HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:32:41 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

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:
>>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.
> 
> 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.

My point was that you have to learn to be proficient at the mouse just as 
you learned proficiency on the keyboard. Too many of these keyboard jocks
use a mouse for a few minutes and decide it is "too slow." Subsequently,
they avoid ever using a mouse and never become proficient.

Once you become proficient with the mouse (which should take about 1/10
the time it takes to become proficient at the keyboard), you won't want
to go back.

>>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)
> 
> Decent editor in my opinion lets me work as I want and not as the editor wants.
> Your opinion my vary of course.

I think you are carrying this "work as I want to" thing too far. The beauty
of the arrangement is that I learned something new, and became more
productive because of it. If I buried my head in the sand, I'd have never
enjoyed that new productivity.

>>> Yes folks...My editor of choice is VI, and I love it, 
>>YUCK!
> 
> I think that vi is accepted by much higher number of people than any of the
> editors of Mac. 

Interesting assertion. I would suppose there are a larger number of Microsoft
Word users out there than vi users by a extremely healthy margin. So much for
that argument.

> You my concider your unhealthy stomach reaction a curiosum.

Yuck.

>>> and I just love the csh commands such as !-8/s/foo/bar/ ...... try that with
>>> a GUI..
>>
>>Why bother? 
> 
> What is your point?

I don't want or need csh commands. So why bother with them?

-- 
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: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:08:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct16.005608.4431@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu writes:
>LC.  2-bit greyscale gives you 8 shades of gray, which is quite  

By what sort of math do you derive this????
  1 bit -> 2   shades
  2 bit -> 4   shades
  3 bit -> 8   shades
  n bit -> 2^n shades (then subtract bits used for alpha channels)

Jess Holle
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Power PC (was Re: IBM SUCKS!)
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:23:31 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <1992Oct13.084902.2675@tamsun.tamu.edu>, sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu
(Steve Fuller) wrote:
> 
> In article <mike_steiner-121092131032@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> >
> >The first PowerPC chip is a scaled-down version of the R/S 6000; there are
> 
> Scaled down and scaled up. I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture by
> Rick Simpson of IBM's Watson labs. He worked on the 64-bit extensions to the
> Power architecture. He said that Motorola (and to a lesser extent, Apple)
> really drove IBM hard to remove the extra silicon needed by rarely used
> instructions. (for example, the PPC can't do a mask of bits 3-28 as the
> RS/6000 can) By reducing the number of complex instructions, the PPC is a
> smaller, faster, less complex chip than the current RS/6000.

Essentially, that's what I had meant by "scaled down."

> >opcodes in the R/S 6000 that are not in the Power PC chip, and according to
> 
> True. Mostly rarely used functions. (less than 1%) However the PPC supposedly
> can emulate those functions. Mr. Simpson stated clearly that they are binary
> compatable. (at least the 32-bit PPC)

Again, that's what I had heard; I should have spelled it out better.

> >what I read somewhere (I can't recall where.), there are a few opcodes in
> >the Power PC chip that are not in the R/S 6000.  Keep in mind that the
> 
> I would be interested in hearing more about this.
> Are you thinking of the 64-bit extesions by chance?

Sorry, but that's all that I can recall.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
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, 16 Oct 1992 21:31:33 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 <5_4zwmg@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rs6216.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>You can (of course) implement a multitasking arrangement with no
>user interface, so that your program just sits there and
>computes (or what have you) without comment about it, and the user
>can switch to annother app or whatever. Its better, however, to
>put up a movable modal dialog with some text in it saying what the
>app is doing, and a thermometer, and use the watch cursor, and
>so on. This requires code. More than one line of it. Now do you
>see what this has to do with multitasking?

Oh.  I see.  You only have to write code for that interface
because of the Mac's (boo! hiss!) evil, nasty cooperative
multitasking.  If the Mac had preemptive multitasking, you
don't think that interface would require any code?  Interesting 
notion, even if it's not, uh, solidly grounded in reality.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:32:32 GMT

In article <92289.144850ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>, ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
|> In article <ewright.719104145@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
|> Wright) says:
|> >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.
|> >
|> So is that new with System 7 or does it work under 6 with Multifinder too?
|> I'm really curious since I can't run System 7 'cause my most important (and
|> expensive) app crashes the whole system under 7.0

It isn't the case under system 7, either.

|> Or to put it in this form: is there a difference in multitasking between
|> Multifinder and System 7 ?

No. Well, nothing very major. A bug in WaitNextEvent was fixed,
and the Process Manager was added (which isn't very usefull- it lets
you do things like make lists of apps. Wheeee), plus of course Apple Events.

-- 
			- 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: ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: About Standard file (was: Re: <None>)
Date: 17 Oct 92 04:27:21
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
	<6206.2adaf73d@hayes.com> <1992Oct13.234943.2150@news.cs.indiana.edu>
	<CKD.92Oct14154234@loiosh.eff.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kivikkorastas.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: ckd@eff.org's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:42:38 GMT

In article <CKD.92Oct14154234@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

   If you know the file starts with 'l' you hit the 'l' key, and, wham,
   there you are.  If you know it starts with 'letter' you can start typing
   'letter' and it will jump to the first potential completion with each
   letter you type.

But it's only half a solution if (as common) a lot of the files begin
with a common string and have the difference at the end.

   If you want a bigger SFGetFile, you can always just
   toss an extension in the System Folder; not everyone has a large screen,
   y'know, and if it were *too* large someone would complain about all the
   extra mouse movement... :-)

But, is the 31-letter wide StandardFileDialog really too big? I have
sworn on this one much more than once. If I can't see all the files at
one, why can't I even see the complete filennames? Another "Apple knows
it better" or what?
-- 
         Tero Nieminen                      DANGER!
         ttn@cs.tut.fi                   Computer Bytes!

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:34:04 GMT

In <6205.2adadf0c@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

[...]

>Except DOS doesn't have anything close. You can't get a full page display
>for DOS. DOS is 24 (or 25) by 80. 25 lines is barely a third of a page.

Bill, while I won't argue with the rest of your posting, this statement
isn't exactly true. Both BIOS and DOS can adapt to varying screen sizes, 
and, starting with the EGA card, which is nearly as old as the Macintosh,
the hardware can support other screen sizes too - EGA does 43x80, VGA 
adds 28x80 and 50x80, and most SVGA cards (which are standard nowadays)
can do a lot of other sizes up to 60x132 or so.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: johnsd2@rs6216.ecs.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: A-MaxII+ ?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:36:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.161638.28902@news.ysu.edu>, af733@yfn.ysu.edu (Ryan James Smith) writes:
|> 
|> Lets not forget the SE/20.  I don't know how short lived they
|> were but I thought it was a joke when I heared about them.

That one had a very short life... 0 days. :)

Im pretty sure there was never an SE/20; there was an SE/30
but I dont know how long it lasted.

-- 
			- 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: morrison@tegra.com (Allan Morrison)
Subject: Re: IBM user's problem (was Re: trepidations of a longtime Mac user)
Organization: Tegra-Varityper, Inc. Billerica, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:16:33 GMT


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Subject: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:46:50 CDT

hey everybody,
Im getting sick of the CLI thread, and the 7.1/os2/win thread, so im starting
a new one ;)
 
Id like opinions on NeXT v. Mac, Ill start:
We use Macs and NeXTs extensively on campus (U of Mo) and I have a Mac IIsi at
home.
I love my Mac, period. However Im impressed with the NeXT. However, I would
never have a NeXT at home. First, and foremost for me when I made my purchase
decision, about 8 mos. ago, was the price issue. While I think the NeXT gives
you more for more, I think NeXTs lack of a lower end machine is a problem.
 
Also, I wouldnt want a NeXT machine at home, isolated from any networking or
server. I think the NeXT suffers more from this than the Mac.
 
I also just dont like Unix. I think its a bloated, arcane, slightly over-the-
hill OS. Yes, I know mach is supposed to be a slimmer trimmer kernel, but the
NeXT just doesnt seem as speedy as id expect an 040 to be...
 
From what Ive been reading in c.s.n.misc, it appears that NeXT inc. is really
screwing there customer base. That doesnt sound too appealing. While Apple isnt
the greatest co. in the world when it comes to cust support, at least they
dont build machines which wont be compatible with future OS updates and HW
expansion. Id hate to have an old cube right now... ;)
 
I also dont like the gui on the NeXT. Dont get me wrong, its a nice environment
but I dont feel comfortable in it... Its not all bad, and maybe Im really
only dissatisfied with the browser. It seems a little clumsy to me...
 
in favor of the NeXT ;) i do like some things: I like the real time scrolling,
proportional sliders, program dock, display postscript is nice if slow, etc.
unfortunately none of these things makes you *alot* more productive. And while
Ive never developed on the NeXT, i love my think c.
 
well, of *course* this is all one mans opinion!  ;)
 
discussion welcome...
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Eaton                    | Opinions? We're not allowed to have
UC525655@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU | opinions at Mizzou... get back to me
                              | in 2 years when I graduate... ;)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez | 802-36-4453)
Subject: Re: Macs are okay, just underpowered.
Organization: UPR-Mayaguez--ASEL Lab
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:01:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.001508.5784@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> 
|> 	In the defense of system 7 I must say that some people who are
|> criticizing it are quite off base.  System 7 is quite solid on the macs
|> I use.  I work with system 7 for many hours each day and it is ROCK solid.
|> 	The problem with the Mac's OS is that it is extremely underpowered
|> and overpriced.  When I went to system 7, I intended to get some nice
|> multitasking like I get with OS/2 2.0.  No such luck.  I sitll have
|> to wait forever to copy files from floppy to the hard drive and 
|> many apps still take over the printer whether i have a spooler or not
  
   System 7 is also to blame for this lack of multitasking.  Ok, the Mac hardware too,
but System 7 is designed to be cooperative plus being compatible to some degree with
previous stuff, which is one of the reasons that leads me to think that it has 
such an overhead.

|> (meaning I have to sit there while it thinks about printing).  To all
|> the IBM users running around in this advocacy, IBMs might be more
|> powerful and faster but the Mac OS is damn easy to use.  This counts

   The Amiga is faster and the Amiga OS has turned very easy + powerful to use.  Ok,
no flames here, I accept that the Mac has better software where typical applications
come into play (spreadsheets, word processing, DTP, database).

|> for a lot in the computer world.  If it weren't for the mac, WIndows
|> and OS/2 PM would not exist (maybe eventually but certainly not yet).
|> It's just unfortunate that Apple has gotten stuck with keeping their
|> OS compatible.  System 8 had better have a lot better performance.
|> I don't think it is cute to see our $8000 Mac Quadra 700 sit there
|> while I wait for a graphic image to print when I can take the exact
|> same image, copy it to the superdrive and print the .tif on OS/2
|> with Page Maker and be doing something else (like working on the
|> next article or whatever).
|> 

   My IMO about System 7: beautiful, easy to use, but that easy to use makes it 
harder for the power user in some cases.

- Raist
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:56:56 EDT
From: <CXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh emulation on Amiga
 <1992Oct3.044524.11919@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>
 <Bvo99x.HI0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
 <1992Oct6.224400.20459@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>

Mac emulation on the Amiga also enables file transfer and exchange between
the two platforms.

C.K.
From: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Trepidations of a longtime Mac user revisited
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: ifbb657@donald.cc.utexas.edu


  This is a followup to my bitching about the innate instability of the
Mac OS.  I found a solution to the crashing problem:  A/UX 3.0x.

This OS is a true UNIX, and if and when System 7 goes south, the
whole system does not blow up.  Just kill the process and go on.

Now it is deciding between A/UX or NeXT OS on a color slab.  VERY hard
choice...  Both ROCK.

-- 
******* ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas R. Floyd) ******
             (Insert standard disclaimer here)

   A/UX, NeXTStep, or Win NT:  You will be soon using one at
    your job, or you will not have a job.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Oct13.202113.23250@gvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Oct13.224704.1325@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:52:44 GMT

Steve> == Steve Kanefsky <kanefsky@halcyon.com> 

 Steve> Actually it's very hard to grab a physical object.  Ask a robot.
 Steve> Your own argument applies here.  You learn it so early you don't
 Steve> realize it's hard.

Yes, but given that humans have been grabbing physical objects long
before there were keyboards (or robots), that's been optimized into the
microcode for quite some time :)
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rankin@ms.uky.edu (David W. Rankin Jr.)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
    <mike_steiner-061092134343@192.35.50.131> <runeh.67.718925253@dhhalden.no>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:59:22 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <runeh.67.718925253@dhhalden.no>
		runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
<<<several layers of quotations deleted...>>>
>
>If MAC's are so damned clever, how come that our Mac's try to boot from
>the scanner? Actually, we have to make sure the scanner is off whenever 
>we have to restart the Mac (which happen quite often), or else the Mac 
>reports a disk error!
If the scanner is a SCSI scanner, try moving the devices around in the
cnain or changing their SCSI addresses. I can't offer a lot of advice,
since SCSI stuff makes no sense to me yet.
>
>Besides, why can't that shitty System 7 catch Divide By Zero errors?
>Mac's the only machines I know of which totally crashes when an application 
>divides by zero.
I don't remember this one... what System version are you running? what 
program? what INITs/CDEVs/etc are you running?? I have yet to see
a Mac program properly written to bomb on something as simple as that...
>

David W. Rankin, Jr.,  Mac Archiver for f.ms.uky.edu   Packrat on IRC
rankin@ms.uky.edu  rankin@ukma.BITNET rankin@ukma.UUCP uunet!ukma!rankin
Alternate addresses: rankin@mik.uky.edu  djrank00@aix3090b.uky.edu
---<Insert standard "These are my thoughts, and only mine." disclaimer here>---
"Now all has been heard;/ Here is the conclusion of the matter:/ Fear God and
keep his commandments,/ for this is the whole duty of man."
    "The Teacher", Ecclesiastes 12:13 (NIV)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 1992 11:09:19 -0400 
From: John Hamilton Slye <jsbr+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why a mac over a PC?


On 09-Oct-92 in Why a mac over a PC?         
user WXT106@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>There is a kind of formation in my school.  All the mac users hated
IBMs and al
>l the IBM users dislike the macs.  Therefore, there were always arguments.  We
>came up with some really good reasons, but I want to listen to the netters and
>see what everyoone likes to say about about the stupid, clumsy and useless IBM
>PCs, I am a mac user and I love what I have.  So anyone has any thing
to say, p
>ost it and I can tell those IBM users.
> 
>Just for the sake of fun.
> 
> 
>WXT106@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

OHHHHH NOOOOO!!!!!!
We just got rid of this flame war & you had to go start it up again!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shame on you!!!!

Go back a couple of hundred messages or so and you'll find out
everything you need to know!



=========================================================================
J. Hamilton Slye (jsbr@andrew.cmu.edu) 1071 Morewood Ave., Pgh, Pa. 15213

The opinions stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author!

"Oooohhhh no! Forget that stuff!"  -  Ren Hoek, "The Ren & Stimpy Show"
=========================================================================












Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:46:12 GMT

In article <ewright.719083313@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> In <strobl.718769075@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
|> 
|> >Most preemptive
|> >multitasking OS have one or more synchronizing functions,
|> >including some which enable a task to block some or all
|> >other tasks for a short time. This capability is usefull
|> >for various purposes: to guarantee the consistency of
|> >shared, global data, to guarantee that an interrupt is
|> >serviced in time, and so on. 
|> 
|> Well, you've just shot yourself in the foot.  The argument,
|> used over and over again, in favor of preemptive multitasking
|> on the Macintosh, is that it "doesn't require the programmer
|> to do anything" to make a program multitask efficiently. Now
|> you're saying that it does.  If preemptive multitasking is 
|> multitasking that doesn't require the programmer to do anything, 
|> this is not preemptive, by definition.

Let us therefore call any system where the OS will (if not stopped)
grab teh processor right out from under a process (Without that
processes explicit help a "Kumquat Dribbling" based operating system.
Now that we have that terminology out of the way, I submit that
kumquat-dribbling based OSes make it easier to program stuff
that can be put in the background, and make things run in teh background
which often do not so run in non-kumquat-dribbling OSes (such as
spell-checking (for me, anyway))

Do you have any objections to THIS statement?

-- 
			- 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.