HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:49:24 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <Bw4D46.Bv4@rice.edu>, jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) wrote:
> 
> In article <strobl.719016228@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> >
> >ISO == IBM Standard Organization. Didn't you know?
> >
> 
> Um, I'm fairly sure your completely wrong here.

You're right; he's wrong (but I think that he was joking).  It is
International Standards Organization.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: More silliness about completion (was Re: More Defense of CLI  (there, I changed the subject ... ))
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<6193.2ad9c266@hayes.com> <1992Oct13.013543.13749@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:09:24 GMT

Marc> == Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>

 Marc> Well, the "waiting for response" thing is silly, since it's
 Marc> typically instantaneous.  It's much faster than the delay a Mac
 Marc> gives you after you pull down the cute menu and select "Open" and
 Marc> it takes a while to draw a nice window and put some spiffy
 Marc> buttons and an adorable scrolling window with the files in it.

Hm?  You can type ahead in the SFGetFile box, you know.  I've been known
to type ahead (using the completion feature, mind you) fast enough that
only the outline gets drawn.

If you know the filename, you're just as fast as with a completing
shell.  If you don't, you're faster, because you've got a list.
--
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: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:58:18 GMT

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.

--
Steve Kanefsky
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jazz@netcom.com (David C. Navas)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:11:46 GMT

In article <6171.2ad5a59b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>No, it isn't that preemptive tasking helps, it is just that there are many
>more examples of passable preemptive tasking systems than non-preemptive 
>ones.

Giggle.  Oh, you have to love this one.  :)
I disagree with you Bill.  Preemptive multitasking helps because it takes
the burden from the programmer's shoulder and puts it on the system's.
This is an evolution (as anyone from Taligent is likely to point out) of
system design.  The Mac took many of the burdens from the user and placed
them on the programmer.  Preemptive multitasking (and MANY other things)
takes the burden off of the programmer and places it on the system.

>I disagree. I don't see how it [multi-threading] makes this [multiple
>documents] any easier.

It allows you an easy way of eliminating modality.  This is not the only
tool that allows you this, though.

>Indeed, based on my experience, I can see how it would actually make things
>more complicated. When you unleash concurrancy in an application, you have
>to fight to keep your common data structures protected. If your junior

Your junior programmer should be developing in a concurrent-aware programming
language, then....

Or at the very least, you should have an OO setup where your common structures
have method-access that has already been written with concurrency in mind.

Either way, you're constraining your views on the subject by constraining
the tools you have available to work with.

>programmer misses just ONE of those spots -- WHAMMO -- you've got a nasty
>bug that may take you weeks to fix.

Yes, that -is- true.  That's true of -any- memory trashing bug, of which
non-semaphored access to shared structures is just one example.

>I'll keep as much multithreading out of my applications as I can. Thank you.

To each his own.

>OK. Just don't say I didn't warn you....

Bill, I have no problem writing this type of app, and I'd hardly call myself
any kind of programming guru.

-- 
David Navas                                   	jazz@netcom.com
Co-author of: Web Data Acq. and Anal.		dnavas@oracle.com
Upcoming products: Shadow V, Jazzbench 2.0.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Why a mac over a PC?
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:45:28 GMT

MuffinHead writes
> 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.

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. 

Of all the systems I've worked on, the NeXT has the closest  
equivalence between screen and printed output, thanks to using  
display postscript for the screen.  

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:56:28 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.718933838@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> In <6182.2ad988cb@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>But, for USERS (eg not developers), there's little benefit. The USERs apps
>>shouldn't crash. Period.
> 
> This is a very shortsightened reasoning. The users applications SHOULD
> crash, IMHO, as long as they are buggy. 

No, yours is the reasoning that is shortsighted. User's shouldn't be given
buggy applications at all. 

> Memory protection in the end users system gives developers a strong 
> incentive not to release buggy applications. 

Not at all. Applications can be buggy and still not cause memory protection
violations. Having memory protection in the users systems doesn't improve
application quality one whit.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:10:55 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <FISCHER.92Oct6031152@steiner.iesd.auc.dk>, fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
> If IBM sucks, how come Apple is going to use their chips and is
> developing their new OS with 'em? Does this mean that 3 years from
> now, "Apple suck" will be true?

* Apple isn't using IBM's chips. They are using Motorolas chips. Motorola is
  basing their chips on IBM's architecture. In actuality, the PowerPC
  is a simplified version of the RISC 6000 architecture. And tons faster.

As for IBM and Apple, IBM has obviously seen the error of their way, and has
teamed up with Apple in an effort not to, er, "suck" so much.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:40:50 GMT
 <15Dk0295264o01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <ewright.719167466@convex.convex.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <ewright.719167466@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
Wright) says:
>
[stuff about UI research deleted]
[stuff about how often Windows and Mac Apps crash deleted]

>Now, notice how many PC users have argued that it's better
>to have memory protection than bug-free programs that don't
>crash.  Isn't that a strange position?  Why would anyone argue
>*against* the idea that programs shouldn't have bugs?  Unless
>they think it can't be done.  Now, where would Windows users
>get that idea...?
                                                                            Are
you really that stupid or do you just try to convince us that you are ?
No one says that buggier programs are better 'cause try trigger that cute
memory-protection-error-box more often.

Perhaps you tell us what companies make those bug-free apps you use. Most of
the Mac apps I use have bugs and some of them do crash the system. And since
the biggest market share in apps for the Mac is held by a well know company
that is in the buisiness of building operating systems for a popular micro-
processor things are not much better for the Mac than for the PC.

At least their latest word processor has the same bugs in the Windows and in
the Mac version.

Michael Bode.
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:45:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


  The best answer if you want a CLI on your Mac is A/UX.  You like
Mac stuff?  Run it.  You like UNIX's command line "interface"?,
OK, just pop up the term window, and you're off.

If you don't like A/UX, there are other CLI apps availiable for
the Mac.

However, because of Apple and its developers, a CLI is not needed in
the Mac environment.

Command pipes?  This app that I am working on will help a lot if
you miss command pipes.  Drag your file in, hold down the option
key, click on what you want to do with the file, and it does the
rest.  The reason this is possible is because Apple has made a way
 to communicate between apps that is standard, and required to be wired in
for System VII friendliness.  If I want Mo's Studio to read one of my
FUBAR files, I send an "odoc" event to it, and it pops up and starts running,
opening the file and waiting for the user to do whatever with it.

I have never seen a form of IAC this simple and reasonable.  On ANY platform,
except for the NeXT and its objects.

-- 
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
             (Insert standard disclaimer here)

   Ross Perot:  Politician "for the rest of us" or Ferengi?  The
ears know...
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 21:32:24 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 <strobl.718589224@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>I for my part do not intend to adapt my personal preferences to
>any kind of Interface Guidlines, Human or not. I have my
>own tastes and opinions, indeed, and I have my own sense
>of aesthetics. 

I see.  Your own sense of aesthetics says that every program
should use a different menu item to do the same thing. And
that the keyboard equivalents for those items that do happen
to be the same should vary from program to program.  And that
command key equivalents should take several keystrokes instead
of just one, often using the function keys or other keys that
are hard for a touch typist to reach.  Well, you're perfectly
welcome to do so.  Nobody told you not to buy Windows.

Of course, it will take you much longer to do simple tasks
than it would if you'd bought a Mac.  But, that's okay.
"Aesthetics" are all PC users care about, right?    


>I seldom managed to get more than one program to run
>on a Macintosh, without crashing the system. 

Maybe you should find a Mac that's been upgraded to Multifinder. :-)


>On Windows, I can open more programs than I have memory for.

Oh, wow!  Windows not only allows you to play sound files without
sound hardware, it allows you to open more programs than will fit
in logical memory!

Oh, you forgot to mention that Windows allows you to connect
to Ethernet without having an Ethernet connection.  And gives you
24-bit color on a monochrome monitor.  :-) 

>Crashes are the result of good memory protection. Don't blame the messenger.
No, crashes are the result of bad software.  Blame the programmer.

>>The real solution to program crashes is not memory protection.
>No. Program crashes are the result of memory protection.

Well, I guess that's a cultural difference that separates the
Mac world from the PC world.  We like software to run; you like
software to crash.

>>It's for programmers to write applications that don't crash.
>Exactly

So?  Why don't you demand that PC developers write programs
that crash as infrequently as those on the Mac?
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:27:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct10.074444.11187@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
> In article <6168.2ad58dbb@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.210041.19546@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>>> In article <BvIGCM.Ixs@rice.edu> jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Whoopee.  Accelerate that creaking 1986 technology.  Love that 24-bit
>>>>addressing, no Color QuickDraw, max 4MB of RAM, no sound chip machine.
>>>>Emulating a Mac Plus is about as interesting as building a 286-based
>>>>PC clone.
>>> 
>>The Mac Plus was discontinued almost two years ago. (Exactly so in a few
>>days) Yet, the Amigoid in the original posting claimed his emulator was
>>faster than a IIci. 
> 
>>Jim was correctly pointing out that this wasn't true, that the Amiga didn't
>>do what a IIci does.
> 
> Our IBM PVS on certain tasks is faster than our Cray Y/MP. 

Except no one claimed that the IBM PVC emulates a Cray Y/MP faster than a
Cray Y/MP.

> Anyway the discussion on this topic is pointless anymore as the emulation
> on Amiga allows to emulate Mac II series now. At the speed of Quadra.
> (if one has A4000).

And Illegal copies of Mac II ROMs, no doubt.

>>So, get her a color Mac and set in to b/w mode.
> 
> It must be me who writes so complex sentences that the point
> isn't obvious and someone must repeat it himself to get a clue.

Yup, it's you.

>>Since the Mac LC (and II) has been the hottest-selling Mac for over a year,
>>the number of color Macs appears to be significantly higher than the total
>>number of Amigas.
> 
> I would call "significantly" an overstatement.

Ok, drop significantly. 

>>Indeed, the color Mac sales for the past year probably exceeds the total
>>Amiga installed base.
> 
> Do you suggest that Apple sold over 3.7 million color Macs?

I dunno. I'll wait for my shareholders report.

-- 
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: paul@svl.cdc.com (Paul Kohlmiller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: trepidations of a longtime Mac user
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:15:32 GMT

Allow my 2 cents worth.
I am a longtime MacUser and I have accepted a certain level of crashes.
Part of this is because I am writing code and I'm the crasher. Granted
these same kind of crashes would not bring down a mainframe or Unix server
but a personal machine is just going to get more personal.
Another point that was made a few times had to do with INITs. There just
aren't any machines that allow such a full assault on the O.S. as the Mac
does. Some of these inits were upgraded for Sys7 but only up to a point.
In particular;
Suitcase II 1.2.11 crashes with regularity when closing a suitcase.
AutoMenus crashes a lot of programs when my son is using it (caused by
wildly moving the mouse around).

As to losing files, I don't think I know of anyone losing files for
non-hardware reasons prior to SYs7. Very strange.
 
--
     // Paul H. Kohlmiller             //  "Cybers, Macs and Mips"    //
     // Control Data Systems, Inc.    // Internet: paul@svl.cdc.com  //
     // Acronym under construction.  // America Online: Paul CDC    //
     // All comments are strictly my own. I won't lie but my       //
     // perception of reality is at best a personal hunch.        //
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: eherrera@lascar.puc.cl (Eduardo Herrera IIC)
Subject: 19-10-92 ?
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:44:27 GMT


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dblackbu@alleg.edu (Dave Blackburn)
Subject: IBM user's problem (was Re: trepidations of a longtime Mac user)
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:30:10 GMT

In article <Bvu4rC.J7K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jhhardy@silver.ucs.indiana.edu  
(J. Hardy) writes:
|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.  

Well, when you fold over those 5 1/4 inch disks to get them into the Mac  
drive, are you putting too much of a crease in them?  ;-)
--

* Dave Blackburn  dblackbu@alleg.edu  flames to self@home.dev.null *          
* Chemistry, Macs, Hypercard, cats,  <>< religion, & the Dead      *
* (Anyone else who held these opinions would be as crazy as I am.) *
*   "Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own"   *
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:31:19 GMT

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1992Oct10.100046.17536@netcom.com> jazz@netcom.com (David C. Navas) writes:

>>Why would I do that?
>>In reality, a good program makes the GUI-half of its code run at a higher
>>priority than whatever cycle-soaking CPU-half of it does.  

>Exactly.  The program is cooperating with the OS by changing its
>own priority on the fly.  This is *cooperative* multitasking.

[ ... ]

>"Cooperative multitasking" is distinguished from "preemptive multitasking,"
>in which the system comes along and hits the program over the head with a
>hammer whenever the OS figures it's time, with or without the program's
>cooperation.  This is not the case here.  The programmer must cooperate
>by not calling Forbid(), or by calling Permit() again after each call
>to Forbid(), and by cranking his program's priority up only when he
>really needs to.  This sounds like it's more flexible in the options
>it gives the programmer, but it's still cooperative.

This is becoming duckspeak.  Edward seems capable of distinguishing
between ``cooperative'' and ``preemptive'' multitasking , yet continues
to assert that:

  1. Programs cooperating with the OS implies a cooperative
  multitasking OS (ref paragraph at the beginning of article).

  2. Programmers cooperating with the OS implies a cooperative
  multitasking OS (ref paragraph starting with "Cooperative....")

Whether or not an OS has cooperative or preemptive multitasking has
nothing at all to do with whether programs or programmers cooperate
with the OS.  Amiga program rarely have any need to block the OS, thus
the Amiga allows preemptive multitasking almost all the time.

Regards,

---
Soh Kam Hung, Network Management Research,     | h.soh@trl.oz.au  
TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia | +61 3 253 6638
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ma3602@eehp14 (Michael J Alford)
Subject: Re: clock speed & MIPS Motorola<->Intel?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:47:57 GMT

Ingram laboratories determined a few years ago:
A Mac IIci is faster than a 486/25MHz running Windows 3.0.
A Mac IIci also beats it in price/performance ratio if you buy from Compaq or
IBM.  Then again, who buys their PC from IBM?


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy