HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:43:21 GMT

In article <Bz2Au7.9r0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>
>> This is the problem with Mac.  It has FUNDAMENTAL problems in its design.
>> Sure, you can multitask, but you have to go out and buy all new software
>> written to do so.  Sure you can do many things with Mac, but every time
>> there is a change for the better in the OS, you have to rewrite the software
>> to take advantage of it, and that means users are forced to spend $$.
>
>No, this isn't true.  Software doesn't have to be rewritten to take
>advantage of many new features.  I get System 5.0 just after it came
>out, and the majority of my existing software multitasked just fine, 
>including public domain stuff written for the 128k Mac.  Because the
>OS code is seperate from the application code, most OS changes don't
>require new software.
>

Wow. You mean the getNextEvent's changed to waitNextEvent's when you upgraded
to System 5.0?

I thought that Multifinder compatible meant using waitNextEvent instead of
getNextEvent, but now I find out that that isn't so. Are you sure you don't
mean your old apps could run under Multifinder and could be moved to the
background? This isn't multitasking.

>
>The NeXT is better at this than the mac, but I was under the impression that
>NeXTSTEP 3.0 broke a good deal of old software.
>

It didn't break any of my software. It made some of it better without the need
for an upgrade.

>One thing annoys me, however, about NeXT's.  Everything is distributed in
>executable form, like a personal computer.  One of the things I like about
>running a UNIX system is having source code available for nearly everything,
>and I miss this on a NeXT.

Depends on the software. Most PD/shareware type software includes source (if
you look around). Some commercial software includes source. Most commercial 
software shouldn't include source. Piracy is bad enough, these companies
shouldn't have to worry about their source code being reused.

Unix software is almost always distributed in source form since everybody
runs a different version of Unix. If they compile it, you have to order
X version, compatible with Y and Z hardware. 

Terry Wilcox



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (JohnC)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Reply-To: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:06:48 GMT

In article <BzDIp5.2JH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>GetNextEvent() is patched under multitasking systems.  It yields processor
>time nearly as efficiently as WaitNextEvent() does, and applications using
>GNE can still get background time.  The only difference is WNE takes extra 
>arguments so the foreground application can request foreground time be given 
>less frequently than normally.  GNE even did primitive multitasking before 
>System 5.0 -- DA's received processor time when an application window was 
>in the foreground.

Almost correct, except for the bit about ancient times.  Before System 6
(not 5) applications needed to explicitly call the _SystemTask routine in
order to give background time to device drivers. (Yes, DAs are device
drivers).  From System 6 onward both GNE and WNE were modified to handle
driver-time internally.  (OK, quibble: under system 5 the modifications were
present when Multifinder was turned on, but not otherwise -- with System 6
they became available under all circumstances).


-- 
John Cavallino                  |  EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Hospitals |         John_Cavallino@uchfm.bsd.uchicago.edu
Office of Facilities Management | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 0953
B0 f++ c+ g++ k s++ e+ h- pv    |         Chicago, IL  60637
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info (added Info)
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:31:10 GMT

Sorry jbailey@world.std.com (jim bailey) I goofed in my post
Mac Color was Re: Mac & IBM Info (added Info) the
credit sould be for Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>It's software.  It's in the os. [talking about 32-bit quickdraw]           
>Why not say "All macs support 24 bit                                      
>colour images" and instead say "Mac os includes '32 bit color
>quickdraw' which lets software which makes standard os graphics calls
>display in whatever bit depth it wants, with the os dithering if       
>necessary."  and then go on to explain the actual hardware issue from
>the hardware standpoint?
If anybody had bothered to read the newest posting of Mac & IBM Info 
(Version .90) you would know that 32-bit quickdraw is in the OS
for the old 8-bit color machines (SE/30, II, IIX, and IIcx) ONLY        
and in the ROM on "All present Macs except the Classic and Powerbook 100"      
                                                      
Last time I checked ROM chips were part of HARDWARE and not considered
part of the OS.  So, there are not graphics calls to the OS but to the
ROM. {BIG difference}  By having 32-bit quickdraw in ROM apple will have
three OS runing on their machines (System 7.0, AU/X 3.0, PowerOpen(AU/x 4.0))
WITHOUT having each OS containing the 32-bit quickdraw commands.

Also the reference for those people who STILL think I do not know what
I am talking about is MacUser Special 1993 page 28-29

The key word in all postings was SUPPORT not display.  Try this, take a
32-bit picture and edit on it on a present mac that displays only 8-bit color
now save it.  32-bit QuickDraw in ROM (or OS on the old macs) allows that
picture to still be 32-bit bespite the monitor can only show 8-bit.
NOW, do the  same on an IBM.  How well it works is directly dependent on
what color commands are stanardized between the monitor interfaces in the
ROM or OS.  {THIS is what I ment by support.}

Here is the info from Mac & IBM Info-Version 1.0 (Out in Jan 1993)
...32-bit color QuickDraw allows an almost transparent capability to display 
and edit X-bit images in Y-bit color (Where X and Y are 1, 2, 4, 8, or 32 in 
any combination) reguardless of monitor resolution {63 dpi (12" color) to 
80 dpi (full page grey)}.  This means that even though you can use only 256 
or 32,768 of the colors at a time, all 16,777,216 colors are still avalible 
and are simulated at lower resolutions by dithering. (This is the reason 
for CLUTS, so the program knows which set of colors to use with a picture 
and what 32-bit colors the dithers really are.) 

More evidence of the need for my list.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 02:52:51 GMT

>BS. The only way to emulate the more advanced functionality of a multi-button
>mouse is with extra keyboard modifiers. It is rather well-known that
>when you shift from mouse to keyboard, or vice-versa, it is very time
>consuming. When ever possible, you should make the UI capable of doing
>operations with either interface (mouse/keyboard). Forcing a shift between
>the two is poor UI.

The only time when shifting from mouse to keyboard takes extra time
is when the user is forced to move one hand from the mouse to the
keyboard (or vice versa).  I have numerous programs that are easiest
to use with one hand on the keyboard and the other on the mouse.  The
hand on the keyboard hits modifier keys and occasionally other
_individual_ keys.  This doesn't slow me down at all and is actually
just distributing my work more evenly between my hands (what good is
it to have one hand going nuts, while the other one just lays there?)

Jess Holle
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: MAC Harddrive space
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:09:01 GMT
 <6546.2b2de617@hayes.com> <TOMSTER.92Dec15184036@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>
 <1992Dec16.074525.11137@msc.cornell.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Dec16.074525.11137@msc.cornell.edu>,
maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) says:
>
>Oh this is rich. On a mac when you need a new hard drive you buy it and
>stick it in your SCSI chain. I have 3 hard drives connected to my Mac right
>now. Lots of space for more if necessary. I guess your IDE drive isn't
>quite that intelligent? Same with monitors. When you need more screen
>space, buy another monitor.

Ahem, by the time you need a new harddrive perhaps your old one isn't exactly
up to date with modern technology. I bought a IISi 5/40 last year. 40MB isn't
that much but budgets are tight, you know. Then I got a 20MB drive that someone
else trashed and I let our electronics workshop make a case/power supply for
it. It would have made more sense to buy a new _fast_ 120MB internal drive than
to build a power supply, but that's the way public organizations like ours
work.
It's nice that you can chain external harddrives with an SCSI port (as you can
do it on a PC) but I would prefer not to build a pile of harddisk boxes on my
desk.

Michael Bode
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:3406 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3293
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot)
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:33:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Dec18113336
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1992Dec18.092302.1316@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

[Long, meaningless drivel deleted]

   The fact that it also helps morons does not negate its use for
   non-morons.  People who overlook this are the true morons.

In today's society, only morons buy TV's that arene't cable ready,
then go rent cable boxes from their local cables pirates.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The preservation of a free Government requires
Field Robotics Center,          | not merely, that the metes and bounds which
Carnegie Mellon University      | separate each department [Religion and
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | Legislative] of power be invariably
(412) 268-3856                  | maintained; but more especially that neither
                                | of them be suffered to overleap the great
The opinions expressed are mine | barrier which defends the rights of the
and do not reflect the official | people.  The Rulers who are guilty of such an
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | encroachment exceed the commission from which
or any other organization.      | they derive their authority, and are Tyrants.
                                | The people who submit to it are governed by
                                | laws made neither by themselves nor by an
                                | authority derived from them, and are slaves.
                                | James Madison
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:38:24 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec14.195557.25818@athena.mit.edu>, zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
> 
> Boy, how easily you forget our discussion, M.Firoze.  You never did show me
> how seemlessly a Mac plugs into a Novell Network.  You never did show me
> how quickly a 68030 Mac Powerbook Multitasks 12 applicatoins running at the
> same time.  You never did show me these "apple events" talking to each other
> in every application that you own (which they can't do because software
> is not written to take advantage of apple events).  You never did show me
> how simple it is to obtain data from a SYBASE database and incorporate it
> into one of your applications.  You never did show me the CD-quality sound
> (44kzH) coming out the the Powerbook speakers.  You never did show me drag
> and drop capability as far as changing text color, or sending folders in a
> multimedia mail message.  You never did show me the built in Webster dictionary
> on your hard drive.  You never did show me Mathematica bundled on your system
> when you buy it.  You never did show me full MIDI and ISDN capability.  You
> never did show me a lot of things that NeXT can do, and Mac can't.  I DID,
> however, show you those things on the NeXT, and I was about to show you
> the multitude of new software available for NeXT until you decided to 
> end the learning experience and go out and buy an overpriced Quadra. (ugh).

So, where exactly can I get this NeXT Powerbook with Novell network,
multitasking, interapplication communication, SYBASE support, CD-quality
sound, drag and drop, color capabilities, Webster's, Mathematica, full MIDI
and ISDN -- all built in to a notebook sized computer for less than the
price of a Quadra?

That would truely be a great machine. <grin>

> The fact that there are millions of Macs will soon become unimportant.  

I wouldn't discount the installed base. Alas, just as we can't easily shake
the inertia of 60 million PC clones out there, the Mac installed base will
continue to be very important for years to come. Regardless if NeXT sales
increase a hundred fold!

> If you
> choose to use this type of reasoning, then NeXTstep 486 will be supported
> by millions more systems than MacOS will.  The installed base of Intel is
> much larger than that of Macintosh.  NeXT will gain market share in that
> area beginning in Q2 93, when NeXTstep486 ships.

That remains to be seen. If NS 486 sells, NeXT will increase share, for sure.
The $64 B question is -- how 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.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson)
Subject: Re: System 7.1 stability WAS(Re: Mac & IBM Info (added info))
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:15:29 GMT

In article <20015@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> putzolu@cs.ucdavis.edu (David Matthew Putzolu) writes:
>In article zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>> A month!?  Boy, am I glad I own a NeXT!  I have had my system for **11**
>> months and have had to reboot it twice.  Who knows, maybe system 7.1
>will
>> give you a good two months of work before it dies like a dog (not).
>
>This is reminiscent of the PC people's passion for formatting floppy
>disks in the background - trivial. While I may have to forcibly reboot
>my Macintosh over _five_ times as often as you do, I still think once
>a month isn't much worse than once ever five months, as you claim
>to be able to do.
>

David, I have had my NeXT for 11 months, as I have said.  It has been 
running CONTINUOUSLY for 11 months.  I mean that it is on 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.  I have had to shut it off twice,
once because I moved from Michigan to Boston, and the other time because
I had a system panic, most likely due to a piece of public domain software
I keep running as a screensaver.  I don't know that many people that can
claim to have their Mac's running continuously without turning them off
for 11 months.  The NeXT is much more stable that the Mac.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Mac multitasking?
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:52:55 GMT

>wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:

>Wow. You mean the getNextEvent's changed to waitNextEvent's when you upgraded
>to System 5.0?

No, of course not. However, when you use GNE you should also call SystemTask
(i think it was called, it was some time ago). SystemTask was patched to give
time to other apps.



--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was:Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:20:09 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec7.221003.1687@intacc.uucp>, zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
> 
> I use the Atari ST and Mac both very extensively and I must say that the
> two mouse buttons on the Atari make many things way quicker.  

So sure are you.

Have you timed it? Have you done controlled experiments to show that it is
quicker? 

Apple's got $50M in user interface research (not market hype, but research)
that indicates that it isn't.

> For example,
> when selecting a numbered value to change, the right button is increment
> and the left button is decrement.  If you hold down one button while still
> holding the other, the incrementation or decrementation is accelerated.
> One Mac button allows you to do this by sliding just above or below the
> numbered value, but it is WAY more klunky and slow.

I disagree.

> Forget about arguing.  Just accept the fact that multiple buttons allows way
> more combinations but you need to learn them.  Slightly higher learning curve
> vs. ease of use????   I'd take the higher learning curve anyday, since it's
> an investment that is useful for every application (in my Atari).  But I'm
> not what BIG COMPANIES consider jo public.  

I don't understand. You want multiple buttons because they are harder to learn
and harder to use. What's the point? Why not simply eschew mice altogether?
That's an even harder interface all around.

> Obviously, some people would rather have it simpler even if it means somewhat
> less functionality.  

I've seen exactly ZERO arguments that a one-button mouse driven computer has
any less functionality than a multi-button mouse driven computer. Indeed, I've
have asked for arguments along this vein several times and come up empty.

> Without a slow moving
> GUI (especially System 7) the computer would operate much quicker with
> really simple command line interface.  Hell....why not communicate with it
> in machine code????  Damn quick.

Quick for the computer, maybe, but difficult to the humans.

> I'd rather use a GUI cuz it's easy.
> I'd rather use a multiple button mouse even though it's harder to learn.

And harder to use. And slower.

> choice.

Foolishness.

-- 
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: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: Re: why apple and ibm will win
Keywords: apple ibm pink talgent microsoft
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:22:35 GMT

A very interesting note on the Microsoft-DEC alliance isa that the
person heading the development of NT's was the same person who 
responsible for the development of DEC's VMS operating system
(his name escapes me right now)
 
Not that I'm cheering for Microsoft or anything I just thought
that inquirering minds wanted to know...
 
TED
(with his feet firmly planted in the Apple camp)
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <wondertr.724202119@sfu.ca> wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree  
learning center) writes:
> The word I heard was that is wasn't difficult to build a OOP system...
>Just an increadible AMOUNT of code needs to be written and that of course
> takes TIME, TIME, and more TIME....

Not true about the not difficult part.  I heard a Pink muckity-muck give a  
presentation on Taligent at a local ACM meeting.  Quote: "It's harder than  
we thought."

One of his biggest problems was designing decent frameworks for the  
objects in the system.  How do you design an Application object so that it  
does what's needed, and can be extended in useful ways?  A Document  
object?  A Document object AND an Application object?

He said it was not uncommon for them to have built and THROWN AWAY two and  
three efforts at a single object.  Occassionaly with a "design team quits"  
step thrown into the cycle.

It's damn hard to make a good OOP system.  That's why so few people have a  
good one.  NeXT is one of those with a good one.  Taligent might be good,  
but it's still a ways down the road.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up?
Reply-To: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca
Organization: Not Really, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:32:04 GMT

In article <4f=IDNy00iV387Coc8@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
> 
> You can't just abandon the rest of the world and start something new! 
> (Look at NeXT, which is floundering in comparison to Mac and PC)  You
> have to take small steps.  Companies don't take well to quick changes
> (ie, entire computer systems (hardware and software) changing
> overnight).  Like I said, Jobs did it, and while they have the best OS
> around, no one's using it.
> 

Why can't you start something new? The Mac did. The Mac took a leap, not small  
steps. It floundered for a while, but people came around.

> > I bet nothing comes of Taligent but a major "lovers spat" where IBM
> > and Apple come out with separate, competing products.
> 
> You obviously don't know the game plan then do you.  From the IBM side
> comes a combination of OS/2 and AIX.  OS/2's object oriented WPS is now
> being ported to AIX and DOS, and even Windows (its main competitor). 
> OS/2 will be transfered to a Mach derived kernal.  From Apple's side
> comes a combination of System 7 and A/UX.  I've heard that System 7 will
> also become kernal based like OS/2.  The interface probably will be some
> mish-mash of WPS and System 7.  It'll probably use the System Object
> Model of WPS or some derivative thereof.  The actual GUI will probably
> resemble System 7, ie single menu bar etc.  The underlying structure
> will be based on a kernal, borrowing from A/UX and AIX.  etc etc etc. 
> If you consider the software side of the alliance, the first steps have
> already taken place.  The hardware side is much more advanced, as the
> first PowerPC chips have been produced.
> 

What does any of this have to do with Taligent? You agree with Andrew in saying  
that Apple and IBM will come out with separate competeing products, but you  
claim he doesn't know the game plan. You didn't even mention the topic,  
Taligent. Taligent is supposed to be coming out with an operating system all  
its own. You're talking about individual efforts at IBM and Apple, not the  
joint venture of Taligent.


Terry Wilcox

-- 
Terry Wilcox		| 'Next to the originator of a good sentence 
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca	| is the first quoter of it.'
NeXTmail welcome	|  - RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy