HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robertk@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Lotus Development Corporation
	<1eebbpINN2dk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1992Nov19.191145.5746@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:22:26

In article <1992Nov19.191145.5746@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

	   How is the mac different, in terms of fundamental architecture,
	   from the current PC clone systems?  To be honest, I must be 
	   missing domething--I don't see anything fundamentally groundbreaking
	   about the mac architecture--the differences are mostly
	   cosmetic. 

To a certain extent, I agree in the case of modular Macs. Modular
Macs and some PCs both have a fairly integrated motherboard with
built-in video, serial, parallel, and disk controllers. The hardware
architectures will allow you to add bus devices that duplicate these
functions, in case you want something bigger or faster.

However, my experience has been that the Mac allows you to use *all*
devices at the same time. This is software, not hardware, but a piece
of hardware is only as good as the system sofware that lets you access
its functionality. A Mac with an net card can still use its built-in
LocalTalk port, and it's very easy to switch this from the UI.  (Try
switching net configurations under DOS, or worse, Windows.)  In fact,
with appropriate software, a Mac can bridge all the nets to which it
is connected. A Mac with a video card can still use the built-in
video. In fact, a Mac with an *accelerated* video card can use the
acceleration for *all* screens in the system, and even in-memory
operations (memory bitmaps).

PCs with true bus-mastering could do this, too, but a lot of the
present system software doesn't exploit it.
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:22:39 GMT
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 

dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:

>In article <Bxs22G.1EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>|> dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>|> 
>[stuff on apps. deleted]
stuff on price deleted
>|> Ability to add extra processors (only extremely specialized ones availiable).
>|> Ability to use more than 32 megs. (most PCs max out a 32 meg.).

>Not true: limit for newer machines is usually 64Meg, and the P5 will be able to
>access 128 Meg.

Limit on the DECpc 450ST is 192MB. Motherboard.

-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
From: millerm@skie.ECE.ORST.EDU (Mike Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Win NT
Keywords: Win32 WinNT
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:22:55 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: skie.ece.orst.edu

Does anybody in the fray of mac slamming arguments know where
I can get a copy of Win NT on 3.5 inch disks?

Thanks for the info, and now back to your regular news...

Mike Miller			millerm@maral.ece.orst
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 11:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.151438.19436@emr1.emr.ca> jagrant@emr1.emr.ca (John Grant) writes:
>I have not used or programmed for OS/2 or Mac, however I have just spent 3
>months on my first Windows app.  Wow! What a learning curve (I'm comfortable
>with it now, though).  So my question is directed at those who have programmed
>for any combination of 2 or 3 of these environments.  How do they compare at
>the API level?
>
>Note: this is not a question about either:
>	(a) linear/segmented address spaces
>   or   (b) 16/32 bit mode
>I really don't care about those 2 topics for this discussion.  All I am
>interested in is the API (system function calls, structure of programs,
>callback functions etc).  Which system is more intuitive, easer etc?
>
>-- 
>John A. Grant						jagrant@emr1.emr.ca
>Airborne Geophysics
>Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa

In general, the os/2 api is more structured and better than the Windows
api. This is, of course, natural, as os/2 came after windows, and since
the os/2 api draws on experience from the windows api.

Now, count in Windows NT, and the picture gets more confused. Windows
NT use basically the same graphics api as Windows 3.1, and is thus
not as good as the os/2 graphics api (graphics: window management and
graphic primitives). However, the base operating system api of Windows
NT is better than that of os/2. This is again because NT came after
os/2, and since the NT api draws on experience from the os/2 api.

Eirik
From: johnsd2@lib101.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib101.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:19:13 GMT

In article 722464896@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <9821+3a@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722437792@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>[...]
>>>Of course not! For one, people nowadays buy much more 
>>>computing power than they really need, because PCs are
>>>- in comparison to Macs - cheap. This partially compensates the
>>>smaller memory width, if the VGA card in use isn't too old.
>
>>Memory width?
>
>The number of data lines on the memory bus to the video memory.
>8 or 16 bit for ISA cards, 32 bits for EISA and local bus
>video.
>

Oh, that's what Ive been calling the bus width. I thought
you meant something else- like perhaps PC video memory had
a "width" somehow. I'd just love to lord that over you. :)

Alas, 'twas not to be.
---
			- 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.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: For all you Mac users...
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:54:12 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Distribution: usa

In article <By6xKu.BK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  writes:

[compared to a Mac]
>Among other things, it is a fact that for numerical calculations, a
>PC is faster.

What benchmark are you using?  And which units are you comparing?  How  
significant is the difference?

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigots)
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:27:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Nov16122752
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

It seems that y'all are seeing the trees, but not the forest.  With a
CLI, the user can basically do anything he wants.  If the exact
tool isn't there, you hook two existing tools with a pipe or write a
shell script.  With a GUI, however, you are entirely at the mercy of
the GUI designer, who has decided for you what tools you will use and
in what manner you can use them.  The GUI is quite sufficient for Joe
Average User who never needs to push the system's envelope.  However,
I defy any GUI user to show me how they would emulate the UNIX find
command.  (Keep in mind find's options... that's what makes it such a
wonderful utility and so hard to GUIate (new verb!))

As anologies I offer the following:
1-Automatic transmission vs standard transmission.  The AT is
perfectly acceptable for most people and for many of the rest, it
would suffice in a high percentage of driving situations.  However,
the driver has little control over gear shifts, etc.  The ST gives you
complete control at all times.  Conclusion: A more complex mechanism
simplifies the operator interface but limits choices.

2-Framemaker vs TeX.  Framemaker is great for memo, papers, articles
with lots of pictures, etc.  But, push on it a bit, and all sorts of
limitations and features :-( appear.  TeX, on the other hand, will do
anything you can imagine, and then some.  However, it is more complex
to use, harder to learn and harder to use.  Conclusion: A more complex
mechanism simplifies the operator interface but limits choices.

So, in conlcusion: Keep thing in perspective.  GUI's are useful but
they do not possess the capabilities of a CLI, and those capabilties
are sometimes required.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | There never did, there never will, and
Field Robotics Center,          | there never can exist a parliment, or any
Carnegie Mellon University      | description of men, or any generation of
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | men, in any country, possessed of the right
(412) 268-3856                  | or the power of binding and controlling
                                | posterity to the `end of time,' or of
The opinions expressed are mine | commanding for ever how the world shall be
and do not reflect the official | governed, or who shall govern it...
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | -Every age and generation must be as free
or any other organization.      | to act for itself, in all cases, as the
                                | ages and generations which preceeded it.
                                | Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: (Tim Keitt)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:07:49 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM
Reply-To: tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu
Keywords: PC Good, Mac less so : ) 

In article <Bxw6pK.3s9@world.std.com> jbailey@world.std.com (james d bailey) writes:
>(Tim Keitt) writes:
>
>
>>--
>>Timothy Keitt
>>tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu
>
>I guess I don't understand what you are trying to do with 10-20MB
>images that you think a Quadra 950 can't handle.  This isn't a flame,
>I'm just curious.  A Quadra 950 can do 24 bit video without any extra
>hardware, you can buy JPEG compression boards and such.  There are
>Photoshop accelerators to speed up filters.  I do believe that there
>are things a Q950 can't do that a seriously high end workstation could
>but you are talking very high end.
>
>

I'm sure the Quadra is a capable image processing platform. Our
emphasis is more on modeling and analysis. Sometimes this 
involves iteratively processing large numbers of images. Under 
UNIX I can setup a batch process, logoff and come back the next 
day. Mean while others in our group can login and be working on 
other projects. Some of these processes generate 100+MB memory 
images, I just don't think MACs are inteded for that kind of 
processing. I'd go through a mouse a week individually 
loading each file one at a time. If I needed to do color separations 
and page layout, I might consider a Mac, but for our uses a 
couple of Sparcstations makes a lot of sense.

--
Timothy Keitt
tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu



Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:58:25 GMT

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>The biggest choice you get in Windows but not on the Mac
>is choice of interface.  If you don't like the Program Manager,
>you can use Norton Desktop, or Aporia, or HP New Wave, or any
>of dozens of other interfaces.  This is a plus in the Windows
>column. 

Macs also have LOTS of programs that change the interface (most shareware).
The reason they aren't used much is:
1:  Finder is pretty good the way it is.
2:  Many business have already gone through a nightmare of giving
support to many worker's computers that have radically different 
interfaces.  Typically these business will make either one interface
"standard" or just stick with finder.  Tech. support for windows users
are just starting to find out about this problem...

					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:22:07 GMT

In article 721932965@dhhalden.no, runehh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
>In article <00t1hlb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
[deletia- metafiles]
>>>You don't, if you only need simple sounds. There is always the 
>>>speaker.
>>
>>Which can only beep under Windows, no? Or did windows pick up a driver
>>for the internal speaker that I dont know about?
>There is a driver for the internal speaker you don't know about. It's OK as 
>long as you don't need noise-free sound.

I understand from an email conversation that this driver disables
interrupts. This would mean you cant use it asyncrhonously (it
locks up your mouse). Kinda... cheesy.. no wonder MS didn't
include it.

>>>Do all Macintoshs have 32 bit access to the video memory?
>>
>>Yes; All that I know of anyway. Im not entirely sure about the Classic,
>>Plus or whatnot but having b&w display only would compensate.
>
>How can this be, when not all Mac's don't even have 32-bits memory 
>addressing?

I am not talking about the address bus (which on some macs is
indeed 24 bits wide) but the data bus; most macs have 32 bit
data buses, but some have 16 bit data buses. At least some of
these (the LC is one, I believe) have special, separate buses
for video and so on. The Plus and Se and that sort may not; I dunno.
But those machines are b&w only, which is much bigger boost yet.
(too bad its ugly. :) ) Also the display is very small, so there
are fewer pixels to push about.

> On our Mac IIcx, on which we *need* a whole lot of memory, we 
>must emulate 32-bits addressing, which causes the system (7) to be 
>*extremely* unstable. (avg. 1 crash/hour).

There is no way to "emulate" 32 bit addressing; on MAcs that dont
support it you ned a patch (called Mode32) that fixed the problem
so that they DO support it.

My IIcx does not crash, and it has this stuff installed on it. I suspect
the problem is that the software you are using is not 32 bit
compatble (it tries to use the high byte of addresses for
something)

>>>They're starting to sell S3 cards for 450 DM (about 290$) here in 
>>>Germany. When bundled with a machine, you'll probably get it for
>>>less.
>>
>>How deep is this cards display? How many pixels does it produce?
>
>Not quite sure about this. I think some is capable of 24-bit in some modes.
>This usually depends on how much video-mem you have.

Somebody else did; its 8 bits deep but 1000someodd by 1000someodd.
(where accelerated Mac cards are usually 24 bits, as 8 bit accelerated
is overkill; this beefs up the price of course)

[deletia- my Resources mistake, already covered elsewhere in more detail]
---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2726 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2712
From: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:52:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) says:

>Mac zealots, like mmunson for exmaple, remind me of xian
>fundementalists.  No matter what evidence you shove in front of their
>face, they simply ignore it.  Go ahead Mark, enjoy your Mac.  It's a
>toy computer, but hey, if you like it, then fine.  Just don't try to
>change the world so that I have to suffer with your religion.
>
 Well maybe I joined this game a bit late and I don't know what you're
talking about (and maybe Mr. Roston is correct, I don't know what the
discussion is about), but the Macintosh is FAR superior especially if
you're talking PeeCees vs. Macs. If the Mac is a "toy" computer, why the
hell is everyone in PC-ville trying to copy its OS eh? As far as suffering
with religions, we're already suffering the PC religion. Had Apple cloned
the Macintosh in 1984, we'd see 1 zillion Macs instead of PCs just becase
the Macintosh makes so much more sense. To quote Lee Iacoca: 
"Just because it makes SENSE."
-- 
Travis Grundke	 	    |  For More information about MacGames Digest,
Contributing Editor-        |  The First Publication Dedicated to Macintosh
MacGames Digest		    |  Gaming, Please contact us at the previous 
an780@cleveland.freenet.Edu |  E-mail address. (c) 1992 Travis Grundke/MGD
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:50:59 GMT

In <qkx10ll@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

[...]
>>
>>>>>>They're starting to sell S3 cards for 450 DM (about 290$) here in 
>>>>>>Germany. When bundled with a machine, you'll probably get it for
>>>>>>less.
>>>>>
>>>>>How deep is this cards display? How many pixels does it produce?
>>>>
>>>>Not quite sure about this. I think some is capable of 24-bit in some modes.
>>>>This usually depends on how much video-mem you have.
>>
>>The card mentioned is probably the Diamond Speedstar 24X. Which is
>>accelerated, displays 640X480X16M and upto 1600X1200X16.

>Hmmm.. lotta guesswork involved in this stuff... :)
>[whats that? Me? Actually like do my own research? NEVER! :) ]

>But I thot S3 card was some sort of brand. (Buy S3 video Cards,
>better than those old dingy S2s!). If not, what is it?

S3 manufactures an accelerator chip called 86C924, which is
used, for example, in the Actix "Graphics Engine 1280" video
card. This card can do 1024x768x8 and 640x480x15 in Windows.
It costs DM 600 here.

The Diamond SpeedStar 24X costs DM 442, does 1280x1024 interlaced
and 1024x768x8, 800x600x15 and 640x480x24 non.-interlaced,
in Windows. It uses the WD90C31 chip from Western Digital.

   (quoted from a table in the November issue of the 
   German computer magazine c't).

Just like the PC itself, the PC industry is very modularized.

A manufacturer creates an support chip and sells it to
others, which use it to create a product, for example
a video card. Most often, the chip comes with a lot
of documentation, application notes and driver software
(from sample code up to complete drivers). Because of
that, cards using that support chip tend to be quite
similar. So people start to call such a card not by its
brand, but by the name of the support chip, or if there
is only one chip (or because it's just simpler to type :-), 
by the name of the company which designed that chip.

This is especially common for cheap cards which are
often straight implementations of the chip designers
application notes and minor enhancements of the 
sample drivers.

>>>Somebody else did; its 8 bits deep but 1000someodd by 1000someodd.
>>>(where accelerated Mac cards are usually 24 bits, as 8 bit accelerated
>>>is overkill; this beefs up the price of course)

Why is this overkill? Silicon is cheap these days. Why not
let a specialized CPU do all the drawing, and have the main
CPU free for real work?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: For all you Mac users...
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 21 Nov 92 12:00:29 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov20.164103.10573@engr.LaTech.edu>  writes:
>I guess my primary statement is that the Macs are hurting pretty
>bad and need to get on the ball.  

If you mean by this that Apple's not doing well, I'd advise you to change  
stockbrokers.  Macs are gaining marketshare rapidly.

If you mean by this that Macs can't do things that PCs with Windows *can*  
do, I'd quite frankly like to know what.  No flames intended, but I can  
honestly not think of anything significant that can't be done on a Mac as  
easily as on Windows, though I *can* think of some things that can be done  
on a Mac but not a PC.  And quite a few things that can be done on Macs  
but require high-end-PCs because of the PC's antiquated I/O subsystem.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win NT
Keywords: Win32 WinNT
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:48:33 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1eemovINNia9@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> millerm@skie.ECE.ORST.EDU (Mike Miller) writes:
>Does anybody in the fray of mac slamming arguments know where
>I can get a copy of Win NT on 3.5 inch disks?

	You can't.

	Currently, you can only get the OS on CD.

	The final release will probably include a Floppy version.


	Toodlepip!
	Marc 'em.
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         "-- Attack ships on
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA             fire "
	Any opinions expressed are not mine, but those of the Demon Lord
      Yeegeheeegenogohugu who possessed me whilst I munched on Raisin Bran.
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:09:52 GMT

In <5911v9p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

[...]
>>
>>>Snappyness is subjective. If you think PCs are snappy enough (or
>>>snappier for that matter), then fine.
>>
>>PCs are indeed snappy enough (and often snappier). I've yet to find
>>a machine (workstation, Mac or other) which gives the same amount
>>of snappiness as a PC working in non-graphics mode.

>Zing! You got me, I was talking about Windows, but didn't say so.

I knew that you where talking about Windows. I made that remark
because people with a Macintosh background have a tendency to
ignore that fact that PC hardware has a much broader useage
pattern than just running desktop publishing programs on 
Windows. Because of that, you'll always find PCs which have a
video hardware which is indeed far to slow to run Windows
comfortably, and more so for tasks like the above ones. 

Does that mean that you always have to replace the video
hardware, in order to be able to run Windows successfully?

Of course not! For one, people nowadays buy much more 
computing power than they really need, because PCs are
- in comparison to Macs - cheap. This partially compensates the
smaller memory width, if the VGA card in use isn't too old.

In addition, there is a need for computer apps which
can profit from nice graphics interface provided by Windows,
but which aren't overly interactive, so that the speed
of the video display doesn't matter much. I once built 
a computer controlled discharger for NiCad batteries,
which measured the exact capacity by measuring the output
voltage and controlling the current. I used Windows for
three reasons. The multitasking made it possible to start
four instances and processing for batteries at the same
time and independant of each other, I could display the
important numbers in big letters, and Windows device in-
dependence allowed me to defer the descision on what
machine to run on. I finally put the A/D- and D/A card
into an old XT with a monochrome adapter, because that
machine was collecting dust in the cellar. Display speed
was unimportant. 


--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>