HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner )
Subject: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:30:08 GMT

Even putting all else to the side, one has to admit the IBM are the INDUSTRY
standard control device.  How many major factories, power plants and process
control systems do you see macintoshes tied to ..

ALMOST NONE.

Go to you local Process Control and/or Instrument Engineering Confrence and
look and see how many Macintoshs Control Products are even offered (I could 
not find ANY at the last two I went to, and I tell you their were systems
running on everything from dedicated PLC's and custom control systems to
IBM's running Desqview, OS/2 Unix and EVEN Windows 3.1

Well my phoned rang so i must be off
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren E. Penner               | dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca   | Opinions are my
KWM Consultants Limited (Work) | alberta!bode!dpenner     | own unless stated
U of A, Edmonton, (University) | Phone: +1 (403)-487-7594 | otherwise.
From: tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More info on system 7.1 and $$$
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:48:33 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

If 7.1 takes up less space than 7.0.x and runs faster, I would be willing
to pay a nominal fee for purchase.  However, as my copy of 7.0 is still on
the shelf, then I would not pay for 7.1 unless there are some major improve-
ments.  True, System 7 has some great advantages, but it takes up too much
memory on my 3 meg IIsi (with tune-up I have been able to get it down to about
1.2 megs, but I have also had to part with some of my precious Inits, extensionsand cdevs).  Also, I find that scrolling through directory windows with 7 is
much slower than with Sys6 and virtual memory, if used, makes my IIsi run slower
than the Plus that I was using for so long.  Unless Apple gives 7.1 a more
than cosmetic facelift, then I am not interested.

Chris Tsirbas
tsirbac@brise.ere.umontreal.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:51:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.115048.11563@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> > On the Mac, can you move the menu bar down to where you're working on a large
>> > screen?
>
>> I use PopIT!
>
>Another hack.
>
>It's not part of Apple's GUI, and so it's not something the naive user you
>were talking about earlier will come up with. This basically proves my
>point: if the Mac GUI was so well designed, these hacks wouldn't be needed.
>Other parts of the Mac system software are clearly superior to the way
>Windows works, but the GUI is not one of them.

Excellent point. Actually, I would even say that if the Apple`s GUI was that
final excellence of the design, there would be no need to improve it. Yet
there is a long list of expected improvements.

Conclusion: Apple GUI is just another GUI, just like Windows' or Amiga's or NeXT's
or whatever's GUI. They let do some work better, some worse.
And the difference between them is not that large to pray that one is definitely
better than the other. In the each of them is a lot of room for invention and 
improvement.

This is my humble opinion.

>Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.

Regards,

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
From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:18:07 GMT

In article <patb.718235406@mcl> patb@mcl.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach) writes:
>In <1992Oct3.235607.14542@nwnexus.WA.COM> kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>
>>try this:  Go into your favorite word processor.  Type a line.  Now 
>>make 5 copies of the line using command-C and command-V.  Now do the
>>same using the copy and paste menu items.  Time each one and tell me
>>which is faster.  A keyboard shortcut is essentially the same as  
>>using a CLI, except you don't need to hit return at the end of the
>>command.  CLIs may have a big disadvantage in terms of the time it 
>>takes to learn the commands, but they often have a big advantage in
>>speed, especially when you were already on the keyboard anyway and
>>don't need to make an extra trip to the mouse and back.  If you agree
>>that the CLI is faster in this case, you have to agree that there are
>>essentially infinitely-many cases where the CLI is faster.
>
>Yes, but then there are also infinitely many cases where the GUI is 
>faster and whereas the CLI cases are the ones performed by the 5% of
>us who are power users, the GUI cases are the ones used by the other
>95% of us. I always chuckle a bit when someone writes an unintelligible
>CLI doodad on the net and has the courage to boast about it. I think
>we need to start recognizing the fact that we who spend time on the 
>net are a very poor reflection of the people using the computers. 
>Perhaps we might consider this in future arguments.

I could use the same argument to claim that we should abolish assembly
language (or even C) because 95% of the time its easier to use BASIC or
HyperTalk or something, and only power users know assembler or C.  C and
assembler can be awfully ugly, but there are times when nothing else will    
do.  Besides, the 5% who use them can write things that the other 95% can
benefit from (i.e. I could write a script using a CLI and distribute it to    
other people).     

I suppose you think that every feature of every program which isn't 
understood by 95% of the users of that program should be eliminated? And   
of course we should eliminate entire programs if more than 5% of Mac users    
don't understand how to use them.  Gee, I don't understand how to
manipulate Bezier curves using Illustrator or Freehand (even with the
graphical interface), so I demand that Illustrator and Freehand be 
abolished!
  
--
Steve Kanefsky

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:46:02 GMT

Jim Burmeister writes
> 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.
> 

That's right, only the menus for the active application are visible;  
the relevant menus appear at a user-selected (but usually top left)  
position as soon as the app is selected.  two nice features of the  
NeXT arrangement: 1. tear-off submenus; if you use them a lot, just  
'tear' them off and place them anywhere you want on the screen; 2.  
holding down the right mouse button makes the current menu appear  
under the cursor; you don't even have to go to the menu (in fact,  
many users specify that menus should appear off-screen and only use  
the right-button menus) (lefties can invert the buttons, BTW).

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Windows better than Mac (at least one way)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:17:05 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 <90304@netnews.upenn.edu> green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Bradley Green ) writes:

>I am an advowed Mac fan, but a reasonable one, and can admit one area of 
>superiorty of Windows over the Mac OS.  The MS Help help system is *far*
>better than Balloon help.  It is both easier to program, and more informative
>and intuitive to use.  So Apple should give MS a taste of their own medicine
>and "invent" a help system that just happens to be identical to MS Help.

Apple already has a help system with scrolling text, icons and
words you can click on for more information, etc.  It's called
Hypercard and it's very easy to program.  If you wanted to, you
could make a stack look just like MS Help.

I've never tried programming MS, so I can't say how hard or easy 
it is.  I can say that MS help is much less powerful than balloon
help, however.  Programmers can imbed not only text, but also 
graphics, sound, even full-motion video into balloon help.  Plus,
if you're trying to figure out what that funny-looking doohicky is
on the screen, it's a whole lot easier to just point, click, and 
read the balloon than it is to go to a hypertext-based help system
and try to come with a verbal description for the search engine to
match. 

>also.  The best part is that all you have to do is run a RTF file (from a
>word processor) through a help "compiler" and you are done.  Special commands,
>such as the keyword linking, are notated by simply footnoting the appropriate
>words, and typing command text into the footnote.  What a great system!.

Having just completed several month's work on an RTF-based help system,
I doubt it is quite as simple as that.  I would certainly agree that
Apple needs to provide better tools for creating balloon help, though.

>--
>*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>* Bradley S. Green				University of Pennsylvania   *
>* green@eniac.seas.upenn.edu			Dept. Of Systems Engineering *


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: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:25:02 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 <1992Oct2.162754.1519@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Yes, if you absolutely need color, then the NeXT is expensive.  Its  
>good color, but its not cheap.

Unfortunately, good color is becoming cheaper all the time.  The
price of video boards is in free fall.  What I belive NeXT should
do is introduce a low-end machine without *any* onboard video, but
with a Nubus slot that would allow people to plug in Mac-compatible
video boards.  Leave off a few of the sexy, but expensive, hardware
features such as the DSP chip, and price it well under $3000.  That
would be a very attractive entry-level system, both for users *and*
developers.

>But look carefully at how you work: how much do you really use color?   

Well, the programs I use most often include Think C, Fullwrite
Professional, and Pagemaker.  None of those require color, but
the software I'm writing in Think C does.  Then there are Superpaint
and Fractal Painter, NIH Image and a couple other programs for image 
processing, a couple of ray tracers, a solid-modelling program, an
L-system modeller, a couple of fractal generators... all of which would
*work* without a color monitor, but none of which would work as well.   
Of course, I'm not an artist or a graphics professional.  They might
use more than I do.

>I suspect that grayscale would more than fill most people's needs  
>most of the time.  Is having color worth having a less powerful  
>machine that doesn't multi-task?  

I wouldn't know.  I don't have a machine that doesn't multitask.
I have a Macintosh.  Oh, I see, you meant a machine with *preemptive*
multitasking, where the OS can come along and interrupt the foreground
task in the middle of some CPU-intesive function, like tracking the mouse
in a paint program.  I think I'll pass on that. 

>In some applications, it definitely is.  In most, i suspect it is not.  

I suspect that most people who suspect not are people who have
never had color systems, and therefore have not discovered the
uses they can make of them and integrated them into their lifestyle/
workstyle. 

>For barely over the $3000 you say  
>you're about to spend on a mac you would have a much more powerful  
>system in every way except for the lack of color.  

Barely over $3000?  Only if you can get an academic discount.
From: ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:21:30 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

NOT!!!

In article <1992Sep30.235029.3723@news.th-darmstadt.de> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:

>Actually coming to think of it, since a GUI doesn't have a concept of
>a PATH, where the commands reside, the only option you have is fill up
>the main screen with icons as 'immediately available' commands. Obviously
>this is rather limiting, and as soon as you move a window over it you
>are losing time, uncovering parts of yor desktop.

>Nat!

NOT!

Where have you been?  (this group is such a fun flame-fest!)  Have you
not heard of the "Apple Menu" on a macintosh?  With System 7, which has
only been out for a year now (maybe more...) it's trivial to add an
application to the apple menu, and once you do, it's a single menu
selection that's _always_ available.  Easier than setting up a path,
too!  Because if you move the folder in which the application resides,
you don't have to do _anything_.  The apple menu still works.  It'll
work even if the application is on a volume mounted over the network.

Chris



Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 13:04:31 EDT



1. Factory process control ddoesn't need an interface, it needs cheap
dedicated, cutomized hardware, I can buy a 800-bit interface off
one Mac for <5000 dollars, mac included. How much that cost in PC?

2. MUCH medical research is done on Macs, ask national Instruments and
 Data Translation how many  interface boards they sell each year.

3. NASA uses Macs. So much for being no good for engineering. I believe 
hearing something about some airplane company switching everything over
last year.. (not Boeing.. starts with an N.. anyone??)

4. The brochures for your precious process-controll conference were
probably made on a Mac, as was the newspaper you read about it in.

5. Macs do fine on REAL real-time stuff, not the 100hz garbage that
process-controll "engineers" (yeah, like steam engines) play with.
(try your process-controll PC's at microsecond event timeing and
100khz computed real-time synthesis, all simultaneously)

6. ah, forget it

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:52:58 GMT

In article <strobl.717758712@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <6065.2ac71b5b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>In article <strobl.717624432@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>Please don't repeat it. The Mac has been open in every respect from the
>>hardware to the software since 1987. 
>
>I'll believe that when I can run a shrinkwrapped copy of the Macintosh
>OS I bought in the small computer shop around the corner for 90$,
>on the hardware of *my* choice.
Name *ONE* OS that you can buy that is completely hardware independant.

>real point is: using that programming interface (and user interface)
>forces me to buy the OS from Microsoft, but it doesn't force me
>(and the users of my programs) to buy the hardware from them, too.
Check out Outbound. The only Apple hardware required is the ROM.

>decide to become an Unix fan, I have a handfull of different 
>systems to select one from, with variing quality and resource
>consumption (and price, of course). On the Macs side, it isn't my
>choice, but Apples choice what they decide to support on their
>machine. 

Macs can run: MacOS, A/UX, Minix, MachTen, MacMach, OS/9. 
              (also DOS and Windows if you are desperate)

/s Steve Fuller        sfuller@tamu.edu        Texas A&M University
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 12:06:25 GMT

In article <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu> kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) writes:
> >Preemptive
> >multitasking?
> For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue. You can't word
> process in the background.

Ever printed a large, complicated document in a page layout program or
structured graphics program? I can work while I'm doing Postscript rendering
(a very CPU-intensive task) without hassles. I couldn't do that on a Mac,
or for that matter in Windows 3.1.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:22:14 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <D2150025.o5ttag@spumco.cts.com>, dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven) writes:
> 
> I just saw an alpha of Applescript.  IT SUCKS!! 

Well an Alpha is hardly the final version. I remember using Alphas of System
7, they sucked, too.

> It deals only with OSA compatible applications, and its interface is lame.  

What the heck is OSA? 

AppleScript can only work with AppleEvent compatable applications, that's
true. And the Applications have to be modified to support some of the 
AppleScript features (such as recording). This will take time for developers
to support. It won't instantaneously work with everything. 

One particularly AppleEvent incompatable application is the Finder.

> It hardly delivers system-level power.

In what way?

> And it's useless as a command-line shell. 

AppleScript was NEVER INTENDED as a command-line shell. If you are so
backward to be locked into the tradional computing interface of the 70's,
buy MPW. It has command lines. Happy?

>> For personal computers, this is by and large a non-issue.
> 
> Have you ever had a file transfer abort because you were launching an 
> application or pulling down a menu?  And don't tell me about 
> MacIntercomm..  The multitasking capacity of system 7 is spastic at best.

The only time I've had a file transfer abort due to these circumstances
is when I've purposely caused them. The problem here isn't necessarily
that you need preemption in the OS, perhaps you need better file transport
methods.

For the record, Smartcom II was one of the first Applications that permitted
background transfers with MultiFinder. It was useful then, and it is useful
now. I've used it a lot, and I don't see the problem. (BTW, I'm doing a
background transfer with it while I'm typing this to you)

The MultiTasking capacity of System 7 is perfectly adequate for most users.
Apple realises that preemption can solve certain problems. They are working
on it. They have told us to expect a microkernal OS in about 2 years.

-- 
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: boyd@apple.com (scott boyd)
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:19:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <IenSfRq00WBM02fGtw@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl
B Jabido) wrote:
> > >NO COMMAND LINE!!!
> >  
> > >Why do I want one?  How do you set a path for running programs in a
> > >folder 5 or 6 deep?  You have to dbl-click, dbl-click, etc. . .  Just
> > >set a path and type in the command, and you're running it.
> >  
> > Then you're missing the point of System 7's alias system.  With System 7,
> > you won't need to worry where your programs are, because you can have an
> > alias of the program as close as you want (even in the Apple Menu).  I
> > keep my most frequently used programs (about 15) on my desktop, instantly
> > accessable.  I don't need to remember any commands, directory names,
> > etc.
> 
> Don't forget, we OS/2 people do have aliases!  But they're called
> shadows.  Yes I love the alias/shadows setup, and I use them quite alot.
>  My only problem is that (and this too has been on the net) I just
> checked how many programs/commands are in my path, and it's up to about
> 300.  Does this mean I have to create a folder called Path, and put 300
> objects in it?

No.  That's not how Macintosh works.  When you open a document from Finder,
Finder can find the application (if it's available) anywhere on your disks.
You never have to configure a "path" to be able to connect your documents
to your applications.

scott
boyd@apple.com
macintosh system software
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 03:47:53 GMT

Terry Thiel writes
> >Apple better get on the ball.  System 7.1 lacks some of
> > the basic features that define a REAL operating system.
> >Where is Memory protection?  A system level scripting
> > language that isn't third party?  Preemptive multitasking?
> >  Command-line shells?  All these are things that Apple has
> > been promising us for years.
> 
> I strongly agree with all the above.  After working alot 
> with Unix I can really see the Macs weaknesses in these areas. 
> A marriage of the Mac user interface and Unix functionality 
> would be an unbeatable combination.

Why wait?  You can already get that combination in a NeXT.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy