HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:51:47 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1993Jan20.153252.14559@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
  [stuff about silly Byte article]

>Depends on WHICH Quadra you use to compair and WHEN this compairison was done.
>The Quadra 900 and its replacment the 950 both have SCSI-2 hardware builtin
>{The OS need to be partly rewriten to take FULL advantage of SCSI-2; as it is
>now the SCSI-2 hardware allows the fastest SCSI interface for the mac with
>14 devices {7 internal, 7 external, Due to the OS limit of 7 devices on one 
>chain} 
>The Quadra 950 cost the same in each configuration as the 900 but the
>950 is 30% faster.
>Also WHAT all did they add?  The 950 costs $6650 for 8MB/230MB, a 13"
>RBG monitor and a keyboard. ~$11000 extra is somwhat rediculus, unless they
>filled the machine with 16MB SIMMs {256MB of RAM at $9000 is a little 
>overboard, even for UNIX, ;-)} addes a 1GB hard drive {$1000-$2000}, and
>of cource the A/UX 3.0 system {$709).  To keep for loosing the 8MB of
>we removed lets use a Radius Rocket 040 at $2000 and get two CPUs for
>the machine; to balence things lets put the 8MB back in the Quadra and put
>128MB on the Rocket.  Now our config is 136MB/128MB/230MB/1GB. with a
>price of ~$20359 {the Mac's cost is street all others are retail and
>most are rounded UP to the nearest 1000.}

First thing they added was a real monitor. They were comparing work
stations, so the Mac needed a 16" monitor. It went on from there.

The argument isn't that the Mac was overpriced. Byte said it won the test
and then recommended the Indigo (lost badly). Of course, they used
a mono NeXT, then criticized it for not having color (why not use a color
machine then?), so you know the test wasn't ever meant to be fair. If you
read the article, you'll see that the Indigo was supposed to win before
the tests were done. After the tests, in which the Indigo placed last, the
writers still recommended it because they have one on their desk.

>
>Now a comparitivly costing Next can beat THIS?  If anybody still believes that
>I know of a company that is selling a bridge in New York cheap; Called the
>Broklin(sp) bridge if I remember correctly.  

Sure, why not. A cube with 2 Turbo 040 boards and a Dimension board, fill the
Dimension (64 Meg?) and put 160Meg on each 040 board. Two 17" mono and
1 17" color monitor.

And you didn't remember correctly. It's the Brooklyn bridge. Check your
bill of sale, I'm sure it's written on there, above 'satisfaction 
guaranteed or your money cheerfully refunded'.

Terry Wilcox
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Mac vs Win NT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:55:24 GMT

In article <1k6ca1INN7v6@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>
>What are the advantages of Win NT over System 7, and the other way
>around?
>
>This is assuming that MS has not pushed back the ship date until the next
>contraction/expansion of the universe :-).
>
>I know that NT should be pretty virus resistant because of its protected
>mode providing you do not log on as "admininstrator" all the time.
>
>PS:  When WILL NT ship, and would it work with a 386-33?
>

I'm not familiar enough with the Mac and System 7 to give a comparison,
but I can say for sure that NT runs on my 386/33 reasonably well.  I do
have 12 MB ram and it's a tad sluggish (compared to dos and Win 3.1),
but I'm hopeful that the released version will be swifter...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: thartman@phakt.usc.edu (Tye)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 11:20:14 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <1jhck1INN507@pith.uoregon.edu> rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>Question:
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>it got cancelled?  BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>DisplayPostcript?  Not very, I'd wager.
>
You obviously don't know a whole lot about the NeXT OS.  Unlike a Mac, it's
truly multitasking.  And Display Postscript takes some serious CPU power, too.
NeXTSTEP 486 runs Display Postscript beautifully, just like a NeXTStation.  
I've seen it.  It's amazing.

>Macinotosh forever, or at least until someone comes up with something better.

Sorry, NeXTSTEP has been here awhile now!    ;)
>  
>************************************************************************
>* "Remember, you're not losing an empire game, you're gaining a life." *
>*  Russ Taylor/Brennan the Protector rtaylor@cie @honors .uoregon.edu  *
>************************************************************************

Tyson Hartman
thartman@usc.edu
From: rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert Alexander Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 25 Jan 1993 00:33:44 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu


I saw a few posts regarding the ease of use in setting up a NeXT network 
versus a LocalTalk one...

I am a novice at both...never had any formal training in networking...I used
to work for an Apple reseller and maintained their network (pretty small)...
EASY!

I also set up my father's NeXT network after he made the switch from 
DOS/Windows...EASY!  I had to open the NeXT manual once, but other then that
things were pretty self explanitory...

I don't think their is much of a difference...unless you are concerned with
speed...integrating other platforms into your network...ease of use...

In that case, you might check out NeXT!

-Rob
From: zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:04:47 GMT

In article <FXaoXB2w165w@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca> jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>In a message written on Wed, 20 Jan 1993 00:26:50 GMT, 
>zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes :
>
>WHY do the new Mac server machines run AU/X INSTEAD of MacOS????  Because
>MacOS is not even powerful enough to handle simple tasks such as file 
>serving and network support.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning.  Let's face 
>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT?  I'm beginnin to think not by your 
>stupid comments.  The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in 
>most cases.  It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves 
>like an 030 IIci.  The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better 
>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer!  The 

Cheap welfare interface?  Very intelligent statement.


>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming 
>up!  But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better 

If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software would
have to be rewritten to accomodate it.  You will never ever ever see 
pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.

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

It is not next, it is NeXT.

>
>---
>jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
>The Draco Unix System [BBS]

Eric


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Another PC clone horror story
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:44:10 GMT

One of my friends has a 486.  He bought it in the middle of last year.

Since then he has had various troubles with it that I've mentioned on
the net.  These include:

--inability to use mouse and 2 modems simultaneously, though he has 4
  COMM ports (this is better than one of my profs who can only get one
  modem to work at the same time as the mouse on a very spurious basis)

--computer completely forgetting about its IDE drive and refusing to
  acknowledge it after a free/shareware program was run (which had nothing
  to do with disk utilities or the like)

Now the latest news.  He finally removed his internal modem to get rid
of various inexplicable IRQ conflicts that occurred when trying to use a
mouse and a second modem.  When he did this he had to jumper some things
and flip switches on various cards.  He spent all day on this.  The
two problems mentioned above wasted over 2 days of OUR time for each 
problem.

Combined the time all the other DOS "experts" spent trying to help him 
and the necessary phone calls to the company that made the computer, not
to mention the time spent struggling through CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT
problems and Windows installation headaches this computer has cost FAR 
IN EXCESS of 2 MAN WEEKS of labor out of 1 year (this is without the DOS
learning, as you recall).  I don't know what your weeks are worth to you,
but this alone is justification for the PC-clone to Mac price difference
in my book.

Considering that it cost him personally over a week, counting some rigors 
of DOS, etc, that means that his computer reduced his efficiency by 2%
annually (this is, of course, not including the "support staff" of DOS
experts).  If you are making a reasonable salary, say $40,000 (he is an
engineering student), you are spending $800 dollars a year on the computer
in wasted user time.  Over the lifetime of a computer, say 4 years
(optimistic, I know), that is $3200.  Add that to your "cheap" 486 price.

I believe that this is a GROSS underestimate actually, when you consider
that he spends longer learning DOS programs that Mac users have to spend
learning their programs.  He uses Windows a lot, BUT there are the times
when he has to fiddle with .INI files or AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS to
get things working properly.  YECK!!  The extra hassle to all of this
is worth much $$$ to avoid in my book.

Besides, who needs a 486 if they're not running the pig known as Windows :-)


Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: (not) Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:20:46 GMT

In article J46@world.std.com, kaya@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.234235.3441@unlv.edu> edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.203022.9646@qb.rhein-main.de> vhs@rhein-main.de writes:
>>>In article <z1h3lbb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman  
>>>Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>[a lot of NeXT bashing deleted]
>>>
>>>Interesting to note what your organisation line shows:
>>>
>>>>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>
>>>I knew Sun was afraid of NeXT but I didn't know they would bash
>>>NeXT on usenet (especially without a disclaimer).
>>
>>Oh please. Just because there is no disclaimer doesnt mean he is
>>that company. Disclaimers are a blight on this world. Its a
>>shame people cant use their head and realize just because someone
>>posts from someplace they are that place.
>
>
>What are we to assume, then?  By default if nothing else, a person
>is from the place where his posts come from until found otherwise.
>

This is absurd. My posts come from johnsd2@rpi.edu (that's Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, but the important thing is that it isn't
Sun, as can easily be deduced from the .edu bit)

If you wish to attribute my posts to RPI, you are a silly person, but
you are free to do so. (hey, I'm all for making my school look good! :) );

I certainly don't claim that they are RPIs opinions. In fact, I have
never, EVER seen ANYONE on the net claim that the opinions he was posting
belonged to his Organization. I've seen facts posted that way once or
twice, but that's it.

I have explained in the past that the Organization line is a result
of using a slightly screwy newsreader. (its not supported by
RPI; I like it rather better then their newsreaders but I dont
know how to change the organization line, except on a post by post
(yech) basis)

Usually I ignore it. The only time it becomes a problem is when I argue
with NeXTheads, and usually not even then.

Anyway, I dont quite see how insults are justified- even if I were
from Sun, I have never ever defended Sun computers on the net. It just
isn't fair to call me a Sun flunky. :(

If you MUST call me a flunky, call me a Mac flunky. I do try to defend
the Mac at least.

This is kinda rediculous. I'm gonna have to change the silly thing.
(on the bright side, If I can change it, I can change it to anything I want.
:) )
---
			- 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: aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie)
Subject: Re: rtaylor@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: An Ol Ag surrounded by a bunch of unfriendly Seminoles
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 22:44:04 GMT

In article <1926@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) wrote:
> 
> In article <aggie-200193204326@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu>  
> aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) writes:
> 
> [two button NeXT mice]
> > No, the second is usually redundant. How many app's actually use
> > the second one?? 
> 
> All of them.  The system is set up to pop up the application's menu under  
> a right mouse click.  If two buttons is annoying, you can set the  

To paraphrase what I've said elsewhere: yeah? so what good is it? I find 
popping the menu with the mouse click to be mostly useless. I wasn't clear
enough, though. What I meant is: How many app's actually use the second
mouse button for SOMETHING other than bringing up the app's menu? As far
as I know, only one, the commercial X application by Pencom [?Pensoft?].

The way I read the original author, he was making the statement that two
buttons are better than one. I still don't see why or how that's so, if
all I can do is pop up the "active" window's menu.

James
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: kaya@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:04:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.220336.3019@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>
>If I am not mistaking the gist of your long drawn out post, T. Wilcox,
>you seem to be denigrating the IRIS Indigo as compared to the NeXT.

Perhaps. :)  Or maybe he was pointing out the extreme slant of the
review.  Basically they gave the NeXT low scores, the Indigo low
scores, the IBM and Compaq boxes okay reviews, and then pushed 
the Mac.  Then they qualified everything by reccomending the
Iris (I like SGI machines, too) and then announcing that
"had the NeXT more software, it really woulda been up there, we
loved it" kind of thing.  If I didn't know better, I'd say
half a dozen editors were politically dishing out the praise.
>
>For any graphically intense work, the IRIS machines are unparalled
>IMHO.  They have a simple Graphics Language which allows 3D animation
>at real time speeds with no programming effort.  It can do curves and
>surfaces with Gourard shading effortlessly.  I could go on, but.....

NeXTSTEP for SGI!  NeXTSTEP for SGI!  (of course, the graphics 
libs would have to be moved over...)

>
>The NeXT, SUN, Mac, PC, and Amiga all do not compare in this regard
>by even the furthest stretch of the imagination.

SGI's are, I must say though, priced at a cushy premium.

>
>
>Jess Holle


-- 
Kaya Bekiroglu - "Don't mind him, he's just crazy"
kaya@world.std.com
[If you're looking for something witty and amusing here, then
congratulations, you've just found it]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:55:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.135746.5669@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>Yes, the on-board video on the IIci can only handle up to 8 bits per pixel.
>
>One can add up to two additional monitors, however, which can be of any bit
>depth up to 24 bpp.
>
>The next can't handle multiple monitors, can it?
>
>Jess Holle

NeXT's do handle multiple monitors.  It is kind of neat what the NeXT
Dimension system can do.  If you have two monitors hoooked up, you can drag
a window to the edge of one monitor, and the window will appear on the 
other monitor just as if you had one continuous huge monitor. 

Eric

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: vhs@qb.rhein-main.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: vhs@qb.rhein-main.de
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:45:20 GMT

In article <hdq3sqg@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman  
Johnson) writes:
[lots unqualified of NeXT-bashing deleted]
> >It doesn't need the tiff. If all else fails, you hold down two keys
> >and get into the ROM monitor. This is all in the manual. I would
> >guess that his problems were not related to changing the login tiff
> >at all. I would guess they were playing around as root.
> 
> That would be fine IF it knew by itself that if it cant
> do it the usual way, it should use this "ROM Monitor"
> (and the monitor wasn't rediculously obscure. A text
> screen asking for userid and password would be ok.

Why don't you go back to your organisation (Sun Microsystems as your
Organisation line says - very revealing) and try to implement even a
tenth of what you demand from an OS in your own product, Solaris?
A Sun is always as easy (or hard) to break as a NeXT, only it's never
so easy to use and administer.

--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@qb.rhein-main.de), NeXTmail welcome

Looks good on the outside, but -
	intel inside
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Mac vs NeXT was Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:27:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.153449.19374@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>Question:  Is the Pentium a CISC, CRISC, or RISC chip?
>{CRISC is an intermediate stage between CISC and RISC; as such it is faster
>then a CISC but not as fast as a true RISC. Its main advantage is that
>is allows CISC instructions to be used without as much rewriting as a RISC
>chip requires.}

These distinctions are becoming very blurred together, and soon won't
be any more than buzzwords.  (Anyone remember the "Sure, it's a nice
machine, but can it NETWORK?" stuff a few years ago? d;)

For example, the HP PA-RISC chip has 140 machine instructions in it's
instruction set.  The original def. of RISC was (correct me if I'm
wrong) Reduced Instruction Set Computer.  140 is more than many CISC
chips have.

I believe now RISC refers to complexity more than anything else.  This
would make CRISC mean Complex Reduced Instruction Set Complexity.

Most (At least the PA-RISC, RS/6000, SPARC) have what is called
microcoding done on a chip level to implement what you described as
the function of a CRISC.  I have no idea about the P5.  Anyone?

-Howard
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                                   	   howard@netcom.com
		  You will not find excess in the jungle
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sircomp@bcarh289.bnr.ca (Brian Magee)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:00:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.063626.4116@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>[long details about various $20,000 computer systems deleted]
>
>If you REALLY want a powerful graphics machine and have $20,000, you
>could consider an SGI.  Real time 3D transformations, hidden surface
>removal, super-smooth animation, etc, etc, all with a very simple
>programmers interface.
>
>If you have $20,000 to throw around, you should be considering a lot
>more than just the Mac, PC, and NeXT platforms.
>
>
>Jess Holle

If only NeXTSTEP ran on these beautiful machines <drool>
But wasn't there some rumor that NT would be on SGI machines? <ick, sigh>

			Rob

--
---
"We are sorry, the .sig you have reached is no longer in service"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (-=/[ drow ]/=-)
Subject: Re: Mac vs Win NT
Keywords: nene 
Organization: menzoberranzan computer networking 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:11:32 GMT

In article <1k6ca1INN7v6@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>
>What are the advantages of Win NT over System 7, and the other way
>around?
>
	advantages of Windoze NT over System 7 : hehehehehe!  you're
	joking, right?  well, it runs on an IBM compat computer
	(ok, theoretically), it's compatible with existing DOS and
	Windoze software (this may be a disadvantage, and the std.
	theoretically disclaimer applies), it supports protected
	memory (ok, i gotta hand it this).

	advantages of System 7 over Windoze NT : hehehehehe!  you're
	kidding, right?  yeah, it runs on a macintosh (right here,
	right now, and i know mac plusses that run it, how many people
	are going to run WNT on their 286?  that's right, zero.), it's
	compatible with existing software (assuming that the programmers
	didn't do anything st00pid or B1zarr3 (like microsoft always
	does)).
>
>This is assuming that MS has not pushed back the ship date until the next
>contraction/expansion of the universe :-).
>
>I know that NT should be pretty virus resistant because of its protected
>mode providing you do not log on as "admininstrator" all the time.
>
	all computers are pretty virus resistant if you take a few
	precautions.  and give me three good reasons why i wouldn't
	login as admin?
-- 
-=/[ drow ]/=-		forget i'm a fish?  why on earth would i want to... 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Subject: Re: Computer abbrivations
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:21:30 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1993Jan25.092904.3610@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>>Any good ones for Win NT, or Microsoft?
>Win NT = Not in Time (weak, I know).

Not that you asked, but I thought the net would like to know:
Windows = When I Need Data Obliterated, Windows Satisfies.
Weak Interface Necessitates Neurotic Thinking

(both original - feel free to modify)

>     Erik Svensson

(sorry, havn't run the sig generator in a while)

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. Sell one. Buy a bull.
--------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!
Andrew R. Southwick
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy