HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez | 802-36-4453)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Organization: UPR-Mayaguez--ASEL Lab
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:42:04 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-131092155722@192.35.50.131>, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.034620.3505@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
|> wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) wrote:
|> 
|> 
|> > Speak for your own desktop.  I can safely say that an Amiga will dorn my
|> > desktop for many...many....years to come!
|> > I'd take the first Amiga (A1000) over the first IBM or Mac *ANYDAY*!!!!
|> > At least it would be in color, multitask (pre-emptive, too), and play
|> > some GREAT games.  Can either of the first IBMs or Macs do that?
|> > HELL, can *ANY* of their most recent ones do that?????  Who's clueless?
|> 
|> Well, if all you want is a game machine....

   Or also if you want to do SERIOUS video and multimedia work.  Of course
the Amiga can play games and the Mac is simply very bad at it.  
That's why for some people that are not FANATICS, the Mac is simply 
a boring computer.

|> 
|> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> |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.          |
|> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

- Raist
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:53:04 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct14.185818.3475@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com
(Steve Kanefsky) wrote:
> 
> In article <_!2zygn@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> >In article <strobl.719069866@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> >|> In <1992Oct13.202113.23250@gvl.unisys.com> dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek) writes:
> >|> 
> >|> [...]
> >|> 
> >|> >I'd like to add my $0.02 here, before people start protesting that
> >|> >they're not two years old any more.
> >|> 
> >|> >The point isn't that a two-year old can use a mouse.  The point is
> >|> >that things people learn early in life are more deep-seated and
> >|> >fundamental, and require less higher-level intellectual activity.
> >|> 
> >|> I don't believe that theory. If you look at which age poeple learn
> >|> walking compared to swimming or riding a bicycle, this would imply that 
> >|> walking is much more deep-seated than swimming or riding a 
> >|> bicycle, and that the former needs much less intellectual 
> >|> activity than the latter. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
> >
> >Seems to be the case to me. At least, walking is easier than swimming
> >or biking for me.
> >
> >[the $64,000 question is who is going to tell us that the keyboard is
> >also faster, just like a bike is faster] :) 
> 
> Why the smiley?  The fact is, the bicycle is a more contrived, more
> complex, harder to learn mode of transportation.  Nevertheless it is
> faster and more efficient by far than any natural mode of transportation. 
> Please drop all the arguments about which is easier to learn, because
> they are irrelevant.  The question is about which one is faster and/or
> more efficient for an experienced user.  Surely you agree that they
> keyboard is best for communicating written language (i.e. you don't use
> the mouse and Keycaps to type letters).  Surely you must also agree that
> written language is often the best way of communicating instructions,
> including instructions to computers (if not, what do you propose to
> replace all the programming languages?).  Thus you must agree that the 
> keyboard is often the best way of communicating instructions to a
> computer.

The keyboard is a more efficient way of communicating written language, not
instructions.  I do not agree with your conclusion; your premise is flawed.
 GIGO.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:16:43 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct9.212807.13564@leland.Stanford.EDU>, kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:
> In article <6167.2ad589f4@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>A) An OS with memory protection to protect you when applications crash
>>B) An OS whose applications don't crash.
> 
> 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.  

You didn't include the rest of my posting. I pointed out that memory protection
is useful for the DEVELOPER, who expects to have frequent crashes. Memory
protection may or may not help to target the actual bugs. 

But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The USERs apps
shouldn't crash. Period.

> 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.

I disagree. System 7 wasn't delayed by bugs. It was delayed because it had
few bugs. It had few bugs because it was so outrageously tested. That testing
effort took a lot of time, not fixing tons of bugs.

For the record, I used System 7 from the alpha 7 release right through the
beta. The initial beta came about 6 months before delivery, and it was very
solid. Beta 4 came out about 3 months before delivery, and it was rock
solid.

So, your premise is incorrect. Bugs didn't delay System 7, testing did.

> Those who argue that memory protection is not worthwhile are IMHO
> crazy.  

I never agrued that it wasn't worthwhile. I just said it doesn't convey 
much benefit to users. 

> 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.

They are doing it. Even as we speak.

-- 
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.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:08:48 EDT
From: <WXT106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Why a mac over a PC?

There is a kind of formation in my school.  All the mac users hated IBMs and al
l the IBM users dislike the macs.  Therefore, there were always arguments.  We
came up with some really good reasons, but I want to listen to the netters and
see what everyoone likes to say about about the stupid, clumsy and useless IBM
PCs, I am a mac user and I love what I have.  So anyone has any thing to say, p
ost it and I can tell those IBM users.

Just for the sake of fun.


WXT106@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@rs6216.ecs.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 17:49:17 GMT

In article <ewright.719255058@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> In <va3zf_n@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> 
|> >Ok, I mean a user interface for the MULTITASKING. The thermometer-
|> >the watch cursor.. you know... that stuff...
|> 
|> No, I don't know.  

|> I really don't think you know, either.

I'd say this was a bit uncalled for. (but you probably
wouldn't, so Im kinda wasting my breath. Oh well)

|> The
|> watch cursor on the Mac simply means that the foreground application
|> is "busy."  It has nothing to do with multitasking.  Neither does
|> the "thermometer," which is a device to show how some task is progressing.
|> This can be shown by the foreground application, background application,
|> or only application.  It has nothing to do with multitasking.
|> 
|> Perhaps you were thinking of the Notification Manager, which gets
|> the user's attention by putting a flashing icon into the upper left
|> corner of the menu bar?

No (but that's something else- more code yet. Same basic line of
reasoning tho- its for the user interface, you could do without).

I do know what I am talking about. Ill try again.

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?

If you STILL don't, read the user interface chapter in Inside Macintosh
Volume 6. They talk about this stuff in there, and maybe they put it
better.

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<ewright.718566123@convex.convex.com> <bmccnnll.718583847@unix1.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:52:43 GMT

Barry> == Barry McConnell <bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie> 

 Barry> On the Amiga, you use the Forbid() .. Permit() combination to
 Barry> "turn off" multitasking. In effect, you are back down to
 Barry> co-operative multitasking, in that you can hold the entire
 Barry> system at your mercy via this method. I would thus consider
 Barry> pre-emptive multitasking a superset of co-operative
 Barry> multitasking, and hence there is no valid argument for *not*
 Barry> having it! ;-)

No, this is cooperative multitasking with a pre-emptive option, because
you're still depending on programs to behave properly.  (Admittedly, the
default behavior is better, but as people have said before, if programs
are ill-behaved, they go down the tubes REAL fast.)

That said, I'd like to have a Mac that ran all my current software, but
added pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection.  I'm gonna get one
when I have the spare $$$ for a larger hard drive and A/UX.
--
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>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (MuffinHead)
Subject: Re: Why a mac over a PC?
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:49:44 GMT

ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.044828.1478@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (MuffinHead) says:
>>can use almost ANY Mac app without ever opening a manual.
>                  /\
>              Add simple here. Or do you think Mathematica or MAPLE
>can be used without a manual? Aren`t compilers    apps? Of course you
>can start and exit FrameMaker without a manual, but what can you do in
>between without one? LabView even has a nice graphical language but
>without manual you can drag the whole stuff into the trash. Ever tried to
>use IGOR without manual ? You can use it, but you don`t get very far.

   I knew someone would bring this up. I meant to generalize the app's, but
didn't make it clear that I was. I MEANT regular stuff like word
processors, draw/paint programs, calendars/address books, not specialized
app's like you mentioned.

>>   The other thing important to me is that Mac output is *exactly* the same
>>as the screen rendering. Not true with many DOS graphics, word processing,
>>and page layout programs I've used.

>I wish it were *always* exactly the same.

Stefano Pagiola writes:

>Sorry, but its not.  Its a heck of a lot closer than what you usually  
>get on a PC (although many Windows apps now manage OK), but its *not*  
>exactly the same.  If it was, why would one there be such a thing as  
>preview mode in Adobe Illustrator?  Quickdraw != PostScript. 

   Again, I generalized using non-PostScript printers as my visualization.
But even Illustrator looks exactly how it will print in Preview mode without
any PS-specific patterns/fills.

>>   And this is my personaly opinion which matters very much to lots of people
>>Macs look cool.

>And there are even cooler looking PC`s out there. But you have to pay more for
>the case than for the electronics inside :-(

   I dunno, even a Gateway doesn't have near the styling of a Mac case/monitor/
keyboard/mouse. Although I think the Performa 600 looks like an old PC Jr. 
(or whatever those old ugly things were with the "louvers" on the front.)

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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:52:02 GMT

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

 Carl> Ah, but then you haven't seen one video card which does let you
 Carl> use 4 VGA monitors at once, each with a different display.  The
 Carl> display is just like having one big monitor: basically 1280x960!
    
Right, as long as you have That One Video Card.  And four monitors.  And
the driver for that video card.  Where on a Mac you just buy whatever
video cards you like and put them in; say you have a card driving a
two-page monochrome monitor at 1152x900x8 (accelerated), another card
driving a 13" color monitor at 640x480x24 (accelerated), and a third
card driving a 13" mono monitor at 640x480x1 (the card was left over
from an older machine :-).

I've done it.  I stretched windows across all three, and the icons were
1-bit on the 1-bit screen, gray scale on the 8-bit mono screen, and
color on the color screen.

(The Pivot was in use that day or I would have added it to the pile also :)
--
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: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:28:30 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.718751467@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> 
> Well, the Dynamic Data Exchange protocal (DDE) was a feature
> of MS-Windows 1.0 (released 1985). How old is Publish and Subscribe?

What does it matter. DDE and P & S aren't the same thing. They don't do the
same thing. P & S is a higher-level feature than DDE. P & S works over a 
network, P & S communicates between applications even when both applications
aren't open at the same time, or are open on different machines.

It makes no difference when DDE came out. It can't do what P & S and 
AppleEvents do. Why bother comparing dates when the features don't compare?

-- 
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: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Subject: Re: Why a mac over a PC?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:58:45 GMT

<WXT106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> There is a kind of formation in my school.  All the mac users hated IBMs and
> all the IBM users dislike the macs.  Therefore, there were always arguments.
> We came up with some really good reasons, but I want to listen to the
> netters and see what everyoone likes to say about about the stupid, clumsy
> and useless IBM PCs, I am a mac user and I love what I have.  So anyone has
> any thing to say, p ost it and I can tell those IBM users.

> Just for the sake of fun.

I hate both, but I'll give you one thing Macs have over IBM's - at least you
can have a decent filename, with both upper and lower case, and not limited
to the stupid 8,3 letters IBM uses. That's enough to make me pick a Mac over
an IBM any day.

Also, 680x0 assembler is far easier to use than 80x86 assembler (blecch!)

>WXT106@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

--------------------- Richard.  u9147603@cs.uow.edu.au ---------------------
"The rooster stared back at me, his power and confidence almost overwhelming.
Down below, a female paused warily at the coop's entrance. I kept the camera
running. They were beautiful, these 'Chickens in the mist'."  -  Gary Larson
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:46:20 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 <92283.165157ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>WPS sees the icons on the screen as objects i.e. things that have some
>properties and can perform some actions. 

As objects, or as command lines hiding behind pretty pictures?

>What properties it has you see in its settings notebook. 

Aha!

>The Mac OS has this partly but its not consequently used. In System 6 you 
>can`t print a document by dropping it on a printer icon.

Doesn't DTPrinter work with System 6?  I seem to remember reading that
somewhere.

Of course, since you want to talk about System 6, we should be talking
about OS2 V1.0 and the Presentation Manager, not OS2 V2.0 and the WPS.
(Interesting how the user-interface terminology in V2.0 is even less
user friendly than it was it V2.0.)

>But I`m pretty sure to format a floppy in System 7 you have to select 
>the floppy icon and then hunt in the menu bar for a format option. In 
>OS/2 you click on the icon with your right mouse button and select
>from the objects menu.

Chuckle, chuckle. :-)  PC users are such fun. 

No, you don't have to do any such silly thing.  The Macintosh
is smart enough to *know* when an unformatted disk is inserted
and ask if you want to format it.

I also fail to see how clicking on the icon with the right 
mouse button, then hunting for a format item in the Objects 
menu is much better than clicking on an icon with the only
mouse button and hunting hunting in the menu bar. 

>That might not make a big difference to some users, but to me it sounds more
>intuitive than the Mac approach. I`m happy with both, but I like WPS a bit
>more.

Well, it doesn't really sound like you've used both.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Marc VanHeyningen" <mvanheyn@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
X-Quoted: 71%
Reply-To: mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:46:03 -0500

Thus said ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright):
>>>>BUGS
>>>>     The syntax is cumbersome.
>
>>Fine.  It is cumbersome.  It's also flexible.  I just don't see how 
>>the first can be fixed without losing the latter.
>
>Oh.  I'm sorry.  I thought you understood.
>
>The fix is simple.  Two easy steps.  1) Buy a Mac.  2) Choose the
>"find" command in the Finder.

So, the "find" command in the Finder is just as flexible (i.e. can do
all the same things) as find(1)?  Wow.  I didn't know that.
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted

"James equal frothy DNA"        "Joyful Qatar headsmen."
		- my favorite anagrams of "James Danforth Quayle"
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:35:32 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct11.010129.12913@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
> In article <Bvx5Lr.3rI@rice.edu> jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.075603.11316@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>>>In article <6169.2ad59050@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>>HAD to use the mouse. Now, I would never go back.
> 
> I didn't argue for a vi. I did argue against the editor where I am
> forced to use mouse from time to time. It is taking my hands off
> the keyboard.

You completely missed my point then. I had the same reaction initially. When
I finally acheived proficiency with the mouse, I changed my mind completely.

If you never take the first step, you'll never find out what you are missing
out on.

> I always work with any editor I have available. Some (on a Mac) force
> me to use a mouse. Actually how do you know that I locked myself out
> of the alternatives? 

From your attitude. Your mind is clearly closed on the subject.

-- 
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: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:32:01 GMT

In <ewright.719083313@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <strobl.718769075@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>Most preemptive
>>multitasking OS have one or more synchronizing functions,
>>including some which enable a task to block some or all
>>other tasks for a short time. This capability is usefull
>>for various purposes: to guarantee the consistency of
>>shared, global data, to guarantee that an interrupt is
>>serviced in time, and so on. 

>Well, you've just shot yourself in the foot.  The argument,
>used over and over again, in favor of preemptive multitasking
>on the Macintosh, is that it "doesn't require the programmer

I didn't argue in favor of preemptive multitasking on the
Macintosh.

>to do anything" to make a program multitask efficiently. 

I didn't say anything about efficiency, either.

>Now
>you're saying that it does.  If preemptive multitasking is 
>multitasking that doesn't require the programmer to do anything, 
>this is not preemptive, by definition.

Huh?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>