HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.075603.11316@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>In article <6169.2ad59050@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>HAD to use the mouse. Now, I would never go back.
>
>That is the whole difference between you and for example me.
>I would hate if I was forced by the machine to do something.
>
>I expect the machine to do what I want and not the opposite.
>>much)
>
>Decent editor in my opinion lets me work as I want and not as the editor wants.
>

So, I assume that you popped out the the womb using vi proficiently.
vi doesn't "do what you want" any more than any other editor; it simply
happens to be the one you learned how to use first and/or best.  

You've merely managed to convince yourself that it works exactly the way
you expect an editor to work and believe an editor should work because you have
completely locked out the alternatives.

-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Formating Floppies (Was: 7.1 vs.OS/2)
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:05:42 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <92288.194015ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>, ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
> To everyone who tells me Mac floppies are initialzed automatically:
> 
> I know that. And PC floppies are formatted out of the box. You don't
> need to format them at all :-)
> 
> But believe it or not, once in a while even a Mac floppy (actually mostly
> Mac floppies) can become unreadable. Then you can throw it away or try to
> reformat it.
> 
> Or for what reason did Apple put that option in the menu if noone would ever
> use it ? Just to fill space ? Or to get some letters for their users saying:
> "Hey, I noticed it!"
> 
> And specially to Eddy (sp?): I also used some other features of my Mac. I don`t
>  spend some $5000 for a machine (price of a IIsi in Germany) and never use it.
> 
> Michael Bode.


	Well, one thing I can do with my IBM that I can't do with
my Mac Quarda is format floppies in the background while doing other
things.  OS/2 allows me to be doing something else while formatting.  ON
the Mac, you just sit there.  (Well, it's not MY Quadra, but where I
work.)

					-Brad
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:52:38 GMT
 <92275.135853ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> <6105.2acc370e@hayes.com>   
 <1aot96INNch@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <6139.2ad1cd7b@hayes.com> <1avro0INNdl0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <ewright.718563260@convex.convex.com>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

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

>In <1avro0INNdl0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:


>>Specific hardware?  Not necessarily, you can run multimedia apps with
>>existing hardware, even digitized sound from the internal speaker/
>>beeper.  

>You can play digitized sound using hardware that can't synthesize
>waveforms and can only play a single note of fixed duration?  You
>really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here,
>have you?  This is just as silly as the time you told me that two
>PC sound boards produced files that were 100% compatible, despite
>the fact that one was an 8-bit digitizer and the other 16-bit. 

utter bollocks(tm), the PC speaker is 1 bit, but that is not a great limit
with programmers as good as the ones who write PC software, even if you cannot
comprehend it.. I have sound players, which use the internal speaker, which
sound MUCH better than any old (6bit) MAC I have heard, and as good as the newer
8bit, using PCM. I find the 6bit mac's unbearable in comparison.

and there is no reason why an 8bit sample wil not play on both 8bit and 16bit
audio cards, so I would say that it is YOU who has no idea of what you are
talking about.

Please try to stick to fact, just a little..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:34:05 GMT
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Yes, Windows and OS/2 can have multiple monitors.  And no, it's not as
nice or as easy as in a MacinToy (as per Re: Essence of flame:-)).  It's
mostly a hardware thing remember.  PC's probably could have defined a
better standard, but today, most people prefer to go to a big monitor
rather than two monitors at 640x480 (or whatever), although I'd love to
have two big monitors, rather than just one.
Anyway, here are possible setups:

Monitor one    Monitor two
XGA            XGA
8514           VGA
VGA            EGA (or maybe MDA, monochrome text)

Of course, I've never done any of this, but I've heard it done.  For the
most part, the only people I really see using two monitors are
programmers who have the debugger in text mode, running in monitor two,
and the app running in monitor one.  It's a nice setup.
I think that neither OS/2 nor Windows has the ability to virtualize
monitor 2 as part of monitor 1, producing one big monitor (a la mac). 
I'm not sure how the XGA/XGA setup works though.
It'd be nice if we had that, so that's another item to add to my jealous list.

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu
From: shawn@cars.com (Shawn Connelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Essence of flame
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:35:09 EDT
Organization: Connelly Automation Research and Services
Reply-To: shawn@cars.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <Bvps6t.HGz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> (comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy), ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> Macintosh               MacinTrash,MacinToss
> 

How about MacinToy?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Connelly                          | 
Connelly Automation Research & Services |  Go Colorado Rockies!
1910 Sharon Oaks Lane, Suite 102        |   The only undefeated team 
Charlotte, NC 28210                     |    in the Nat'l League West!
(704) 552-7304                          |      
Internet: shawn@cars.com or shawn@csn.org; UUCP: ...!csn!sable!shawn
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:12:17 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 2adc45e5@hayes.com, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>The dialog box I was speaking of is Modal. Since it is modal, you cannot switch
>back to the application. Since the application doesn't have the focus, you
>can't use the ALT- shortcuts.
>
>If the dialog were not modal, you still can't use the ALT- shortcuts to
>do a paste from the application, even though the "real" shortcuts will work.
>You CAN, however, click on the application window, and then use the ALT-
>shortcuts to do a paste. However, this will perform a paste into the 
>application window (which is now the focus) and not the dialog window (which
>was what was originally intended.
>
>The point here is that it isn't obvious how to get the interface to do what
>you want. The ALT shortcuts fail to work for no good reason. 
>
>Regardless of how any other types of windows might work under Windows, this
>is still a raging inconsistancy within Windows, and part of the reason it
>isn't as good as using a Mac. End of debate.
>

I must admit I rarely use keyboard shortcuts, so maybe I'm just not following
your point here. Windows has two sets of shortcuts. The "real" shortcuts,
plus the ALT based shortcuts, which are meant for traversing the menus. You 
are saying that you expect both shortcut methods to have exactly the same
commands available. But in a dialog, only the "real" shortcuts are available
because there is no menu, hence the ALT shortcuts are not available.

This doesn't seem like an inconsistancy to me, and certainly not a "raging" one.
I would say that the intent of the two shortcut methods is different. It seems
perfectly logical that menu shortcuts would only perform menu commands, and
that they wouldn't work in a window without a menu bar.

>
>Oh, I forgot, you are a computer-robot.
>
>Goodbye Wolfgang. It has been distinctly unpleasurably trying to discuss
>this matter with you. 
>
>I've reserved a nice cozy place for you in my killfile.
>

It seems to me that Wolfgang has been entirely reasonable and very thoughtful in
his debate with you. This is an advocacy group, I believe.I don't understand
why you get to advocate, but he doesn't. 

>-- 
>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: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:59:44 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct8.030331.22081@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
> 
> and remember..I find the worst thing with using a mouse is that I have to keep
> removing at least one hand from the keyboard to move the stupid rodent, and
> this totally destroys my 'command flow', and GREATLY amplifies the required
> effort, especially as my work desk is piled with approx 10 layers of coffee/
> printouts/books/etc, and the mouse is usually at the BOTTOM.... 

I don't think this says very much about the mouse, but more about your work
and personal habits. 

Clearly, you don't use the mouse enough. You obviously aren't working on a
Mac. If you did, you'd have that mouse in a clear spot, because you'd be
using it more. Consequently, since you were using it so much, you'd get a lot
of practice reaching from the keyboard to the mouse and back.

With practice, you'd be able to do it without interrupting your "command flow".
(There's that evil "command" word. You must be using a CLI as well. Pity)

I had the same complaint when I originally developed Mac software on an 
Apple Lisa. It took about two months to get used to the editor where you
HAD to use the mouse. Now, I would never go back. (Actually, I occassionally
have to, since many of these DOS machines I'm required to work on don't
have decent editors like the Mac, and I'm reminded why I like the Mac so
much)

> Yes folks...My editor of choice is VI, and I love it, 

YUCK!

For the record, I learned to use (and became proficient in) four different
screen editors with keyboard interfaces: se, vedit, edt and brief. 

I still have to use edt to edit internet postings and mail. 

Since I've converted to mouse / keyboard editors, I'm not going back.

Just yesterday, I moved to a Windows editor after having done a bunch of 
stuff under DOS. It was like a breath of fresh air. I immediately felt much
more comfortable with what I was doing, and I finished my task a lot faster.
(Even with Windows brain-dead keyboard "shortcuts")

> and I just love the csh commands such as !-8/s/foo/bar/ ...... try that with
> a GUI..

Why bother? 

-- 
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: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steve Fuller)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:34:53 GMT

In article <6161.2ad576d0@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>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

Sorry Bill, You are wrong. The PowerPC 601 is an IBM. Motorola is licencing
the architecture. The later models (603,604,620) will come from both. 

>  basing their chips on IBM's architecture. In actuality, the PowerPC
>  is a simplified version of the RISC 6000 architecture. And tons faster.
pssst. The Power architecture (ie R/S 6000) is pure IBM.  

/s Steve Fuller        sfuller@tamu.edu        Texas A&M University
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:09:05 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 <x_2zcrp@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>It seems to me like it would be better just to jack your priority
>way up, and have some sort of mouse-tracking arrangement so that
>the system will remember where teh mouse goes when you are switched out.

Sigh.  How many times must I repeat myself?  In the general case,
that will simply not work. No matter how high you set an application's
priority, it's still possible for it to starve if you have enough
competing processes.  Raising the priority just raises the definition
of "enough," it doesn't solve the basic problem.

>This way stuff like background downloads could still get time- the
>driver for the device would pre-empt your program when it had some
>data to pass on. Or something like that.

Okay, look, you've got a 100-MHz 68050, or whatever.  But there
you've also got an application that *needs* all 100 MHz for several
seconds at a time.  Well, maybe it can get by with 99.98 MHz, but
that's still not going to leave enough for your background process.
The only solution is to let the background process starve (i.e.,
don't start a download when you're going to be using this monster)
or use multiple processors.

And before you tell me that no single application requires a 100
million cycles per second just to give efficient response, yes,
that's true -- today.  But as soon as someone builds a 100-MHz
68050, someone else will write a program that uses every bit of
it.

>The definition I use for co-operative multitasking is a technique for
>multitasking where a process can only be switched out if it executes
>a call that does this. (such as, say, WaitNextEvent :) ); 

Or Permit?

>Also, there are some cases where it's nice ot be able to pre-empt a
>task. Say a program is computing away in the background; it would be
>nice to have the system pre-empt that task whenver the user hits a key,
>presses a mouse button, whatever, rather than waiting for that task to
>yield time. 

System 7 already does this.  It's called "Force Quit."

>If the task yields often enough everything works fine. But
>it's a pain to arrage that. It would be easier not to have to. 

One call.  One line of code.  That's what it takes to make a
typical Macintosh application multitask.  Actually, not even
that, since that same call is necessary anyway to do other
things.  

Now, in a 10,000-line program, that call represents .01% of
the code.  Yes, it might be easier if you didn't need it.
But *significantly* easier?  Good lord, you might as well
complain that C programming would be easier if you didn't
need to type the name of the function "main."



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez | 802-36-4453)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: UPR-Mayaguez--ASEL Lab
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:01:31 GMT

In article <ewright.719104145@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[stuff deleted]

|> And before you tell me that no single application requires a 100
|> million cycles per second just to give efficient response, yes,
|> that's true -- today.  But as soon as someone builds a 100-MHz
|> 68050, someone else will write a program that uses every bit of
|> it.
      It's not even true today! :-)  Have any of you try to do 
Image processing or Ray Tracing?

- Raist
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: How to justify a mac
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:38:29 GMT

In article <arika.719160831@cserver> arika@cserver.plexus.COM (Arik Anderson) writes:
>I need help from the Mac community to justify the purchase of
>at least one Macintosh at my company. We currently have a building
>full of PCs running Windows 3.1. Several employees have Macs at
>home and would like to convince management to purchase Macs for
>the company.
>
>The logical arguements about secretaries being better able to
>use Macs won't fly (we've tried). We are a company full of
>engineers with Unix workstations and PCs at their desks, all
>networked together.
>
>What I'd really like to find are some applications which only
>run on a Mac which would really make life easier for either
>the engineers or for the managers.

Tetris. Engineers will give a break managers and managers won't bother :-)
(Oops, there is one for a PC too :-)

>If there are others out there who have convinced their management
>to bring Macs into a PC environment, I'd really like to hear how
>you did it.

In one of the places I worked (most of computers are PCs) the
fact that we brought Macs caused major pains and problems with
the maintenance (our problems) and cooperativity between users (users
problems). We wouldn't do it second time. You gonna face the users
complaining that they cannot easily exchange the work. (No flames please.
Sure there are ways, but average user has no idea about it and doesn't
want to have idea )

In the final run, it appeared to be a major pain in the a#!.

>  /\  /\        <                Arik A. Anderson            >

Dariusz Bolski
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec304.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:00:42 GMT

In article <6154.2ad47f65@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> In article <1nszz0-@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
|> > 
|> > I think I have made my feelings on this very clear.
|> > Pre-emptive multitasking is Good. I just deny that this renders co-operative 
|> > multitasking useless or nonfunctional.
|> > 
|> > I also think that multithreading and memory protection are Good Things.
|> 
|> Daniel.

Really? :)

|> Interesting. I agree wholeheartedly that memory protection is a Good Thing.

Me Too.

|> Technically, cooperative multitasking and preemptive multitasking need not
|> be distinguishable, if all elements of the system cooperate correctly. 
|>
|> Unfortunately, some items do not. (eg floppy disk formatting) Therefore 
|> preemptive tasking is looked at as a Good Thing. In actuality, what is
|> really needed is Good Multitasking -- regardless of the technology.

Indeed, but pre-emptive multasking would help, and it would make
it much easier to implement aps with good multitasking.
 
|> Remember, it is possible to build a poor preemptive multitasking system.

Of course. I was kinda assuming we WERENT going to cripple it. :)

|> Finally, multithreading is overblown. I for one don't want to have to
|> deal with threaded applications. I've written one, and it was a bear to
|> test and debug.

I disaggree. Multithreading is worthwhile for several reasons. It makes
it easier to implement apps that can manipulate multiple documents
simultaneously. It also makes it trivial to have some maintinance activities
going on while your program doe sother things- like updating windows,
for instance. Also handling incoming apple events (or whatnot); Right
now a Macintosh App inside a dialog box (often) cant handle these
things.

|> No thank you. I'd just as soon keep my applications as single threaded as
|> possible. 

Okey dokey. Pardon me if I don't.

-- 
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:11:07 GMT

In <ewright.718664275@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

[...]

>Son, try to follow the conversation.  We weren't talking about
>OLE/DDE, we were talking about InterApplication Communications. 
>DDE is not IAC, it's just Microsoft's (feeble) implementation
>of Apple's Publish and Subscribe feature.  [...]

Well, the Dynamic Data Exchange protocal (DDE) was a feature
of MS-Windows 1.0 (released 1985). How old is Publish and Subscribe?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
Subject: Re: Macs being used at a Nuclear Power Plant.
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:07:28 GMT

krl@alpha.sunquest.com (ken r. lauver) writes:
: I know for a fact that at one Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S. they 
: use Macs to keep track of the fuel assemblies and scheduling downtime 
: procedures.  While that may not be controling the events in the nuclear
: core, it is just as important.

The great Macintosh tour of Nuclear Power Plants:

Harrsiburg
Chernobyl
???


:-)

			Karl
-- 

Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
From: green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Bradley Green )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:48:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <92290.140550ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
[deletia - memory protection stuff]
>You will believe me the first time some weird game or shareware utility or
>Microsoft app crashed the system while you were doing real work in another
>session.
>
This whole memory protection thread strikes me as a bit moot, since a
MP Mac OS is on the way eventually.  But the above has forced me to comment.
If you are so stupid as to leave one session to play a game or (particulary)
use a *shareware* utility without pressing COMMAND-S to save your work
first, you deserve to loose everything.  And I think that the number of
lethal bugs in reputable applications is being overstated -- I'm not saying
it never happens, just less often then is being implyed.  





--
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Bradley S. Green				University of Pennsylvania   *
* green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu			Dept. Of Systems Engineering *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy