <CKD.92Oct10234118@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> 
> Sure it's fair. But each time somebody mentiones that Microsoft 
> borrowd the Ctrl+C .. shortcuts from the Mac, I feel an urge to
> mentions where the Macintosh keyboard layout came into existence.
> 
> Sorry.

Go ahead. Mention away.

Actually, the extended keyboard layout comes from an ISO standard. That's
why IBM has it, and that's why Apple has it. You'll notice DEC VT terminals
of recent vintage have the same layout.

Unfortunately, I don't know the standard number off the top of my head.

BTW, I thought I'd mention that menu shortcuts weren't invented at Xerox,
they are an Apple innovation. They appeared first on the Apple Lisa.

> I can find the insert and delete keys without looking at the keyboard,
> while I can't find the paste menu without looking away from what I
> was looking, before.

You just need more mouse practice.

I wonder how many years you practiced before you could reliably find the
Ins and Del keys. It will take you a fraction of that amount of time to
learn how to grasp and use a mouse without looking at it.

>>Easily reachable, huh?  Not on any "standard" 101-key layout I've ever
>>seen or used.  It's barely possible to stretch my pinky to it while
>>keeping my index finger on the J key, and I certainly can't do it
>>without looking.  On the other hand, Cmd-V is just "hit Cmd with either
>>thumb, left index finger moves to V".
> 
> Just like the Alt+ key navigation as used by Windows.

Except Windows ALT key navigation a) uses two keys, b) is inconsistant 
between applications, and c) doesn't work in all cases. 

> That should be "[K]opieren" for me. These shortcuts have the disadvantage
> that they don't translate well. The Alt+letter menu navigation doesn't
> share that disadvantage, because the menues get translated. 
> THe same applies to the special
> keys on the keyboard: my keyboard has "Einfg" and "Entf" instead
> of "Ins" and "Del" on the two keys we are talking about.

Of course, the solution is for everyone in the world to use English. <grin>
(ducking....)

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:51:30 GMT

cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:

>Monitor one    Monitor two
>XGA            XGA
>8514           VGA
>VGA            EGA (or maybe MDA, monochrome text)
               ^^^ MDA or Hercules only

					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu