HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:43:19 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <2578@cronos.metaphor.com>, emg@Metaphor.COM (Mike Greenawalt) writes:
> I have owned and used a Macintosh since 1984.  I also use Unix (Sun), and 
> because of my work, Intel-based PCs.  But on the PCs, I use OS/2, not 
> DOS/Windows.

Sounds like a nice broad base of experience.

[ much deleted ]

> But the Mac is not perfect.  It really could use a CLI (and the utility 
> programs behind it) to do some things.  GUIs are painful to perform many
> repetitive operations.  For operations relating to management of large 
> file structures and munging many large files, one cannot beat Unix.  

My advise: Get MPW or A/UX. MPW will give you a command line with all
those wildcard and repetitive operations. A/UX will give you Unix, which seems
to be what you want.

An alternative the CLI approach is to get Frontier. Alas, as many Mac 
applications don't fully support AppleEvents, there are serious limitations
to it, but it can automate repetitive operations.

> One good idea that Windows and OS/2 have that I wish the Mac would adopt is
> placing the menus of the application in the application window.  Having to 
> reach up to the menu bar on the Mac in some applications can get to be a 
> real pain.

Oog. No. You'd constantly be missing the menus. The nice thing about the 
menus at the top of the screen is that you can hit them even from across
the screen accurately. Since the mouse stops at the top of the screen, you're
presented with a target of infinite height. That's pretty big.

-- 
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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:55:42 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 <gbhz=jl@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>|> I find a heavy reliance on point and click menus to be insulting to
>|> my intelligence.

>This always confuses me. WHY do you think a particular
>UI arrangement is ->insulting<-? I could follow thinking
>it was stupid, slow, rigid, etc. But instulting? Its not
>like its sez "Roger Maruis is a dweeb" at the top of 
>each window or someting. :)

Because *anyone* can use a menu.  You don't have to memorize
anything.  And if you haven't memorized a long list of arcane
commands, how can you possibly convince you're friends that
you're a Power User?  That's what this is really all about.
It's not ease of use, it's convincing people how smart you
are. 

>There is ->NO<- enforcement. There are no verified cases of the
>Apple Thot Police dragging anyone off to the gulag for violating
>the User Interface Guidlines. 

More's the pity.  I would love to see Microsoft employees
disappearing quietly in the middle of the night. :-)
From: covert@cactus.org (Richard Covert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Summary: NOT!!
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:05:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cactus.1992Sep27.140522.6656
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <dpenner.717568208@ee.ualberta.ca> dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner ) writes:
>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.



Well, I am a software contractor and I heard of a fanastic
opportunity that shows that macs are being accepted in the industry.

There is a company called Siemen's Gamma Sonics which is located up
in Schaumburg Ill. SGS has an EXCELLENT industry reputation making
mdeical imaging equipment. A Mdeical Doctor friend of mine knows
all about SGS. Well, SGS uses a Sun workstation as the base for their
hardware but uses Macs as front ends. Seems the Macs provide a better
(or easier or whatever) user interface for their ENTIRE system.

So, there you go. At least one company uses Macs for their commerical
products.

And yes, I would work for them except that I *HATE* Chicago\
winters!! (Ilive in Central Texas now).

-- 
Richard E. Covert                 covert@cactus.org
CACTUS                  ..!cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!covert 
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 19:02:09 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 <1992Oct1.160510.986@yvax.byu.edu> feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>Agreed.  You get what you pay for.  The NeXT is an excellent choice over a  
>high-end 486 or Quadra, and even a serious contender for, say, a IIci.   

Maybe, depending on what you're going to do with the IIci. Color graphics,
however, are important to a lot of users and are going to become more
important in the future.  NeXT, however, only offers color graphics at
the middle and high-end.  Too bad, since that undercuts many of the NeXT's
advantages in areas such as Display PostScript and Display Renderman.
Unless NeXT's prices have come down considerably since the last time
I checked, a color NeXTstation is not even price-competitive with the
Quadra much less the IIci.


>Well, about a year ago that was how it was with the NeXT.  NeXT customers  
>were out on a limb.  But now NeXT's software base is moving towards that  
>magic 1000.  

Well, since it's increasing and below 1000, it's moving toward it.
But the last time I looked at an ad for NeXTConnection in a copy 
of NeXTWorld, the number of software packages wasn't even close to
100.

>Still far below the Mac's, but significantly higher than,  
>say, software _for_ the Quadra.  

I'm sorry, but this statement is ah, [Politically Correct Mode
On] factually and intellectually challenged.  Practically all
Macintosh software will run on the Quadra.  There aren't many
packages that will run *only* on the Quadra, but so what?    

>It's user base is expanding, and will  
>expand even faster with the introduction of NeXTSTEP/486.  

Maybe.  But at NeXT's announced prices (over $1000 for a
stripped-down version, even more for the full package),
I wouldn't worry too much about being caught in the stampede.

>An OOP GUI.  

If you mean that the user interface was written using OOP,
that's pretty much irrelevent.  No one cares what language
or technology a programmer used to develop an interface,
they only care how it works.  If you mean that programmers
can write *for* the NeXT GUI using OOP, that's true, but
no longer unique.

>Pre-emptive multitasking for low-end use.  Display PostScript (ATM).  

Unfortunately, these two make the NeXT interface slower than
it needs to be.  Display PostScript is not ATM, it's much more.
However, Quickdraw GX will provide most, if not all, the advantages
of Display PS without, I hope, the performance penalty.  

>I'm a CS major, so perhaps I'm biased, 

Which means that you can buy a NeXT at prices far less than most
mere mortals can.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:20:42 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 <runeh.59.717640307@dhhalden.no> runeh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:

>Besides, it is often *VERY* convenient to put frequently 
>used combinations of commands into scripts/macros/etc for later use, but I 
>have yet to see any GUI's that's can do that!

So, um, what exactly is it that you believe programs like Macromaker do?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:23:31 GMT
 <kc-290992234801@chang.slip.uiuc.edu> <1992Oct01.120625.11908@NeoSoft.com>

peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>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.

I think his point was that it's very infrequent that most people  print a
large compicated document in a page layout program and need to do
something else at the same time.  But pre-emptive multitasking will be a
bigger issue in the future.  Some programs (like MacIntercommm - which
could be the only one) pre-emptively multitask on the Mac (don't ask me
how - probably very complicated).  Even if the Mac doesn't NEED a
pre-emptive mutlitasking OS now, it will in the future.  Once Windows
becomes pre-emptive, the Mac will have to if it really wants to stay in
the game.
From: cd248@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 03:22:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


>Can your Mac read/write 5 1/4" diskettes?
 
There are drives available for the mac to use 5.25's.  The thing
is, the only reason a mac needs to do this is to get stuff from
other file systems such as MS DOS or Prodos.  Everything made for the mac comes
on 3.5.  And it's usually cheaper to use a machine on the source platform (IBM
or Apple II GS) with both types of drives to copy files from the 5.25 to the
3.5 and then
work with them on the mac.  Now I have a question for you:
 
Will your IBM type drives read or write to disks from any other computer?
 
  No they won't.  As a matter of fact (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I
think the hardware is incapable of doing this.
 
I have another question for you:
 
Can your IBM 3.5 drives tell the difference between 720K and 1.4 meg disks and
format them accordingly?
 
 NO.  They can't.  If you stick a 720K disk into an HD drive,  the drive will
try to format it as a 1.4 meg disk.  YOU have to tell the computer to format it
as 720K.
 
A Macintosh can tell what kind of disk you have in it, and what file system
it's from. You don't have to tell it anything.
 
 
 
--
From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:00:27
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<ingemar.717011114@isy.liu.se> <1992Sep21.003318.13518@NeoSoft.com>
	<ewright.717458928@convex.convex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:08:48 GMT

In article <ewright.717458928@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:


   In <1992Sep21.003318.13518@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
   >OK, how about:

   >		edit `grep -li wotan *.txt`

   >To work on all the files that mention that god.

   How about it?  I hope you don't mean to imply that the command  
   you typed would do that.  In the first place, "*.txt" won't match
   "all files" or even all files in your current directory.  It will 

The article he was responding to had already narrowed us down to '*.txt'
files rather than 'all files'.

   only match those that end in the ".txt" extension.  This command 
   line will miss all files that contain the pattern but do not end 
   in .txt or that do end in .txt but are not ASCII text files.  (grep 
   does not handle anything but ASCII text files. If one of the files 
   ending in .txt happens to be something besides an ASCII text file, there's
   a good chance grep will go off into the weeds.)

A non-ASCII .txt file?  Whoever created that should be shot!  Thats like
making a program and then changing the finder ident to that of a sound
file.  That would be stupid.  For those of you who have never used a DOS
machine but are lamely attempting to hack on it anyway, '.TXT' means
text.  '.DOC' means document (formatted for the printer).  These
are conventions.  Live with them.

   You're a CLI enthusiast, a CLI expert, and you still managed
   to type an example that doesn't do what you told us it did.  The
   fact that even a guru can screw up this badly shows what's really
   wrong with command-line interfaces.   

But he *di* give an example which did *exactly* what he said it would.

Just because he feels the cli has merits does not mean he is a 'guru'.

Are you a Mac Guru?

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu


--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What Apple's GUI is missing (was Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:59:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <dmeyers.717791813@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>But, we still lack useful configurable filter-type apps with good
>drag and drop interfaces.  Try, for example the following as an
>idea:
>
>Grep (for those non-unix-weenies out there, this is a powerful
>multi-file pattern-matching search program).  If one had a grep
>application on the mac, it might work as follows:  double click
>on the grep app, and it pops up a configuration window, where
>you enter the search string, perhaps set some options, like 
>case-sensitivity, etc), then say ok, and the app quits and closes
>up.  Then, you can drop batches of files (or, hopefully, aliases
>and folders!) onto the icon of the grep program, and it returns
...much further rantings deleted...

This sort of capability is the basis for FilterTop, a freeware
filter utility that will be done around December.  It is supposed
to have MANY different filters, along with the ability to string
them together in complex data passing chains which are set up
graphically.  In other words, drag and drop filters with graphical
pipes, redirects, etc.

This is just one of the projects that TopSoft is currently working
on.  TopSoft is a non-profit org. that exists to write free software
for the Mac.

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: coolidge@apple.com
Organization: Open Systems Development, Porting&I/O Group, Apple Computer, Inc.

feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.210630.24713@times.aux.apple.com>  writes:
>>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>>NeXT wins this one, but barely (I've seen Q700s street for less than
>>$4245 with display -- edu should be better). Note that, at least at
>>U. of Illinois, the $3851 price did not include a keyboard or
>>NeXTStep (at all -- you HAD to buy it separately, or so the computer
>>store people and their price sheet claimed).

>WHAT?  NeXTs all come with NeXTSTEP free.  And a keyboard.

Not if you buy that at my (former) university's computer store, they
don't.

>>Lesse - I've got 12 apps running on my Q700 right now. I'm not sure
>>what the processes panel shows on a NeXT -- do you get Unix-daemon
>>processes there too? If so, then my Q700 counts as 43 (Unix) plus 12
>>(MacOS) process == 55 total. Enough for you?

>But only because A/UX supplies true preemptive multitasking.  But, then,  
>er, how much *was* that A/UX system?  :)  Did we figure that into the Mac  
>price?  But we're really comparing MacOS to NeXTSTEP here.

I bought it for $350 over the net. You should be able to find it for
$400 or so. Yes, that's a noticable chunk of money, but then again,
as someone said here: a marriage of Unix and the MacOS is an
"unbeatable combination". What price unbeatability?

Why are we comparing the MacOS and NeXTSTEP here? Why should that be
the focus of the comparison? Even if we are, of course, that _still_
means that I'm happily running 12 _MacOS_ apps at the same time
without any preemptive multitasking. So much for the original claim
that you need a NeXT to run stacks of applications.

>>On the other hand, DPS is a PIG! It's amazing that a Mac IIci visably
>>outperforms a 25MHz '040 NeXT.

>True enough.  Then again, a PC writing directly to the screen kills a Mac  
>IIci.  So what?  It's a question of power versus speed.  IMHO, DPS is a  
>wonderful advancement over QuickDraw.  I just want to see how fast Apple's  
>new QuickDraw will be.

As do I -- QD GX looks pretty nice, and I hope it's fast. But, at
least for me, DPS offers very little additional power for a
tremendous speed penalty. I don't do much DTP, and what I've done
(ACM newsletters, self-published business cards, my Masters thesis)
is easily done on the Mac with very few problems with display
inaccuracies or the like. On the other hand, I do lots of text-window
operations (hey, I'm a UNIX kernel hacker! :-)), and having a nice
fast display I/O system is nice. The NeXT looks good, but those
terminal windows are _slow_.

--John

        May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
                -- George Carlin

+++John L. Coolidge++++++++++++++++coolidge@apple.com+++++++++++++++++++++++
I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer. Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge.
Copying allowed only if attributed, and if all copies may be further copied.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:02:08 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct1160014@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
> In article <6073.2ac83f50@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>    There seems to be some kind of association between "easy" and childish.
> 
> My first computer experience was with a Mac.  I still did not like it.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I didn't say this theory
applied to EVERY CLI-advocate, just some of them. Perhaps to Roger, not you.

>    That single aspect, however, doesn't make the MacOS insulting to your
>    intelligence.
> 
> Just your previous skills.

If your first experience was on a Mac, obviously you had no previous skills.

>    File / *EXIT* ? This is a Mac program? Mac Programs use File / Quit. 
>    And the shortcut is command-Q, not X. This sounds like an example from
>    that *other*, not so well thought out graphic interface that attempts
>    to imitate the Mac. (Poorly) They have no standards. What do you expect?
> 
> I'm sorry, but that was just childish.  What are the figures on the cognitive
> effort required to translate 'Quit' to 'Exit', Bill?

It wasn't childish. I was pointing out he was using a WINDOWS PROGRAM as an
example of a poor user interface ON A MAC. Unfair.

As long as there is consistancy, there's no problem. If all programs have
Quit, that's fine. If all of them have Exit, that's fine, too. But when
some of them have one thing, and some have another, and some have even
something still different -- it begins to wear on the old neurons....

>    > The programming is assuming that you need help every step of the way and
>    > are likely to make a mistake if given too many options.  Pleeeasee.
> 
>    I agree. It sounds like a poorly conceived interface. Programming efforts
>    should be applied to streamlining the user's task, not pandering to him.
> 
> Agreed.  Finally you are making some sense.

Ah. OK. Well, this is why I like the Mac. It attempts to streamline you
task without pandering to you. CLIs don't streamline at all, they get in 
my way.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: blade@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: What's this about the IIVX?
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:30:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.80885
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


Someone mentioned the Mac IIVX or XV or some such thing.  Does anyone know
when it and the Performa 600 will be distributed to retailers?  I am
particularly interested in learning any technical details about the IIVX.
From: 2034bang@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Steve Bang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many "Macs" do you see doing important work?
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.210716.18659@IRO.UMontreal.CA> charestm@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Martin Charest) writes:

>> 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.

>Hey, Buddy! what do you think about that;
>the big particles accelerator at Fermi Lab is entirely controled by a couple of
>Mac II !...


Even if it is true that Macs aren't running power plants, I find
it interesting that the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
the think tank were the really important work is done, is totally  
(or almost so) a Mac environment.  You could say that they are
really POWER users. ;-)

 
--
Steven K. Bang                              !  The empires of the future
Sciences-Engineering Library                !    are the empires of the mind.
University of California at Santa Barbara   !      
e-mail: skbang@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu             !           -- Winston Churchill