HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:08:18 GMT

In article D5C@research.canon.oz.au, andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>
>>Piping is notably absent from the Macs GUI. I generally find that
>>I only use Pipes in Unix to do things that should not be necessary-
>>pipe something to more or grep usually. I have seen uncountable
>>numbers of complex pipes that do marvelous things (or dumb things,
>>or whatnot)- IF you can remember 245 different commands with 3 letter
>>names plus their switches. :)
>>
>
>You're not using pipes properly and/or your terminal environment is
>shitty.

Pipes are the easier way I have found to accomplish these
functions; I have (as yet) found no more "proper" (whatever that
means) use for them. Why should I make busywork for pipes?

What does my terminal environment have to do with it? How do you
know it is shitty? (not that I disagree; Athena xterms are rather
primitive imho, and thats what I use for the shell)

>>>  With a GUI, however, you are entirely at the mercy of
>>>the GUI designer, who has decided for you what tools you will use and
>>>in what manner you can use them.
>>
>>This is only true if you strech "GUI designer" to mean "anyone
>>who makes any component of your software". In this case,
>>it applies to CLIs too.
>>
>
>All true. But! Most CLIs are extendable, most GUI's are not.

Perhaps so. But the Mac GUI is extendable.

>>
>>I too have heard of Find; I know of no GUI which provides an exact
>>equivalent. But this does not mean it cannot be done. The most
>>difficult aspect of it is Finds ability to lanch annother app
>>and have act based on the error code returned. I know of no
>>mac find that can do this, but it can be done with apple events
>>(which do return error codes)
>>
>
>Error codes? I don't understand. But you are correct, it *is* possible
>to do find(1) with a GUI (depending upon your definition of a GUI).
>After all visual programming languages exist and telling find(1) what
>to find and what to do with it could be specified using a visual
>programming language.

True. What I meant about error codes is that its possibel to make
find use as its search criteria the result code of a command
you give it, used on each file. (specific example: tell it to use
cc on each file and it will return an error if the file does
not compile. Thus you can search for files that do (or dont)
compile right)

Its possible to make Mac programs do basically this. That's all.

---
			- 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.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.172755.21947@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.140759.2228@athena.mit.edu> dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>>What would happen if...
>>
>>  Microsoft ported Windows NT to the Macintosh and the PowerPC?
>>
>
>It wouldn't bother them at all. All it would do is lend legitimacy
>to the product without Microsoft paying for the advertising to
>endorse the hardware. Their time would be better spent winning John
>Scully's frivilous lawsuit, that he is so fond of trotting out in
>the papers when it does not get enough media coverage. THAT would
>really annoy Apple...
>

Besides, it would be a very bad investment of time, resources, and
money.  Why would MS want to write something so signifcant for such a
small portion of the pc world?  There are bigger, more important fish to
fry!

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: tom@microsoft.com (Tom McConnell)
Subject: Re: Question on Windows for Workgroups
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:46:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov11.171531.7762@cs.cornell.edu> rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan) writes:
>
>
>	1) Under DOS, connect to the 486 running WfW.
>	2) Load WfW.
>

Yes this will work fine. The qualifications for this is that you
need to buy 2 copies of Windows for Workgroups. (I believe, check
the liscencing agreement to be sure.)

The machine which is booting up off the floppy should be able to
do a net use c: \\remote\share and then set the path accordingly and
start windows.

The remote booted machine will running the redirector software in real mode
and so it will take up space in the low 640k area, but all features of
WfW will be available (including file sharing) as long as you are a 386?X.

-Tom 
Lan Manager Server dude



-- 
"Hey COW!"  _____________((     
           /       **     o\    ______     _______________________
          /|      ****      \ _/moo...\    |     Tom McConnell   |
         / |      **    /\__/  \______/    | uunet!microsoft!tom |
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:29:45 GMT

In article <1eebgnINN2nh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu () says:
|> 
|> >In article <1ec7l2INN1th@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
|> >> 
|> >> In a previous article, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) says:
|> >> 
|> >>>Mac zealots, like mmunson for exmaple, remind me of xian
|> >>>fundementalists.  No matter what evidence you shove in front of their
|> >>>face, they simply ignore it.  Go ahead Mark, enjoy your Mac.  It's a
|> >>>toy computer, but hey, if you like it, then fine.  Just don't try to
|> >>>change the world so that I have to suffer with your religion.
|> >>>
|> >>  Well maybe I joined this game a bit late and I don't know what you're
|> >> talking about (and maybe Mr. Roston is correct, I don't know what the
|> >> discussion is about), but the Macintosh is FAR superior especially if
|> >> you're talking PeeCees vs. Macs. If the Mac is a "toy" computer, why the
|> >> hell is everyone in PC-ville trying to copy its OS eh? As far as suffering
|> >> with religions, we're already suffering the PC religion. Had Apple cloned
|> >> the Macintosh in 1984, we'd see 1 zillion Macs instead of PCs just becase
|> >> the Macintosh makes so much more sense. To quote Lee Iacoca: 
|> > > "Just because it makes SENSE."
|> >
|> >	Oh right.  Everyone is going to a GUI.  Not everyone is copying
|> >the Mac.  The Mac popularized the GUI which Apple did not invent.  
|> >I can't think of very many things that Mac can do better than a PC but
|> >I can think of many things PCs do better than Macs at a smaller price.
|> >And I work with Macs a lot more than PCs.  
|> >	The most expensive Quadra with System 7 still can't multitask
|> >worth mentioning.  
|> >
|> >						-Brad
|> >
|> COME OFF IT BRAD and wake up to the real world! I agree "Not everyone" but
|> then why is MS-Windozse for PeeCees such a hit, huh? Why is MSFT so big on
|> Windows and Windoze NT? Back to multitasking- and a PEECEE CAN? Or are you
|> an Amiga Zealot here to preach Commodore's wonderful niche computer?
|> -- 

A question: on your $7000 Quadra 950, can you perform the simple multitasking
task of formatting a floppy in the background? It's easy under MS-Windows. Start
the format in File Manager, and click on another app, and the format continues. I
have not seen the Mac do this (except A/UX :)

Daniel Silevitch                                   dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:29:14 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1kx1dvl@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel  
Norman Johnson) writes:
> In article 1ebi0tINNkhf@transfer.stratus.com,  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

> >The biggest choice you get in Windows but not on the Mac
> >is choice of interface.  If you don't like the Program Manager,
> >you can use Norton Desktop, or Aporia, or HP New Wave, or any
> >of dozens of other interfaces.  This is a plus in the Windows
> >column. 
> The reason virtually all Macs use the Finder is because its so
> good (imho) not because you cant replace it; its just an app;  
replace
> it with anything you like. Ive heard of various finder  
replacements;
> there used to be one that organized things into a set of panes,
> sorta like a NeXT. They aren't common because there isn't much
> demand.

I buy and large like the Mac Finder, but think it could be 
better. It is certainly better than the Program Manager. But
I like the Norton Desktop better than either.


> It IS possible to change various parts of the Mac UI a bit; replace
> those scrollbars with nextoid scrolls, make those buttons 3d,
> make teh menus tear off, or pop up. Etc. Nothing terribly
> fundamental, tho.

NeXT scrollbars.  Nooooo.  I use a NeXT every day, and like many
things about its interface. But not the scrollbars. I prefer
Mac/Windows scrollbars any day.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:14:56 GMT

For the record:  ATI has a new graphics card, the ATI Ultra Pro,
available for ISA, EISA, MCA and Local BUs that is capable of
1280x1024x256 colors at 76 hz non-interlaced.  Of ciurse, at lower
reoslutins, it can do true 24 bit color.  The reason I mention thjis
card is that its cheap, < $900 US.  Other companies have been making
true color, i.e., 24 or 32 bit color cards for PCs for many years, its
just that these puppies have been quite pricey, say >$1500.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Call to mind the sentiments which Nature
Field Robotics Center,          | has engraved in the heart of every citizen,
Carnegie Mellon University      | and which take a new force when they are
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | solemnly recognized by all: -For a nation
(412) 268-3856                  | to love liberty, it is sufficient that she
                                | knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient
The opinions expressed are mine | that she wills it.  Marquis de Lafeyette
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec328.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec328.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:10:43 GMT

In article 8A7@javelin.sim.es.com, mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:
>In article: <GERRY.92Nov17180007@onion.cmu.edu> states:
>

[deletia- if we Macheads would only listen to the evidence...]

>
>Hmm..  What evidence have we seen?   "...it won't format floppies in the
>backgroun."  "...it's multitasking ins't pre-emptive."  "It's too expensive."
>
>I'm not ignoring this stuff, I just don't think it's really that important
>when compared with the rest of the positive evidence.

I agree but...

>You folks just need to lighten up a little.  This IS the Mac-Advocacy board.
>If you're really offended by hearing about the good and bad points of the
>Macintosh, then why are you here?  You don't see me on the Amiga. NeXT or PC
>oriented advocacy boards trying to convert the world.

Oh yes they DO!

You crossposeted to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy. And I suspect others
will be less gentle in informing you of this. Go get some flame-guard (tm)
today. :)



---
			- 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.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Windows, OS/2 and Mac APIs
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:12:21 GMT

In article 29784@wes.on.ca, tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>garym@runx.oz.au (Gary Makin) writes:
[deletia- manuals]
>> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu >> Me? I would prefer just to read the 69 pages in "Inside Macintosh: Files"
>> that described pretty well all that most programmers would need to know
>> about working with files on the Mac. (Note that this 69 pages contains
>> about 13 pages of sample code.)
>
>Sure ... when the new Inside Mac: Files has only been out a few months.  And
>there are only three volumes so far: Files, Processes and Memory (wouldn't
>*you* consider "Toolbox Essentials" an essential volume -- and yet it's not
>out yet!).  I'd love to toss these first-generation Inside Mac manuals in
>the incinerator (where they rightfully belong), but the new ones are still
>far from complete.  And the new ones cost more money again ... I'm spending
>more money on Inside Mac books than on a Microsoft C++ and Windows SDK!

Yeah, I agree with you about the price. Apple gouges developers rediculously
on the manuals.

>> Okay, I must admit that IM:Files is only fairly new, but it's the best damned
>> technical reference I've ever seen.
>
>You probably haven't seen very many.  It's an order of magnitude better than
>the old ones (which are crap), but it's still unorganized, especially in
>the way it arranges the 57 different types of File Manager calls, and the
>index isn't so hot, either.  I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10; not as good as
>the Win32 manuals (8.5) but much better than Inside Mac I-VI (3.0).

I dont have this, so I cant say how good it is but there cant be more than
6 types of File Manager calls. :) Honest. 57 is a bit much. (then again,
so is 6...)

(incidentally, how many you need depends on which system versions you
wish to program)

>[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
>[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
>[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]



---
			- 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.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dwightm@microsoft.com (Dwight Matheny)
Subject: Re: Windows NTa/b ... where to get from?
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:30:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

What is windows NTa/b??

-Dwight (MS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:53:39 GMT

johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 721999698@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <b=w16xf@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>>In article 721932965@dhhalden.no, runehh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
>>>>In article <00t1hlb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>[deletia- metafiles]
>>>>>>You don't, if you only need simple sounds. There is always the 
>>>>>>speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which can only beep under Windows, no? Or did windows pick up a driver
>>>>>for the internal speaker that I dont know about?
>>>>There is a driver for the internal speaker you don't know about. It's OK as 
>>>>long as you don't need noise-free sound.
>>
>>>I understand from an email conversation that this driver disables
>>>interrupts. This would mean you cant use it asyncrhonously (it
>>>locks up your mouse). Kinda... cheesy.. no wonder MS didn't
>>>include it.
>>
>>The Windows 3.1 driver for the internal speaker that I have installed
>>on my machine (I got it from one of the collections of new or
>>enhanced drivers which MS distributes via CompuServe or the
>>networks) can be configured via the control panel. One of the
>>options is a checkbox labeled "Enable interrupts during playback".
>>If this box is checked, the sound becomes a bit noisy, but the
>>mouse dosn't freeze during playback, if interrupts are enabled.
>>
>>All this is of course a kludge. But, contrary to what you said
>>earlier, it proves that even on PCs without a soundcard, Windows
>>*can* replay sounds and isn't restricted to simple beeps. 
>>

>Well, I didn't know about the checkbox. But what it proves is that
>windows can be made to replay sounds on a standard speaker. The
>difference is the need for extra software.

>Remember that if Windows can count the extra stuff like that, so can
>the Mac. It would get crazy fast, I think.

But this isn't exactly extra software! It's like a bug fix since Microsoft
published it and it's on the 'net for all Windows users. If you can't count
that, you can't count the Apple System 7 tuneup or any other bug fixes
that you download from the 'net.


>---
>			- Dan Johnson
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:11:15 GMT

In article 722437792@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <5911v9p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>[...]
>>>
>>>>Snappyness is subjective. If you think PCs are snappy enough (or
>>>>snappier for that matter), then fine.
>>>
>>>PCs are indeed snappy enough (and often snappier). I've yet to find
>>>a machine (workstation, Mac or other) which gives the same amount
>>>of snappiness as a PC working in non-graphics mode.
>
>>Zing! You got me, I was talking about Windows, but didn't say so.
>
>I knew that you where talking about Windows. I made that remark
>because people with a Macintosh background have a tendency to
>ignore that fact that PC hardware has a much broader useage
>pattern than just running desktop publishing programs on 
>Windows.

I wasn't just thinking of desktop publishing. I was thinking
of just Windows- for any use.

> Because of that, you'll always find PCs which have a
>video hardware which is indeed far to slow to run Windows
>comfortably, and more so for tasks like the above ones. 
>
>Does that mean that you always have to replace the video
>hardware, in order to be able to run Windows successfully?

No, I dont expect so.

>Of course not! For one, people nowadays buy much more 
>computing power than they really need, because PCs are
>- in comparison to Macs - cheap. This partially compensates the
>smaller memory width, if the VGA card in use isn't too old.

Memory width?

>In addition, there is a need for computer apps which
>can profit from nice graphics interface provided by Windows,
>but which aren't overly interactive, so that the speed
>of the video display doesn't matter much. I once built 
>a computer controlled discharger for NiCad batteries,
>which measured the exact capacity by measuring the output
>voltage and controlling the current. I used Windows for
>three reasons. The multitasking made it possible to start
>four instances and processing for batteries at the same
>time and independant of each other, I could display the
>important numbers in big letters, and Windows device in-
>dependence allowed me to defer the descision on what
>machine to run on. I finally put the A/D- and D/A card
>into an old XT with a monochrome adapter, because that
>machine was collecting dust in the cellar. Display speed
>was unimportant.

I see what you mean about that. It doesn't always matter.

(of course, for such a task, does speed matter either?)
---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2700 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2664
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigots)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:33:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxtvwI.BAq
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

CLI's are useful, and allow more flexibility than GUI's, but GUI's are
usually easier to use for commands that they do support.  I maintain,
therefore, that both arguments are wrong, and that an integrated environment
is best.  At the moment, neither the Mac nor Windows offers this as
standard.

Yes, Windows lets you run DOS in a window, but how much can DOS affect
your Windows environment?  You can run A/UX, but it doesn't really give 
command line control over native applications.

Now, X (or NeXTSTEP, to some degree) running on top of UNIX _does_ offer
this flexibility, and most window managers allow one customize menus, etc.
to automate frequent commands.  An ideal environment would allow the user
to do everyday work with a GUI, but drop down to a command line to do 
something unusual.  If he/she needed to do something not allowed for in
the graphic interface frequently, he/she should be able to add it to the
interface.

We (the computer using population) need an interface like this, except 
without the complication and administrative hassles of UNIX that many of
us don't want to deal with.  Perhaps, a sort of "personal UNIX".
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and 
   child." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy