HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.052516.12401@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
|> In article <ibhan.718038875@husc8> ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan) writes:
|> >peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> >
|> >>In article <qdkzdx#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
|> >>> This conversion, incidentally, is only done when the app is switched
|> >>> into the background.
|> >
|> >>Why is there such a thing as the "background"?
|> >
|> >Because humans are usually only able to deal with one application at a time.
|> 
|> Tell that to any manager who needs to talk to five people at the same time
|> sometimes.
|> 

Well, the short answer is that people!=applications. But that would
be an obnoxious thing to say, now wouldn't it?

To be precise, w/ people if they all are recieving all your
speach (ie they are all listening), they can figure out for themselves
what is meant for them and what is not. Applications aren't so smart-
if they were all in teh foreground, and you tyed "42",
your spreadsheet and your calculator and your word processor and
your File Manager would all thing it was for them, and the
spreadsheet would replace a cell, the calculator would record
the number, the wordprocessor would insert it and teh file manager
would (maybe) select a file.

If only one app is in the "foreground" and all others in the "background",
this problem is dealt with. (windows must also order like that, for
this to work)
-- 
			- 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.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 25 Sep 92 23:46:45 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <906502KP23G601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge) writes:
> 
> And anyway, there are no user interfaces, innovative or not, that "infringe" on
> Apple's intellectual property - Apple may think there are, but they have never
> persuaded a court to agree.
> 

Interesting point Robert. As a fact of law, you are correct. However, in 
truth, there may still be user interface that infringe, but there has never
been sufficient motivation to get the courts to agree.

Further, there may be interfaces which infringe, but other Apple actions
have prevented them from convincing the court. Indeed, this is what
has happened with Microsoft, where an ill-conceived licensing agreement
from 1985 is being interpreted by the courts has handing over Macintosh
interface technology, lock, stock, and barrel, in perpetunum.

(For this action alone, Apple should shoot their 1985 lawyers, and MS should
 award theirs a nice healthy pension.)

-- 
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: awells@fenris.claremont.edu (Adam "Servo" Wells)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:23:06 GMT

In article <TOMSTER.92Oct3231352@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
>In article <6111.2acc6999@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

[talking about keyboard shortcuts for cut, copy, and paste]
>
>
>   What's worse, MS changed the spec! The latest Windows guide stays to use
>   Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V (I wonder where in the heck they came up with
>   those choices? They aren't mnemonic at all....)
>
>I have no idea.

I have an idea.  Looking at the Edit menu on my Mac right now, I see that
the keyboard shortcuts for Cut, Copy, and Paste are cmd-X, cmd-C, and
cmd-V.  I don't think that it's a complete coincidence that they came up
with the same non-mnemonic choices as Apple did.  

Adam Wells
Harvey Mudd College
awells@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:15:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.718089305
 <1992Sep22.004150.6436@leland.Stanford.EDU> <2578@cronos.metaphor.com> <6120.2acc8a37@hayes.com>

>> 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.

I read something about that.  It said basically what you are saying.  That
even though menus inside windows and floating menubars (like the NeXT has)
may seem convenient and nifty, they reduce your speed by requiring more
accuracy.  I would prefer it if Apple just made the Finder look better. 
No, there are no practical uses for it, but it would be a nice bonus.  The
NeXT LOOKS COOL.  How about getting rid of that ugly Chicago font.  Give
us some standard 3D stuff.  Shading.  Cool stuff like that.  Or at least
make it an option.  What do you people think?

-- 
-----------------------------------------
| Ishir Bhan | ibhan@husc.harvard.edu   |
-----------------------------------------
| (imagine an interesting quote here)   |
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't) (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:46:11 GMT

coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge) writes:

>>John, I don't know who you talked about at your university's computer  
>>store, but they clearly didn't know what they were talking about.  Just so  
>>everybody at c.s.m.a knows, All NeXTS come with NeXTSTEP for free.   
>>PERIOD.

>This may be true. It _does_not_ deny that I had not one but three
>salescritters, _and_ the printed price sheet, disagree with you.

Once more, (I just posted another note to this effect in this chain,
so excuse my redundancy, but certain peoples' stubbornness needs a
dose of truth) - you were thinking about the Starting Point Kit,
which is just  the docs, keyboard, and CD-ROM which is your backup
of the system.  It is mostly for the cost of the keyboard and mouse,
it is $225 list.  This is CHEAP for a keyboard and mouse, when you
compare it to Apple's exorbitant pricing. (IMHO)

Disclaimer: I don't speak for UIUC CCSO, nor NeXT.
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:38:18 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 <4x_pa6g.marquis@netcom.com> marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:

>BYTE not biased towards the Mac?  Whatever gave you this idea?  I find
>BYTE heavily biased towards the Mac.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  A couple times a year, Byte actually dares
to publish an article about the Mac.  Why, sometimes those Mac fanatics
will devote as many as five or six pages, out of a few hundred, to the
Mac.  Shocking!  Why it's not even Politically Correct!

>Please explain how System 7's Interapplication Communications are
>better than those found in UNIX.  This should be interesting.

Why?  Someone who complains that any magazine that is less than
99.99999% devoted to PCs is "heavily biased toward the Mac" is
obviously not interested in the facts and probably wouldn't stop
frothing long enough to listen.
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:01:37 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1664@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>>All that hardware you bought for $2000 is going
>>to be one very expensive silicon space heater.
> 
> How can hardware that is not tied to any ONE OS become a space heater?

Read the original posting. John was claiming he got such a better deal with
his PC-based system. He noted all the hardware that was included. He didn't
mention any software.

Computer hardware is useful only as a space heater without software. QED.

>>Students, note that John has neglected to include software with his computer.
> 
> Students also note that most PC systems today ship with Windows or you can get
> it for about $50 when you buy the system.

But John didn't mention Windows or any other software. With a Mac he's 
guaranteed to get the MacOS, which is a far sight much better than Windows.

-- 
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.

Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1153 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2324
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac's Doomsday
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:18:57 GMT
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 4-Oct-92 Re: Mac's Doomsday
by Stefano Pagiola@frinext. 
> Amazing how much this sounds like NeXT. Maybe they just forgot to  
> insert 'eX' in their name.
> Of course, if that is what you want, no need to wait for NT; you can  
> have NeXT right now.  In fact, you could have had it for two years.
> Oh, and you also get AppleTalk (as a client; software to be a server  
> is also available).
>  
> > However, NT will have the same interface as [Windows] 3.1.
>  
> Aside from its being available now, the other great advantage of NeXT  
> is that it does _not_ have the Windows interface.

I'm not going to NT, so don't flame me for that.  I can't afford a NeXT
though!  Also, I hated Windows, so now I'm OS/2.  I love NeXT's but
can't afford one, not even the cheapest, even with educational discount:
$3800 for a computer with a 100 meg hard drive?  Who knows, maybe I'll
goto NeXT 486, but then that's $2000 with developers stuff, and on a CD
rom so I'll have to go get one of those too, and of course a 486 because
I'm only a 386.  Well, it looks like I'll be sticking with OS/2 for a
bit.

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Subject: Re: Why a Mac???
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:26:17 EDT

>> You can but it's pretty hard(16bit segments).
>>>Ugh!
>> 
>> Ugh!
>
>Ugh!

Huh? I haven't progammed an IBM since Ugh! 12mhz AT's were the hot
thing, but I was under the impression from flamefest watching that
Windowz and DOS extension let you do something like
mystuf=NewPtr(1000000) would do on the mac? You mean ya still
can't allocate a couple meg? I remember spending a solid week cursing
Intel when implementing high-speed acquisition cause of segmentation.
(Inner section HAD to be in assembler)

Ugh!!
From: dvan@spumco.cts.com (David Vandeven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open Flame (F)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:55:22 PDT
Organization: SPUMCO:Better living through wasted time
Reply-To: whoever posted this thread first
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5


In article <1992Sep24.020255.15245@umbc3.umbc.edu>, grabenst@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Michael Grabenstein; ACS (GUEST)) writes:
>
> 	Mike
> 	ZMEG@AACC.bitnet
> 	or grabenst@umbc3.umbc.edu
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> The universe -- The ultimate fractal. 
> 	--Personal theroy
               ^^^^^^

DUH!


 David Vandeven    ********************************************************
Systems Progammer  *   "I don't believe in Pinochle, I don't believe I'll *
    Deadhead       * try: I do believe in Captain Crunch, for I am the    *
    Cyberpunk      * Frizzle Fry!"  (dvan@spumco.cts.com)      *PRIMUS!*  *
Zen Agnostic Guru  ********************************************************
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:14:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.kelZla200VRB0=B6Ec
	<1992Sep27.224917.12461@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
> Now there's an interesting argument.  "My machine is so crippled that  
> I can only do one thing at once.  Therefore its ok if my apps all  
> work differently."  Maybe once you get a computer that can in fact do  
> more than one thing at once you'll see exactly why consistent user  
> interfaces pay.

this is rather fallcious - it doesn't matter if your machine can do
more than one thing at once or not
if your machine can do more than one thing at all it is very usefull to
beginning users to have all your apps work similarly
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Macs are better (and the others aren't)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:02:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In the MS OS world, however, things aren't so rosey. Indeed, wasn't there
>some scuttlebutt about MS using undocumented calls in their Windows 
>applications that weren't available to other developers?

Yes.  But these function calls did not give Microsoft applications any glaring
lead over the other applications.


                                                               o
Sam Blackburn                                                    \
Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
                                          ||===================\=\===||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: When is a CLI faster than a GUI?
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:12:56 GMT

In article <CKD.92Oct4002256@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>DB> == Dariusz Bolski <derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> 
>
> DB> I have something more than 700 commands in my PATH (programs,
> DB> utilities, scripts).  How many commands can you add to a menu?
>
>Well, you don't need to add cp, mv, rm, ls, or any of those, because
>they're mouse commands or Finder menu commands anyway.  Same with cd,
>newfs, reboot, shutdown, mkdir, find...
>
>Now, of those 700 commands, how many do you use regularly?  How many of
>the ones you use regularly aren't in the list above?  Add an editor and
>that's most of *my* day.

Really a lot. If not typing them directly, then by the scripts I or my
wife writes. And luckily on Amiga (I am talking Amiga here, Unix is the
other creature) Arexx scripts can address and direct other apps and scripts
thus many of them are being used quite extensively. Of course it is like
a Gaussian curve. But the nice thing about path is that it provides you
with equal access to the often used commands and to the not that often used
ones. 

To explain the scripting need better - we do computer graphics and our
environment (both AmigaOS or Unix on Suns, SGIs etc) is perfectly 
drivable by scripting with a lot of small or big graphics utilities 
doing the work automatically while we can work on yet another script :-)

>Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:

Regards,

Dariusz Bolski

-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:38:13 GMT

Edward V. Wright writes
> ... The NeXT is a nice machine,
> but way above most people's budgets.  If NeXT came out with
> an entry- level machine -- something comparable in price and
> performance to a Mac IIsi -- I would buy one.  But until that
> time, I probably wouldn't buy a NeXT even if I could afford it,
> because until that entry-level machine is introduced, NeXT
> software development is never going to take off.
>   

I basically agree that a NeXT is above most people's budgets; but the  
power it offers is likewise above most people's needs.  For those who  
need the power that a machine in the 486 or Quadra range offers, I  
think the NeXT is an excellent choice, with very good  
price/performance.  For those who are happy with the power offered by  
a Mac IIsi, the best choice is ... a Mac IIsi.
NeXT will never bring out a machine in the MacIIsi range, simply  
because at that level of performance it would not be a NeXT, it would  
be a IIsi clone.  Why bother when Apple already does this very well?

I do agree that a lower-priced NeXT would prove advantageous for  
NeXT; having good price/performance may not get you very far if the  
actual price is too high.  This is a lesson that Apple also learnt  
the hard way.  Given the high-quality, high-end components used in a  
NeXT, expecting substantial price declines is probably unrealistic,  
but I think there should be room for a reducing the price of their  
current low-end machine (the non-turbo mono NeXTstation), whose price  
has remained essentially unchanged in the last year.  (even at their  
unchanged prices, though, they remain very competitive vis-a-vis the  
Quadra series).

I also agree that more market share and more machines in the hands of  
enthusiastic young hackers would lead to more software.  But I don't  
think the implication that there is nothing going on right now is  
correct.  AT last week's Seybold Expo, 3 new image manip apps and 3  
new DTP apps were being demoed.  That does not sound like a stagnant  
development market.

Ciao,
Stefano
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Imside Macintosh manuals
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:13:16 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 <1992Sep30.193053.14845@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:

>I was in a bookstore the other day, and I noticed that there is a new set
>of manuals titled Inside Macintosh: xxxxxx.  There are several versions
>of the manual that cover topics such as the File System, Memory, Event
>handling, etc.

This is the New Inside Macintosh, which will eventually replace the
old version.  A total of 14 volumes are planned.  I believe four are
available, in paper, at this time.  All the published volumes and
preliminary versions of some of the others are also available the ]
Developer's CD.  ($30 a year with a subscription to Develop) 



  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 23:38:23 GMT

In article <6111.2acc6999@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> Note that Peter got the shortcuts wrong in the text above, so it wasn't right
> until I corrected it.

The point isn't what the particular shortcuts are, but that they're clearly
presented and easy to learn and allow access to ANY menu item, not just a
subset.

> So, if you get used to using the Alt- shortcuts (as painful as they are),

But they're NOT painful, that's the point. They're learned automatically
as you use the system... and the shortcuts you learn are the ones you
actually *use*. And if you forget them, they'll become obvious again
as soon as you sit down in front of the computer. It's a beautiful design,
which helps speed learning *and* simultaneously makes the system totally
usable without a mouse!

> Yup. He (and you) got the shortcuts wrong. That proves the inconsistancy of
> Windows.

Actually, if it proves anything, it proves I didn't have to memorise them:
I just learned them naturally.

After four years not using a Mac I could still quote ALT-XCV, even if I
couldn't remember ALT-period (or whatever it is) to abort a print job.
Because I had to sit down and *learn* them.

> The Xerox method of using a separate button for a menu is a much better
> strategy, in my opinion. If you need to have menus all over the screen, this
> will put the menu wherever you are. You don't need to target a specific
> location on the screen.

Agreed. I use popupmenu for the Amiga.

> The problem, of course, is the neverending confusion of which button to press,

This is only a problem on brain-damaged X-windows systems where every
application has its own GUI design. Really. On the Amiga or in OpenLook
I can just use "SELECT" and "MENU".

> Well, I'm just speaking from my personal experience. I was trying to judge if
> the comment that the Star was "significantly better than the Mac" was from
> actual experience, or from reading a magazine or other apocryphal information.

Personal experience in 1982.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
  'U`  
Kunt u mij de weg wijzen naar het dichtsbijzijnde intelligente zoogdier?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy