HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!Read/New/Followup
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:12:36 GMT

I would like to add yet another advantage specific to CLIs, which
I haven't seen discussed here.

CLIs not only allow you to see where you are, but how you got
there, in addition. You see a trace of your commands and what 
the systems reaction was. I don't know any GUIs which offer 
a similar capability. If you change something, it's changed,
as if it had always been so. The display of the actual state
of the system is great - this compensates for much of the
above problem, but the display of the state change is lousy,
at best.

When cleaning up my disks, I often use a mixture of GUI 
and CLI, which works on both systems I'm currently using 
(a PC with Windows and an Indigo). I start the file manager
(Workspace on the Indigo), open directory windows for all the
source and destination directories I intend to work with. For
simple operations, I use drag&drop, but if it's is becoming
tedious or difficult, I start a CLI window and work from there,
by typing complicated commands, short scripts and the like.

Doing it that way, I can watch the progress of my work in both the
CLI window *and* in the directory windows of the GUI.

Fortunately, both systems are able to track changes in the
file system made in the CLI window, immediately.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 03:44:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom 

In article <CKD.92Sep28203551@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> Natuerlich!> P.S.  Stuff a GUI can't do 
>
> Natuerlich!> Command history                        (mouse macros don't count)
>
>Why "can't" it do this?  Look at some of the programs with an "again" or
>"undo/redo" like Canvas or Nisus sometime.
>

Canvas and Nisus are 'programs' not GUIs.  The point is that the OS
should be able to do this to avoid repition.  If a particular program
implements a history or an undo feature that's nice but it's not the
OS that's doing it.

Roger (marquis@netcom.com)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Trepidations of a potential mac-user
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:07:03 GMT

In article <D2150025.pbqw1l@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep30.185125.18010@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
|> > 
|> > When was this?  1978?  The Apple Lisa was preemptively multi-tasking in
|>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
|> 
|> Apple Lisa PREEMPTIVELY MULTITASKING?  BULLSHIT!!!!! 

It certainly did some sort of multitasking, from the screen
shots Ive seen.

|> > 
|> > Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
|> >                          or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
|> 
|> Read inside mac volume I. 

I have, but I didnt see anything about this. Couldya give us
a page #, or a chapter at least?

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

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chooser
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 5 Oct 1992 05:07:17 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Oct5.043307.24285@netcom.com>, leonardr@netcom.com (Leonard
Rosenthol) wrote:

> 	The problem with doing it in Page Setup is that the current print
> architecture does NOT lend itself to swapping printers in the middle of 
> a print operation (like Page Setup).  Doing it on the Print item is possible -
> or you could just use easyPrint (or DTPrinter) and a hierAppleMenu INIT to
> put a printer list in your AppleMenu.
> 
> 	The "New Print Architecture", which is part of QuickDraw GX provides
> a much clenaer way to print - the chooser is history!!  You can even change
> the destination of a document AFTER it has been "imaged".
> 

How will this change be reflected in the Human Interface Guidelines?

---
 The Evil Tofu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:24:38 GMT

mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:

>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Why Wait?  You seem to forget that the real reason to get a computer
>isn't for Preemptive multitasking, or system level scripting.  Sure
>these are nice features to have, but you need to have a large
>sofware base that supports the things you want a computer to do.
>just don't WANT TO WAIT for the NeXT application market to 
>improve.
>[MGM]
The "real reason"?  Says who?  You?  Do you think that applys to
everyone who might buy a computer?  Take off your blinders.
-Terry


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 03:39:51 GMT

In article <fbqzydg@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
> Why? C'mon, don't just assert. We're Macheads, we won't believe you! :)

How many times do I have to list the same points?

> |> If you had the Windows GUI on top of (say) OS/9 (a 6809/68000 O/S that showed
> |> up in the early '80s, and is currently used for CDI) It would blow the Mac out
> |> of the water in every category.

> Why? Do you mean current Macs? Or something like a System 7 Mac Plus?

Current Macs. Say, an SE/30. That's the last modern Mac I spent much time
with, and it was pretty painful to set things up the way my client wanted.

> |> > Furthermore, it isn't a standard shortcut for Windows.

> |> If it was a menu item in any application, it would have a shortcut
> |> automatically.

> Yeah, but its not STANDARD. Why should you care?

Because *I* might be using it all the time.

> because if the same
> command has DIFFERENT shortcuts in different apps, you will get
> them confused. (or I will, at least. I do.)

Not, you won't. Because the shortcut is always sitting there in front of
you.

> |> That's because you're looking at too much of the system (applications, for
> |> example, and design guidelines) and calling them part of the GUI.

> Unless you are just takling theory, you can't separate them.

I am. I don't like Microsoft, and I certainly wouldn't recommend Windows
to anyone except as a joke, or as an alternative to DOS 5 shell.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
From: patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:55:35 GMT

In <4enIed200WBKI_SDhi@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:

>First, I should say I am an avid user of OS/2 2.0.  With that said, I
>should also say that I like the floating menus of the NeXT and Mac. 
>However, I haven't seen any reason why the windowed menus of Windows,
>Motif, X, OS/2, Openlook, Solaris, etc should slow you down.  It's never
>slowed me down.  I don't find accuracy to be a problem at all.

Exactly. If you just think about it for awhile, you'll realize
that it absolutely must slow you down. Your perceptions are 
different. You guys need to start talking about what is, not 
about what you think is.

>Carl Jabido
>cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
>carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu

Pat Breitenbach		patb@mcl.ucsb.edu
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:19:42 GMT
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA

In article <1992Oct5.140712.997@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
>
>At any rate, I don't think that an effective argument can be made for  
>*prefering* cooperative multitasking over preemptive multitasking for  
>everything but very unusual tasks, simply because cooperative multitasking  
>has a BIG BAD side-effect:  because it allows programs to grab 100% of the  
>time-slices, programs can grab 100%.  The other nasty is that programs  
>have to be written to multitask efficiently, yet another problem a  
>programmer has to face in addition to the multitude of stuff the Mac GUI  
>already imposes in terms of program-making-toughness.

I use both kinds of multitasking (Macs and Unix), and don't much
prefer either over the other, so I won't argue about that.

However, while I would be the last to claim that the Mac GUI is easy
to program, the multitasking is trivial.  You put one system call into
your event loop.  Most programs spend almost all their time in the
event loop anyway.  If you're doing something compute-intensive, you
might also want to drop the same call into some reasonably-chosen
place in your main computing loop.  (If you want to support desk
accessories as well, that's admittedly a half dozen lines of code, but
it's totally routine.)

And yes, certainly an unfriendly program can grab 100% of the CPU
time.  That's what the trash can is there for.

  --dave
-- 

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI RIDICULOUSNESS!!!!Read/New/Followup
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.002722.5160@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:
>1. Wildcard Operators: * ? []
>2. Pipelining: |
>3. Batch operations:

I can add one of our uses:

4. Multicomputer synchronization.

With the use of shell scripts we organize multiple machines on the network
with the synchronization rules. Some operations on a file cannot be done
before some other files are ready. Multiple machines can work on the
image processing, rendering and coalescing animations at the same time.

I am in the process of writing a GUI app (based on Motif) to organize 
tasks like that, but the complexity of tying up and synchronizing up a network
of processes/machines with GUI is much higher than writing a few simple
shell scripts.

Dariusz Bolski
-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:05:42 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS! (and AutoCAD too)
	<1992Sep28.015731.10376@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>

jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
> AutoCAD is not a CAD package that I would hold up as a shining example on
> any platform, much less DOS.
> 
> AutoCAD for DOS virtually requires the extra expenditure of a large
> customized
> digitizing tablet with frequently used commands on it.  This may be fine and
> dandy for dedicated CAD stations that are used 8 hours a day for CAD, but it
> is ridiculous otherwise.  Floating, on-screen pallettes are the norm on most
> other CAD packages, in addition to support for digitizing tablets.  AutoCAD
> for DOS requires that NUMEROUS commands be TYPED in to get ANYTHING done.
> This is stone age material.  You could always write an AutoLISP macro, but 
> this takes extra time that should be used actually accomplishing things.

from what i have heard, read, and seen pictures of, AutoCAD release 12
fixes these problems, giving the program a real user interface.  It's
also supposed to handle a lot of what you mention below:

> I would agree that AutoCAD is a powerful package.  It is also, very 
> inefficient for small 2D jobs.  Also, it is not nearly as powerful or
> innovative as other CAD packages.  AutoCAD simply happens to be the
> ubiquitous standard.  Other packages include intelligent cursors that
> obviate the need for entering snaps most of the time.  Others include
> geometric tolerancing symbols which are NOT included with AutoCAD.  Others
> include built in full database links to all parts used in a drawing.  You 
> can get this for AutoCAD by paying an arm and a leg.  There are other
> examples of things that AutoCAD is behind in, but I only have so much time
> to type this.

As for the bit about being crappy but a standard, that's like saying
there's no need for Microsoft Word because it blows.  I hate Word,
because it has an incompatible interface and crashes constantly, but I
have to use it because everybody does.  What do I use when I type
something on my own?  Nisus.  But when I have to give this to someone
else I save it in Word format.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Distribution: world
From: asjk@ultramac.uucp (John Knefel)
Organization: Odyssey Ultraware, Inc
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 13:40:10 CDT
Subject: IBM/Motorola Chip

Fuel to the fires!

From the WSJ, today's date (above)

    International Business Machines Corp. and Motorola Inc. said they
produced
a prototype of their next-generation microprocessor, the first fruit of
their
far-reaching pact last year with Apple Computer, Inc.
    The new IBM-Motorola chip is still being tested and won't show up as teh
"brain" of IBM computers until late next year, when it is due to replace
the
microprocessor in Big Blue's low-end workstation computers.
    The chip, dubbed the PowerPC 601, is then scheduled to appear in Apple's
Macintosh line of computers in 1994; it will also from the heart of
Machines...
    Yesterday's announcement that IBM and Motorola had achieved "first
silicon" ...came right on schedule.
    ...The progress report was seen as a sign that the IBM-Motorola part of
the alliance, at least, is going unusually well.
    While it hasn't been fully tested yet, the new PowerPc chip
apparently
will be n the same performance class as leading-edge microprocessors
such as
the P5 chip expected from Intel Corp. next year...
    ...The PowerPC uses reduced-instruction-set computing...
    The IBM-Motorola chip is considerably smaller than its RISC
competitors
however, and uses less electricity. The companies said this would make
it more
suitable for small computers such as Apple's Macintosh and possibly even
note-book sized computers and automobile applications.
    ...future versions of the chop are being designed now by a team of 300
engineers working in a new IBM-Motorola facility in Austin Texas.

WhatdoUthink?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 22:17:51 GMT

David Vandeven writes
>>> OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to 
>>> workable GUIs. 

>> NeXT has all these features and an _excellent_ GUI.

> I know, but it doesn't run mac software... (Althought NeXTstep
> is one of the best OS's I've ever seen.) I used to go to
> he bookstore at SDSU and play with the color NeXTcube..
> It's a workable alternative, but I already have too much
> money invested.

You'll be glad to know that now you can have your cake and eat it  
too.  Executor is a mac emulator that runs under NeXTSTEP; it is not  
yet perfect, as discussion in this group over the last few days has  
shown, but it already works quite well and is improving fast.  Now  
you wouldn't want to run all your apps this way, but the availability  
of this emulator lets you (1) shift gradually to the NeXT while  
retaining mac compatibility, and (2) run any apps that have no NeXT  
equivalent.  Also note that the newest release of the NeXT OS has  
built-in Appletalk client software and allows the floppy to  
read/write mac floppies (HD only, though). So compatibility shouldn't  
be too much of an issue.  Of course, like all emulators, you'll want  
to make sure that the apps you _have_ to run will work adequately  
under it before you take the plunge.
You can get more information on Executor from questions@ardi.com.

Standard disclaimers.


--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 19:29:32 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

I want to respond to one point made in this discussion.

strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> ...is a 
> bug (a short-sighted design) sold as a feature. Same for the
> single menu bar at the top of the screen. 

and johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) responds:
> ...I agree the single menu bar isn't
> a good idea on a multitasking system; too confusing. But it's
> too late now.

A single menu bar at the top of the screen has one big advantage: it provides
a target of "infinite vertical height" for the mouse pointer.  When you move
the mouse to the menu bar, you don't have to worry about vertical placement, 
you just slam the pointer against the top of the screen.  This makes
menu selection quicker, since you only have to worry about horizontal 
positioning.  Menu bars inside windows provide a much smaller target, and
so the target is harder to hit, slowing you down.

Besides, you can only interact with one application at a time, so why is
it so bad for a multi-tasking OS to show only the menus for the active
application?  I am fairly certain that the NeXT does this, (even though 
it doesn't use a menu bar), and the NeXT was certainly designed for
multitasking.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
 Opinions are my own, not those of Harris Corp.
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 12:58:18 PDT
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
Reply-To: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5

 In article <1992Sep29.232021.3338@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

> > OS/2 and Windows NT have these features in addition to > > workable
GUIs. >  > NeXT has all these features and an _excellent_ GUI. >  > -- > -
> Stefano Pagiola > Food Research Institute, Stanford University >
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)

I know, but it doesn't run mac software...  (Althought NeXTstep is one of
the best OS's I've ever seen.) I used to go to the bookstore at SDSU and
play with the color NeXTcube..  It's a workable alternative, but I already
have too much money invested.


 David Vandeven    ********************************************************
Systems Progammer  *   "I don't believe in Pinochle, I don't believe I'll *
    Deadhead       * try: I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the    *
    Cyberpunk      * Frizzle Fry!"  (dvan@spumco.cts.com)      *PRIMUS!*  *
Zen Agnostic Guru  ********************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:20:15 GMT

feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.173813.14662@leland.Stanford.EDU>  writes:
>>Edward V. Wright writes
>>> ... The NeXT is a nice machine,
>>> but way above most people's budgets.  If NeXT came out with
>>> an entry- level machine -- something comparable in price and
>>> performance to a Mac IIsi -- I would buy one.  But until that
>>> time, I probably wouldn't buy a NeXT even if I could afford it,
>>> because until that entry-level machine is introduced, NeXT
>>> software development is never going to take off.
>>>
>>
>>I basically agree that a NeXT is above most people's budgets; but the
>>power it offers is likewise above most people's needs.  For those who
>>need the power that a machine in the 486 or Quadra range offers, I
>>think the NeXT is an excellent choice, with very good
>>price/performance. 


>Agreed.  You get what you pay for.  The NeXT is an excellent choice over a  
>high-end 486 or Quadra, and even a serious contender for, say, a IIci.   
>But if you're doing word processing, buy a Classic.  Heck, the NeXT  
>doesn't even have a decent word processor (sorry Cliff :).

>Doesn't anyone in this group remember purchasing an early Mac?  It was  
>that I'm-out-on-a-limb-because-I-believe-in-this-machine feeling.  You  
>bought the Mac because it was better than the PC, and you couldn't care  
>less if Apple croaked the next day:  you had a *cool* computer (and I did,  
>and still do).

>Well, about a year ago that was how it was with the NeXT.  NeXT customers  
>were out on a limb.  But now NeXT's software base is moving towards that  
>magic 1000.  Still far below the Mac's, but significantly higher than,  
>say, software _for_ the Quadra.  It's user base is expanding, and will  
>expand even faster with the introduction of NeXTSTEP/486.  I hardly think  
>the NeXT will ever take over the Mac in sales.  But it has and will  
>continue to change the industry.  An OOP GUI.  Pre-emptive multitasking  
>for low-end use.  Display PostScript (ATM).  Numerous software development  
>advances.  The OD.  Even...3-D interface buttons.  It was the NeXT that  
>put these things, and a lot more, in the limelight.

>I'm a CS major, so perhaps I'm biased, but I think a machine that inspires  
>and changes the industry is far more important than a machine that  
>dominates the industry.  Apple continues to influence--no doubt about  
>that--but Apple's no longer alone in this arena.

I'm a college student about to buy a computer, and I'd love to buy a NeXT,
but frankly, I think they're just too expensive.  Sure, they may be a
better deal than the approx $3000 Mac I'm about to get, but with Macs you
can get color with a machine as low-end as the LC.  With the NeXT, you
have to find the money for a NeXT Station Color, which may be a really
nice system, but it's also really expensive.  At least on the Mac, you
don't need to buy a Quadra to have color.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Mac
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:07:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.celZfi200VRBQ=B5NR
	<1686FF389.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:
> command-option-escape in sys7...

the difference being that when an application crashes on sys7 it is
likely to hang the entire system, so command-option-escape is only of
use if it locks up internally, whereas on os/2 if the application goes
down bad the os will probably block it before it vomits all over the
place, and if it crashes but doens't die or get killed off by the os
you can still use a key combination to kill it.
From: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:20:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.jjkzzb+
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

[deletia- very long but generic opinion on GUI/CLI war :) ]

>Then again, from the amount of time this agrument has been going on, it's
>clear your all just arguing for the sake of it.....

But of course. That goes without saying. Otherwise, why would we
bother arguing at all? We just go do our own thing. :)

-- 
			- 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.