HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT vs Mac (Again) was "Need to convince boss..."
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:16:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University, Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


 

smytonj@murr11.alleg.edu (Jim Smyton) writes:
: In article <1993Jan20.183914.8363@athena.mit.edu> zmonster@athena.mit.edu  
: (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
: > It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because  
: Mac
: > uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can  
: spool
: > its output to a NeXT laser printer.
: > Eric
: 
: I should have known you would respond Eric.
: 
: Right...It's nice knowing that QuickDroop is out dated. Tell me the news.   
: QuickDraw GX should be interesting tho...
: 
: The longevity of NeXT monitors disturbs me.  They have a sad tendancy to  
: get muddy and fade. I would rather have "QuickDroop" 1.x than a half-rate  
: monitor!
: --
: Jim Smyton  (smytonj@alleg.edu)      
: ------------------------       
: Sometimes ya just gotta grab	**    We're not hitchhiking
: life by the teeth and yank	**    anymore, we're riding!
: as hard as you can.		** 	      -Ren
: 	-Weird Al               ** 


I'm staring into a NeXT mono monitor. It's from October of 1988.
(My Cube is ser. # 000000278--way old)

It looks very, very good.

And the color monitors are great. Not the older 17" ones. They sucked.
But the new 17" Trinitron and the 21" Hitachi are beautiful

--
Jonathan W. Hendry
Drexel University College Of Information Studies
Anderson Financial Systems "Programmer-in-Exile" :)
hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (No NEXTMail :( )
<set loose the marmosets!>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: NeXTstep for PowerPC --- THE ONLY CHOICE
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:29:01 GMT

rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert Alexander Wyatt)writes
>Okay...not to flame Robert or start a war, but...is Taligent shipping their
>OS?  Specs are great...but...until the product is in hand...I seem to remember
>a rather sinister jab made by Steve Jobs in regard to Taligent's CEO...
>something about the 300 million he spent on OfficeVision (great specs and
>all)...and the product he never shipped...(correct me if I am wrong...not about
>OfficeVision, but Steve's quote...)  I enjoyed Robert's comments, but
>compare Taligent's OS to NeXTstep when Taligent's OS is shipping...by then,
>NeXTstep will be somewhere close to Release 5 I imagine...
PowerOpen (A/UX 4.0) is a prototype for Taligent's OS so that developers have 
time to post programs to RISC code before the REAL Taligent OS ships.
>So, why bother with Taligent?  
>Taligent OS will ship...bugs will have to be worked out...objects will have 
>to be written...so, in truth we can expect to see a truly functional and
>useful Taligent OS in about three to four years...(maybe more!)...not 
>one to two...
The Taligent OS is a hybread(sp) of Mac OS, OS/2, A/UX, and AIX.  From what
little is out there it appears that Taligent OS will use some of the object
libraries from ALL the OSes.  So it take a lot SHORTER time then people expect.
{They do not have to write ALL the code from scratch.}
I am unclear if PowerOpen is the name for the Taligent OS but if it is
it is about a year ahead AHEAD of scedule.
From: jaesyn@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 23 Jan 1993 21:52:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:

>In article <1jpothINN8ak@shelley.u.washington.edu> jaesyn@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
>>zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1jl75mINN4a8@shelley.u.washington.edu> jaesyn@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
>>
>>>Ease of Use:
>>
>>>It is a matter of opinion which is easier to use, Mac or NeXT.  I still say
>>>NeXT has a much more structured, consistent and powerful user interface.
>>
>>	True, a matter of opinion.  Having worked with Unix, the NeXT is an
>>inuitive system.  But to someone who's never used Unix?  I think not.  NeXT's
>>interface is still based off of it's Unix roots, and frankly, it takes a bit
>>more technical knowledge to *understand* than the Mac.  I have to look at this
>>from the point of view that complete dunderheads are going to be using them,
>>I'm afraid.  Otherwise, yes, I might agree with you.  But, for the hypothetical
>>idiots, the Mac is easier.

>I really wish I could get rid of the true misconception that NeXTSTEP is
>any harder to understand than MacOS.  Skimming thought the NeXT users manual
>shows no sign of UNIX anything.  Everything from network setup to general use
>is performed either automatcially, or through simple grapical configuration
>programs.  Many large coorporations have switched to NeXTSTEP because of its
>ease of use.  I have used Mac and NeXT, and quite simply the NeXT has a much
>more simple file system and graphical interface.  The Mac filysystem has
>files scattered everywhere.  If you have a bunch of hypothetical idiots working
>at your site (your quote, not mine) wouldn't you be better off with the most
>organized system?


>>>>	
>>>>Jason M Smith
>>>>University of Washington
>>>>Physics/Math
>>>>
>>
>>	Thanks for the input, but the focus of this system is going to be at
>>the *users*, not me, the admin.  The less trouble *they* have, the less trouble
>>*I* have. :)  Hence, I'm aiming for the easiest to use system for complete
>>novices... and it looks like the Mac to me.
>>
>>JMS
>>

>Well, I hope you would at least go somewhere to have a NeXT user give you
>a demo of how NeXTSTEP can help you.  You are about to spend a lot of money
>and it is worth your time.  Also, you were worried about support.  I can
>almost guarantee than from whoever you buy your NeXTSTEP systems from, they
>will come in and set everything up free of charge.  You will get the one
>on one support from NeXT or from the NeXT reseller.

>Eric

	That I am doing.  In fact, I'm trying to organize a way to get a 486
running NeXTStep, a 486 running Windows, and a Mac into the office for a few
days and let people play with them, to see which *they* like.  Of course, it'd
have to be a beta version of NeXTStep, or a NeXT box, but it'd do.
From: putzolu@cs.ucdavis.edu (David Matthew Putzolu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:58:26 GMT
Organization: The University of California at Davis
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
X-XXMessage-ID: <A7861E782F02FD28@lestat.ucdavis.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:58:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.020447.24669@athena.mit.edu> Eric M Hermanson,
zmonster@athena.mit.edu writes:
>>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming 
>>up!  But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still
better 
>
>If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software
would
>have to be rewritten to accomodate it.  You will never ever ever see 
>pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.

Wrongo! There has been a pre-emptive multitasking Macintosh OS
around for several years now, that does NOT require any rewritting.
It's called A/UX, and it CAN run normal Mac apps pre-emptively.
Try to check the facts before you flame.

>>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC 
>>platform is OS/2, forget about windows.  I don't see next capturing a 
>>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.

>It is not next, it is NeXT.

NeXT is MUCH better than Windows, and probably better than OS/2.
But at several hundred $/copy, it isn't next, it is simply doomed.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie)
Subject: Re: rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: An Ol Ag surrounded by a bunch of unfriendly Seminoles
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 01:44:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.205213.8189@rchland.ibm.com>,
tmaas@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Anthony Maas) wrote:
> 
> In article <ocaoXB1w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca>, jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
> |> 
> |> I've use a couple nexts, and I wasn't very impressed.  The speed is 
> |> nothing compared to a Quadra because of the overhead of the NeXT os.  The 
> |> interface is annoying, as well as the two button mouse.  There is nowhere 
>                                          *****************
> 
> Two buttons too complicated?

No, the second is usually redundant. How many app's actually use
the second one?? And then there's the X window's apps. How do they
map *three* buttons into two? [I don't know, we don't have any
X stuff on our NeXTs]

James
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grumblings about Mac performance
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:41:29 GMT
 <ibhan.727918304@husc.harvard.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <ibhan.727918304@husc.harvard.edu>, ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir
Bhan) says:
>
>As I said before, the 601 is out in small quantities.  I expect it should
>easily be able to compete with the Pentium.  Fortunately for Apple, I hear
>that the Pentium has some heat problems right now.

Others might think Intel doesn't want to kill the 486 market with the Pentium
before AMD kills it with their 486.

Michael Bode
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Brian Hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grumblings about Mac performance
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:17:29 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

>Even though I program on Macs, etc.  I have one gripe:  Macs are becoming
>sluggish in the performance arena.  Intel is routinely making chips that
>are twice to three times as fast as the ones in the Quadra line. 

    Clock speed does not automatically translate to processor speed.
Besides all of the really fast Intel processors are clock doubled and
then they have to deal with a bus that is probably 1/3 or 1/4 of the
processors clock rate. This doesn't eve take into account the speed hit
that Windows imposes.

>Unless the PPC 601 comes out soon, the '586+ (I hate calling it Pentium,
>reminds me of a radioactive element :-) will become the standard because
>of its speed and Microsoft's NT marketing.

    You are making claims about products that don't even official exist
yet. Just because Intel says they have a working 586 doesn't mean it
will appear in a PC box anytime soon, and Microsoft is trying to beat
out Claris' bid for worst Vaporware product in history with Windows NT
which they are now saying may be out in a trimmed down version by the
summer. I wouldn't call this goo marketing.

>I do like Motorola's line of processors.  They are not as wierd as Intel ones,
>and work very reliably.  I just do not like seeing the fastest Mac Apple
>sells for about $10,000 being outran by a $5000 tower, or even a
>$2500 486/66.

    There are macs that sell for $10,000? And as for outrunning a Q950,
the minute you put Windows on that $5000 tower it in no longer outruns
anything faster than a IIsi.

>Some people in the Mac arena say that "speed is not everything".  This
>saying is true up to a point.  Yes, speed is not everything,
>but when a run of the mill 80486 MS-DOS machine nails a Mac to the wall,
>things need to change.

    The speed that most people are concerned with is what has been
called "perceived speed." This corresponds to how long people feel they
are waiting for things to happen and not the rate of the chips clock.
And while it is true that a run of the mill 486 running Dos will run
faster than a Mac running a 16Mhz '030, you are not still not taking
into account the slowness of Windows, which is legendary these days.

>Apple needs to stop making '030 machines, and crank out some '040s.  I
>heard that next month that this is going to happen, but this is rumor.

    This is not a rumor. Apple has officially announced the new '040
mid-range macs, although they won't be released until Feb.

>Please correct me if I am wrong, but the PPC and the 060 will not be released
>until 1994.  By this time, Intel will have the 586 firmly entrenched
>and debugged.  Ugh.

    This is in no way guaranteed. And this fact still doesn't meen that
Windows NT will have seen the light of day by then.

--
From: tim@apple.com (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:04:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Apple Computer Inc. / Somerset

In article <1993Jan24.004720.28263@nmsu.edu>, bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
wrote:

> That reminds me: a CRISC chip tends to run hotter than a comparitive
> RISC chip but cooler than a comparitive CISC chip.  
> It is intresting that Intel is saying that the Pentium is RISC-like
> as opposed to saying it is a RISC.  That with the 386 Write-Back 
> and the rumor of a heat problem seem to indicate a CRISC chip.
> {As I understand it the heat generated in CISC and CRISC chips is
> due to the increasing number of instructions that the chips must do on a normal
> basis.  A RISC only has to use 20% of its code 80% of the time and therefore
> runs much cooler then a comparitivly powered CISC OR CRISC chip.}

"CRISC" is an acronym with little meaning; with the definition of RISC that
most people use today:

    * large number of general purpose registers
    * load/store architecture
    * few addressing modes
    * simple, easy to pipeline instructions

you cannot turn a CISC processor into a RISC processor.

That said, the heat dissipated by a running processor has little to do with
its "RISCness" or "CISCness".  It is purely based upon:

    * processor frequency
    * process type (bipolar > biCMOS > CMOS)
    * process voltage
    * average number of transistors switching per cycle
    * average number of external pins changing per cycle


     -- Tim Olson
        Apple Computer Inc. / Somerset
        (tim@apple.com)
From: wrob@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:59:34 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <f-k39qq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
[whoops, I munched the other guy!]
>>  As a regular user of NeXT, you will NEVER need to
>>log in as root.
>
>Unless you want to change your login tiff. :)
>
>But what about the poor fool system administrators? Why should
>they want a delicate system?

Perhaps I should try and clarify the issue of the login TIFF.  When the 
sysadmin changes the login tiff, everyone who logs in to the system will have
this new login tiff.

The changing of the login tiff is not a system-supported operation.  You 
change it at your own risk.
 RWW.

-- 
Robert W. "What!?! I've-been-tying-my-shoelaces-backwards-all-my-life?" Wong Jr.
wrob@unixg.ubc.ca (ASCII only)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:04:22 GMT

In article <=yh3s2_@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>In article 21753@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>In article <1jhck1INN507@pith.uoregon.edu> rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>>>DisplayPostcript?  Not very, I'd wager.
>>
>>A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
>>NeXTstation Turbo Color.
>
>Not terribly surprising that. I suspect, given large enough quantities
>of RAM, it will do fine. However, that's a lot of power you seem
>to be recommending throwing at stuff like word processing.

It takes a lot more to go fast than RAM.  You need system bandwidth.

>>>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>>>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>>>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
>>
>>Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
>>an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
>>functionality.  DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
>>Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
>>10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
>
>:)
>
>Well, at least I have 1 NeXThead who is willing to say that Display
>Postscript is slow compared to QuickDraw.
>
>Of course, QuickDraw does much less (I think you exagerrate a little..
>QuickDraw can draw noncontinuous lines :) ).. but does this guy need or
>want the abilities Display Postscript would net him? (which seem
>to be mostly a better programming environment, and better wysiwyg
>for postscript printers)

I don't think anyone is advocating the use of NeXTSTEP for simple
wordprocessing.  A Mac Classic does that pretty darn well (I did it on
a Mac SE for 3 years).  We were advocating it for developing custom
software at the same time as doing group business applications.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      | "We cannot dwell in the time that is to come,
Andrew Loewenstern       |  lest we lose our now for a phantom of our
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |  own design." - Erendis      FYEO Public Key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:53:56 GMT

In article <FXaoXB2w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca> jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning.  Let's face 
>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT?  I'm beginnin to think not by your 
>stupid comments.  The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in 
>most cases.  It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves 
>like an 030 IIci.  The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better 
>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer!  The 
>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming 
>up!  But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better 
>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC 
>platform is OS/2, forget about windows.  I don't see next capturing a 
>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.

I think it's you who has not used a NeXT.  Right now I am typing this
into one of my NeXTstation colors (I have two).  Sitting directly next
to my slab is an Apple 13" color monitor that is attached to the Mac
IIci (25mhz 030 w/cache) that is underneath my desk.  I sit in front
of a NeXT for most of my waking hours.  I know what I'm talking about
here.

My NeXT is _significantly_ faster than my Mac IIci in _*all*_ cases.
I can't think of a single thing my IIci does faster than my NeXT.
Nothing.  Not one single thing.  You don't even have to run formal
tests.  There's enough of a visual difference to tell.  Perhaps you've
been using anemic NeXT computers, if you have ever used one at all.

"The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better than that cheap
welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer!" - Oh please.
I have heard people argue this one both ways, but I have never heard
anyone say that either was "a hell of a lot better than" the other.
"cheap welfare interface"  right.  I seriously doubt now that you have
ever used one, or been within 15 feet of one.


andrew

P.S. I love the way you bash the hell out of NeXTSTEP touting that
Macintosh is sooo much better and then justify it by saying that "it
was still better than PC's" and then proceed to bash PC's.
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      | "We cannot dwell in the time that is to come,
Andrew Loewenstern       |  lest we lose our now for a phantom of our
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |  own design." - Erendis      FYEO Public Key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: hopeman@seas.smu.edu (Jennifer Hopeman)
Subject: Apple stock
Organization: SMU - School of Engineering & Applied Science - Dallas
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:26:08 GMT

Apple's stock recently fell from 65 to below 60 after the earnings
report was released.  What do you all think are the prospects for Apple?
Do you think the company can improve on it's earnings?  Do you think
the stock will rise or fall this year?  I'm asking this because I'm
considering whether or not I should sell the shares that I own.  I
assume that Apple's future success depends on how well they can compete
with clones.  Thanks for any info.

Bill
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:16:25 GMT

My suggestion for the users computers would be the new LC IIIs coming
out.  Not only do they go as fast as a IIci, but you can put a mono
page monitor on them and with the card slot add ethernet if
appletalk is to slow.  Total station price of about $1600-$1700 each.

Not only will systems like this be easier for the users to use, but
they will also be much easier to administer (from personal experience).


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy