HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:20:50 GMT
 <1992Oct23.211012.20812@javelin.sim.es.com> <bmccnnll.720056834@unix1.tcd.ie> 
   <1992Oct28.041251.118883@watson.ibm.com>   <1992Oct29.051139.11315@cs.uow.edu.au> <6281.2af56fde@hayes.com>   <

u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

>This Mac is running a term emulator, the option key is reserved for control.
>This keyboard has no function keys, no keypad, no escape, no control key.
>Since the only free meta key is command, many menu options have no keyboard
>shortcuts.

Sucks to be you then.  Having an old Mac with an inadequate term program
running is irrelevant.  We're talking about the current state of the Mac.

>But then, some Mac users on here have claimed that the A4000 and Emplant
>don't exist, so I ain't the first...

The Emplant doesn't really exist.  Okay, so it exists, but I haven't heard
of ONE user who has gotten it to work.

>This Mac Plus has a 68000, 1 Mb of RAM, and two low-density floppy drives.
>There is NO WAY this machine can pre-emptively multitask.  Hell, it can't
>multitask at all.  A/UX costs several thousand dollars, on top of all the
>extra hardware needed to beef up the computer to support it?  No thanks,
>keep it... if I want to multitask I'll use my cheapo Amiga...  I imagine it
>will do a better job than A/UX anyway.

1)That Mac is defunct.  Why are we even talking about it?  I doubt people
who buy plusses are going to be the type who need preemptive mutlitasking.
 It would be nice to have, but it's not essential, and it's certainly not
reason enough to make one type of computer superior to others.  Where is
preemption really important?  The one example that comes to mind is
telecommunications.  MacINtercomm pre-emptively multitasks.

>Given 4 Mb RAM minimum, a hard drive, and an accelerator card if you want to
>get anything done in a reasonable time.  I don't have that kind of money,
>I'm afraid.

4 Mb of RAM is only about $100.  The Plus runs System 7 fine.  I've done
it.  It's slower than a Quadra, but you certainly don't need an
accelerator.  Why do we care about what you can afford?  It's viable
enough that people buy it.  Most Macs now ship with 4 Mb standard.
-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:26:33 GMT

Bill Coleman writes
>>>I thought the Cube was now considered a doorstop.
>> 
>> Like the Quadra 900 & Mac IIfx? :). If it still works it's fine.
>> NeXT is still selling Cubes.
> 
> Something I picked up from a previous NeXT-o-phile posting.
> I was under the impression that the old Cube was considered
> underpowered. Why would people keeping buying underpowered
> NeXT computers? 

"old cube" = 68030-based cube.  And yes, it was underpowered.
Cubes sold today have a 33MHz 68040.  They are NOT underpowered.

(BTW, most 030 cubes have been upgraded to 040s; there are still some  
030s out there, though)

>>>> Ethernet standard, with TCP/IP, AppleTalk and Novell
>>>> protocol support.
>>>
>>> Do all these protocols work out of the box? (TCP/IP with NFS,
>>> I believe).  Does the NeXT support AppleTalk and Novell 
>>> without any additional hardware or software, or do you have 
>>> to add software to support these?
>> 
>> They work out of the box as clients. The NeXT has a couple of
>> ethernet ports, so you shouldn't need extra hardware.
> 
> With no software? It comes built in? Good.

Yep.  However, the Appletalk implementation seems to be buggy. The  
Novell implementation seems to work quite well.  (as an aside,  
someone posted here recently that Novell's publishing dept is wholly  
NeXT-based, and that all their NeXTs are networked using TCP/IP and  
NeXT's Netinfo :-).

>> Seriously, QuickTime is still fairly limited but I imagine
>> the support will be there soon on the NeXT.
> 
> Really? Who's doing it? Apple isn't.

Last I heard, an ISV was going to do it.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 13:25:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.091951.10945@cs.uow.edu.au> u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
>The Mac still can't multitask.  It's OS is huge and still doesn't get much
>done.  You can have multiple applications open, but only one of them gets
>any processor time.  Backgrounded applications on the Mac aren't actually
>doing anything; they only wake up when you bring them to the front.

I don't know where you get this unadultered CRAP, but backgrounded apps DO
get processor time.  Whether it is divided well is debatable, as is the
efficiency of context switching, BUT it DOES give time to backgrounded apps.
Run Task-It sometime on a Mac running several programs at once that should
be using processor time (Teachtext in the background doesn't count, it gets
0% CPU because it needs 0% CPU).  I've done tests of my Mac running half a
dozen processes that should do stuff in the background.  Guess what, they
all did, using a portion of the CPU, according to Task-It and according to
common sense (the download finished, the files were compressed, the compile
finished, and, yes, these and more were done at once).

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: PostScript Costs (Was:  EGGPLANT, IMPLANT...)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:32:46 GMT

Jim Matthews writes
> Stefano Pagiola writes
>> Which is why NeXT is able to sell a 400dpi PostScript printer for  
>> $1230 (edu) vs $1900 (also edu) for the 300dpi Apple Laserwriter 
>> IIf.
> 
> Or you could get a LaserWriter NTR, which is about $1500 edu. 
> For the $300 extra you get a RISC processor and more built-in 
> fonts than the NeXT printer/OS offers.
> 
Sure you could.  But I was trying to compare roughly comparable  
printers (even though the IIf is only 300dpi to the NeXT Laser  
Printer's 400).  The NTR is a lot slower (4 ppm vs 8 ppm).  So let me  
get this straight: you're offering me a slower printer, that prints  
at a lower resolution, and its 'only' $300 extra.  What a deal!

>> Moreover, since the PostScript is in the OS rather than the
>> printer, upgrading the OS upgrades the printer (ie I actually
>> bought a PostScript level 1 printer, way back when; when i got
>> NeXTSTEP 3.0, my printer automagically became level 2).
> 
> Of course that magic cost you $295; has Level 2 support been
> worth $295 to you, or is it just a nice extra?
> 
Level 2 support is just a part of what that $295 (actually, $200 if  
we stick with edu prices) bought.  In any case, nobody said magic was  
free.  But compare that to the cost of upgrading YOUR printer to  
level 2.

>> So buying a Mac may seem cheaper (depending on which you buy),
>> but then you'll still have to fork out the money if you
>> want PostScript.
> 
> But if you don't need PostScript you can get a Mac laser
> printer for $700 edu. ....  It can handle most Mac users'
> printing needs (including Type 1 fonts with ATM), and when
> QuickDraw GX ships it'll handle even more tasks.
> 

Absolutely. If you can get by with lower-quality output, then you can  
find cheap ways of getting it.  If you don't need PostScript, you'd  
be silly to pay for it.

But the point remains, if you want PostScript, you have to pay for  
it.  If you're on a Mac platform, that cost is extra to what you've  
already paid; if you're on a NeXT, it is not.  Anybody who figures  
they will or might need PostScript output should take that into  
account when comparing prices.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jason Balicki (KodaK))
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:35:39 GMT

In article <83763@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>C= has done a lot of vaporware for me to belive in the Emplant.  When
>I see it, I will take a [mostly] unbiased look at it.  Until then,
>my Mac will do.

I hope you realise that the Emplant is not a C= product, but is a 3rd party
add-on. (Utilities Unlimited.)

>PS:  Amiga people do have something to brag about, a decently multitasking
>     OS years before anyone else.  But, I will still remain w/ the Mac.

To each his own... :)

>********** ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) **********
>Windows NT:                  * Disclaimer:  I speak for myself *
>                             ***********************************
>You WANT your hard drive trashed now.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PostScript Costs (Was: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT...)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:53:56 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Nov20.194440.9138@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  writes:

>By that reasoning most NeXT owners are silly, since most of them don't  
use
>the features of Postscript that aren't available more cheaply on Macs and
>PCs.


Hmmmmm?  Take a look at Stone Design's Create, a _very_ popular package on  
the NeXT.


>NeXTs use Postscript in order to provide a certain
>least-common-denominator, even if that means making people pay for
>capabilities they don't need.  The argument for this decision is that it
>provides nicer software, an easier life for developers, etc. -- not that
>it saves users money.


Agreed.  But keep in mind that the NeXT *can* cheaply print in Level 2 on  
ImageWriters, DeskJets, and even Epsons.  Even so, the NeXT's laser is a  
nicely priced, small, decent-quality laser printer.  Figuring in the price  
for the laser, the NeXT comes in as a nicely priced desktop publishing  
system.

BTW, Novell's publishing dept. (far and away the biggest in the company,  
I'm sure :-) is exclusively NeXT-based.  I've seen it with my own eyes.   
Pretty cool:  a network of just under 100 or so machines.  They used to  
use FrameMaker and Illustrator, but now Create, Virtuoso and PasteUp are  
threatening to take over.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: PostScript Costs (Was:  EGGPLANT, IMPLANT...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:17:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Stefano Pagiola writes
> Which is why NeXT is able to sell a 400dpi PostScript printer for  
> $1230 (edu) vs $1900 (also edu) for the 300dpi Apple Laserwriter IIf.

Or you could get a LaserWriter NTR, which is about $1500 edu.  For the  
$300 extra you get a RISC processor and more built-in fonts than the NeXT  
printer/OS offers.

> Moreover, since the PostScript is in the OS rather than the printer,  
> upgrading the OS upgrades the printer (ie I actually bought a  
> PostScript level 1 printer, way back when; when i got NeXTSTEP 3.0,  
> my printer automagically became level 2).

Of course that magic cost you $295; has Level 2 support been worth $295 to  
you, or is it just a nice extra?
 
> So buying a Mac may seem cheaper (depending on which you buy), but  
> then you'll still have to fork out the money if you want PostScript.

But if you don't need PostScript you can get a Mac laser printer for $700  
edu.  It's the moral equivalent to the NeXT printer (i.e. just a dumb  
bit-blaster) but at just over half the price.  It can handle most Mac  
users' printing needs (including Type 1 fonts with ATM), and when  
QuickDraw GX ships it'll handle even more tasks.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
From: jbailey@world.std.com (james d bailey)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:04:25 GMT

dtiberio@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

>>	4.  It requires you to illegally software-copy Mac ROMs.

>	It requires you to have Mac roms, in either hardware form or software
>form. BTW, today I made a backup of my Workbench disk. Is CBM gonna come 
>after me? No, they can't, since the law states that once you buy a software
>package for your computer, you have the right to use it on any one computer
>at any time. The same goes with your ROM. If you buy a Mac, you can get a 
>copy of the ROM via software and use it with AMAX or Emplant legally, so long 
>as no two copies run at the same time ie running the original Mac and the
>Emplant at the same time is running from two copies.
>-- 
>      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
>PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
>    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."

Don't you need Mac II ROMs for the Eggplant?  To buy a used Mac II to
get the ROMs will raise the cost a bit won't it?
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2792 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:29646
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:   EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:13:48 GMT
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Nov19.132514.4999@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
>In article <root.02w9@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> External SCSI drives for the Mac have a pc board inside that translates
>> Apple SCSI to real SCSI.
>
>External and internal SCSI drives for the Mac are not different from each 
>other (aside from the fact that the external drive has a case and power 
>supply). There are no PC boards needed to perform a SCSI translation.  
>I've used an off-the-shelf SCSI hard drive (a Seagate Wren VII) on a Mac 
>with no problems.  At most, on some drives, you might need some firmware 
>modifications (i.e., a new ROM).  And you will need a SCSI driver to run 
>on the Mac, although there are quite a few good ones from 3rd parties 
>available these days which work with a very wide variety of SCSI drives (I 
>use FWB's Hard Disk Toolkit).

Yup. I had some mail about this.  I believe that back when the Mac Plus
first came out, the external SCSI drive box had a SCSI to ST506 converter
inside which was connected to a dirt cheap Rodime 20 meg drive.  Later
Apple external drives just have a SCSI drive inside.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Emplant - Why it is not feasible as a workstation
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:57:03 GMT

In article: <bnx1bln@rpi.edu> Frank R. Dana Jr states:

FD> The Emplant is, like the Toaster, not a computer but a peripheral board. The
FD> Emplant is a card for the Amiga 2000 and greater line of computers. It will
FD> allow the Amiga community access to cheap colour MAC emulation right out of 
FD> the package, and the company that produces it has hinted that other forms of
FD> emulation (PC, Quadra, etc...) may follow. This is because the Emplant is not
FD> a dedicated MAC emulator, as A-MAX is, but rather a multiplatform emulation
FD> system controlled by a set of (easily?) replaced custom chips. Emplant will
FD> most likely run well over 90% of all MAC software, since it has access to the
FD> same processor as a "real" MAC. On applications software, most likely what Amiga
FD> users will want it for, that ratio could hit (pure guess...) 97- or 98%!!!

I'm curious.  Will they sell Mac ROMs with the Emplant?  I've seen Mac "clone"
vendors that buy up old Mac Plus' just to get the ROMs legally.  Will
the Emplant use something similar, or will the end user be required to
liberate some ROM chips by him/herself?

[MGM]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Resource fork saves space
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:56:49 GMT

In <1992Nov16.001540.13527@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drivvt) writes:

>In <83560@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>>
>>Here is an interesting factoid.  The Macintosh has, on average,
>>the smallest sized apps for any viable computer platform.
>>
>>Example:
>>WordPerfect  Mac ~4-5meg   Win3:10 MB  UNIX ~10 MB
>>
>>Does the resource fork system have something to do with this?
>>
>	Not specifically.  They tend to be smaller because a huge chunk of
>the user interface code is standardized in ROM and in the system file.
>This is the first part.  The second part, I'm not sure about.  I've written
>a "Hello World"-like program on both machines, on the Mac using the
>default environment provided by Borland Turbo Pascal (80x25 col text wind),
>and the Mac app was _still_ smaller!  Anybody know why, more specifically?

How big is your program?

Just for fun, a few years ago I wrote a "hello world" program for 
Windows.  My intention was to do it with as few lines as possible, not
to save code space. Not counting comment lines, I did it with 18 nicely
formatted lines and 599 bytes of C source code. The resulting executable
is 2688 bytes long, when compiled using Zortech C/C++ and the 3.0 SDK.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: Newton tech (was The future of Apple)
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:19:18 GMT

In article <Cohena-161192121927@l30346.mdc.com> Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:

>I guess I didn't communicate my point correctly.  The PDA is not
>necessarily the input to the commercial devices.....  The PDA is just the
>first attempt at actually using the Newton technologies.  What I'm trying
>to describe is how Apple seems to be moving away from being a desktop
>computer company and moving towards becoming the big OEM to consumer
>electronics devices.... 

That's my point exactly. Apple is moving away from computers and toward
consumer electronics. What happens to people that like Apple computers?
Do we buy VCR's instead?

>I definately agree that taken by itself, a Newton/PDA looks like one heck
>of a gamble....I will also not pay $1K for an item which can be dropped or
>stolen.  I have an HP95 ($350). I would bet that HP doesnt market the 95LX
>because only heavy PC users can really figure out how to use it...  The PDA
>can fail..... on the other hand....  Apple KNOWs how to market
>something....and they more than any other company...(including Sony....look
>at their diskman....yech!) can pull it off.....

Another win for marketing, another loss for innovation. Marketing
is not necessarily a good thing, but it seems to have become Apple's
focus. I liked Apple more as a computer company.

>Think about it..... what better strategy....develop a proprietary set of
>functions that border on AI as a new generation of user input
>capabilities.....  The functions do the programming for the user.... seal
>it in silicon, then sell the chips that make it possible to all the
>consumer electronics producers.....minimal production costs.....only
>profit...only way to go...
>
Yay, gross profiteering at the consumer's price. Apple used to have 
vision. Now they have marketing.

Terry Wilcox
From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:06:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

putzolu@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (David Putzolu) writes:

>How depressing this is. After a nice two week period during which the 
>preemptive v. cooperative thing had finally died and reasonable
>discussion was occurring again. I posted on a NeXT group and got
>reasonable, adult responses. I thought, "hey, maybe computer people
>are mature!"

>And an Amiga person had to ruin it. How typical. It really seems
     ^^^   
>that Amiga users are the brats of the computer world. Or at least
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the above quoted poster is.


_one_ person ruined it, and you tried to generalise everybody?

Come on, it is easy to insult people... let's calm down and _discuss_ OK?

Yours Sincerely,
Kelvin
e-mail: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:30:07 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Nov17.010120.8535@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, dtiberio@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>
>>	4.  It requires you to illegally software-copy Mac ROMs.
> 
> 	It requires you to have Mac roms, in either hardware form or software
> form. 

Fair enough. Now, think about that assertion for a moment.

> The law states that once you buy a software package for your computer, you 
> have the right to use it on any one computer at any time. 

Correct. This falls under the category of copyright fair use laws.

> The same goes with your ROM. 

Correct. Note the extremely important term: "your". That means one that you
own. Not one that you just borrowed for a few days, not one that you used
to own but sold, but one that you currently own. Yours.

> If you buy a Mac, you can get a copy of the ROM via software and use it 
> with AMAX or Emplant legally, so long as no two copies run at the same 
> time ie running the original Mac and the Emplant at the same time is 
> running from two copies.

Correct.

Now, do any of you Amiga types realise what this means?

This means that the only legal way to use an Emplant to emulate a Mac is
TO BUY A MAC IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Funny, in all this endless discussion of how much it costs to put together
a Mac-emulating Amiga platform w/ Emplant, I have yet to see anyone include
the cost of the Macintosh required to license the ROMs.

Once you include that cost, I'm sure you'll find that the existing Mac
price is much more favorable.

Any other practice would be considered theft. So, which is cheaper? To buy
a Mac or to steal one?

-- 
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: colins@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Colin)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:16:26 GMT

In article <83763@ut-emx.uucp> ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>[Stuff about cheap Amiga "workstation" deleted]
>
>Processor card extra $4000.
>I think Amigas are nicr machines, [and I cannot type ], but until I
>see a decent network card and connectivity, I will remain skeptical.

  Ethernet isn't good enough for you?

>C= has done a lot of vaporware for me to belive in the Emplant.  When

  Commodore doesn't make the "emplant" card. A 3rd party company called
Utilities Unlimited makes it.  

>I see it, I will take a [mostly] unbiased look at it.  Until then,
>my Mac will do.
>
>PS:  Amiga people do have something to brag about, a decently multitasking
>     OS years before anyone else.  But, I will still remain w/ the Mac.

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